text:
How common is college graduation at an early age?
I am interested in the statistics of early college graduation, or more generally, the statistics of extreme ages in academic settings (highschool, college, grad school, etc.). For instance, how many students who earn a college degree graduate one, two, three, or more years earlier than the typical age of 22 or so? I am willing for any statistics to qualified in any way (percentages in country W, at university X, in state Y, or from year Z). A quick Google search does not easily reveal this information.
I estimate that less than 5% of the population graduates college two years earlier than normal based on my acquaintances, but this is likely biased as I am a graduate student and it may be smaller.
EDIT: It occurs to me that my question does not ask for any opinions on whether early graduation is good, neutral, or bad. Perhaps it would be interesting to expand the question and have those who experienced graduating early give their stories or opinions.

I'd prefer U.S., but any information is fine. I suspect people grade earlier in the UK for instance? Maybe I'm wrong.

I am interested in both, but more in students who start early or skip grades.

I would be interested in such a discussion, and while it is not originally related to the question, you will see my edit suggests such answers.

At least in the USA, the number is probably much smaller than 5 percent.
The reason for this is that there are generally fixed lengths for education, and minimum enrollment ages at which the process can start (at least for publicly educated students, who are still the majority).
Finishing two or more years ahead of schedule means that you probably have had at least two events that belong to the following categories:

Started education a year earlier than "normal" (perhaps because of birthday-limited enrollments)
Skipped a grade during primary or secondary (high-school) education
"Accelerated" college studies by reducing the expected enrollment time by either a semester or a full year (through early accumulation of credits via work in high school, or taking college placement exams, credit overloading, and other methods)

The first is the most common, but still only applies to about one-third of the population. The others are much less frequent, with the second probably pertaining to only about 1 percent of students (if that many). The third also probably is not that common, but I don't have hard numbers (but again, probably less than 5 percent of college students finish in three years or less!).
Now remember that you have to have at least two such events, and you can start to see why the odds are stacked against a 5 percent rate.

Good analysis/explanation.

Hm... I met only one of those three criteria, but I graduated at 20.

@JeffE: My first point means rules like "Start at age 6 unless you were born after (for instance) September 1, in which case start at age 5."

There is another possibility, namely, "testing out" and earning credit for it. In the U.S., the "AP" (advanced placement) courses in high school supposedly help toward this. One can also negotiate such things on an individual basis. In extreme cases, one can generate many more credits, and complete requirements, than the time would otherwise allow. Naturally, one must have read some relevant books sometime, and/or be a good test-taker.

@paulgarrett: That's my point 3—reducing the time of study through any means, whether it be "overloading" on credits or placing out through tests.

@aeismail, Ah, ok, I didn't understand the specifics of your point there. Perhaps a person who'd be asking the question in the first place would benefit from your amplifying your points?

I like your breakdown. Though, may it be possible that these events are highly correlated? If one skips a grade in highschool or earlier, they may be more likely to accelerate through college? Also, I am still interested in any references to statistics, or personal experience. I came up with my estimate after thinking over my acquaintances.

The first point is disconnected, since it's just when your birthday falls on the calendar. The other two are more likely to be correlated. (As far as statistics are concerned, the university I attended rarely has more than 0.5% graduate a year early.)

I graduated early by taking more than the typical limit of courses per semester, dual enrolling, and taking summer courses.

As you say, publicly educated students are in the majority overall; however, my impression is that precocious students are disproportionately likely to be privately educated or homeschooled (neither of which are particularly unusual in the US).  Of course, this is probably because these options don't necessarily require a regimented progression through numbered grades, so they'll appeal to students naturally inclined to an accelerated timetable.  Thus, I think that concentrating on the issues facing public-school students will tend to undercount.

In the UK this number is likely to be extremely small. Within our department we circulate a list of all students under the age of 18 at the beginning of the year. This includes both our students as well as students sitting in on our classes. For this sample size of about 500 per year the number under 18 is typically about 1%. Of these, the vast majority turn 18 there first year. Further there is either a bug in our software, possible, or the remainder turn 18 during the summer since I have never been told about a 2nd year student being under 18. The sample size for 2nd year students is about half as big since we do not get drop ins to our second year classes.
Obviously this could be biased by our department or university not attracting these students.


text:
Studies over how noisy is it to accept/reject submissions
This year, the NIPS 2014 conference did an interesting experiment: conference chairs duplicated 10% of the submissions (170 papers) and sent them to two different groups of reviewers. The result: 25.9% of disagreement.
This indicates that for almost every one out of four papers, the paper is accepted by one group of experts while rejected by the other group. This just shows how noisy the reviewing process is. I was wondering if there were other similar experiments for other fields and what the disagreement percentage was in each (regardless of the venue: journal or conference).

Great question! This seems like a request for answers based on "a supporting document or citation" (i.e. a study) so I've added the [tag:reference-request] tag, hope that's all right.

@ff524 It would be perfect if the answer is supported by resources/references. However, even in case of no official results, maybe some users here are aware of unofficial experiments (i.e. done through their role in arranging conferences/editing journals) and I would be happy to hear them.

Interesting. This suggests that if you submit to enough journals the paper will eventually get accepted even if you resubmit the exact same paper (assuming you get different reviewers each time).

@Bitwise In practice, that's exactly how many papers get published.

@ff524 I thought the standard process is to revise the manuscript after each rejection according to the reviewers' suggestions (unless they don't know what they're talking about).

@Bitwise It should be (unless there's some legitimate disagreement with the reviewers' suggestions). But there are some people who don't bother - "journal shopping" is easier than actually doing work! Also see Asked again to review a paper, when the authors don't wish to modify it

@Bitwise You're a little too optimistic about the prospects of publishing a paper by submitting it again and again until you (so to speak) hit the reviewer jackpot. More likely, there are some papers that would be accepted by any reviewers, some that would be rejected by any, and borderline papers like the 25.9%. Resubmitting a borderline paper would eventually get it accepted if there are enough independent reviewers. But the "rejected by all" papers would still be out of luck.

There have been many studies on this. Here is a recent meta-analysis of 48(!) of them:

Bornmann, Lutz, Rüdiger Mutz, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. "A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants." PLOS ONE 5.12 (2010): e14331.

Here's the abstract:

Background
This paper presents the first meta-analysis for the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of journal peer reviews. IRR is defined as the extent to which two or more independent reviews of the same scientific document agree.
Methodology/Principal Findings
Altogether, 70 reliability coefficients (Cohen's Kappa, intra-class correlation [ICC], and Pearson product-moment correlation [r]) from 48 studies were taken into account in the meta-analysis. The studies were based on a total of 19,443 manuscripts; on average, each study had a sample size of 311 manuscripts (minimum: 28, maximum: 1983). The results of the meta-analysis confirmed the findings of the narrative literature reviews published to date: The level of IRR (mean ICC/r2 = .34, mean Cohen's Kappa = .17) was low. To explain the study-to-study variation of the IRR coefficients, meta-regression analyses were calculated using seven covariates. Two covariates that emerged in the meta-regression analyses as statistically significant to gain an approximate homogeneity of the intra-class correlations indicated that, firstly, the more manuscripts that a study is based on, the smaller the reported IRR coefficients are. Secondly, if the information of the rating system for reviewers was reported in a study, then this was associated with a smaller IRR coefficient than if the information was not conveyed.
Conclusions/Significance
Studies that report a high level of IRR are to be considered less credible than those with a low level of IRR. According to our meta-analysis the IRR of peer assessments is quite limited and needs improvement (e.g., reader system).

This meta-analysis includes studies of peer review agreement in economics/law, natural sciences, medical sciences, and social sciences.
Here is another paper, which includes a section on the reliability of peer review (i.e. agreement between reviewers) in which a number of other studies are summarized:

Bornmann, Lutz. "Scientific peer review." Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45.1 (2011): 197-245.

Specifically in computer science, there's this:

Ragone, Azzurra, et al. "On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement." Scientometrics 97.2 (2013): 317-356.

They measured inter-reviewer agreement in

a large reviews data set from ten different conferences in computer science for a total of ca. 9,000 reviews on ca. 2,800 submitted contributions.

and found

in our case we have six conferences with ICC > 0.6, i.e. with significant correlation, 3 conferences with a fair correlation (0.4 < ICC < 0.59) and one conference with poor correlation among raters (ICC < 0.4).

They also found that agreement on "strong reject" papers was much higher than agreement on other papers. More precisely,

A more detailed analysis shows that if somebody gives a mark from the
  "strong reject" band, this increases the probability of giving marks not only from strong and weak reject bands (by 14 and 63% correspondingly) but also from borderline band (by 11%). In the "strong accept" set the probability of others giving a "weak accept" mark is 20% higher than the overall probability, but the
  probability of giving marks from other bands are almost the same as the overall probabilities.
Therefore, we can say that we have marks skewed towards the "weak accept" and
  reviewers still agree on very bad contributions while disagree on very good.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Listing talks given at home institution on CV
I've given many talks at my home institution, at the undergraduate and graduate colloquiums, and in a few seminars. The list is getting quite long.
Is it appropriate to list many talks given at my home institution? Does it reflect badly on me?

In my circles, these talks are generally not listed. Everybody gives those talks, there is little value to cluttering your CV with them.

What is the CV for? Are you an undergrad/grad/postdoc?

@Bitwise The CV will be for applying for postdocs. I am currently in my last year in a PhD program.

@FelixT. in that case I think it is pretty much taken for granted that you gave seminars and such at your home institution, so I don't think you will gain much by listing it. The exception is if there happens to be some important conference that took place at your institution.

First of all, it's great that this list is becoming long!  It's good to be taking every opportunity you can as a student to practice presentations, and many students try to avoid this rather than embrace it.
Now, as for what to include in the C.V.: while in principle you can include anything, in practice you want the C.V. to convey "here are all of the things I've done that I think are significant".  Thus, it's not the question of home institution per se, but the significance of the talk venue that matters.  For example: if you were invited to give a talk in a seminar series where most of the other speakers come from other institutions, that's nearly as significant as giving a talk elsewhere.  Giving a required talk in the internal graduate colloquium matters much less.
I would recommend keeping some evidence of the fact that you are giving many presentations on your C.V.  To keep it from feeling like filler, however, you can compress the "unimportant" talks into a single bullet point, like "NN presentations in internal meetings, seminars, and colloquiums."  That conveys the information without feeling spammy.  Once you've built up a significant record of giving talks at external venues like conferences and other institutions, then you can drop that bullet point as being assumed.

Internal talks generally carry no prestige since there usually is little to no competition to get a a talk. In fact, it is no unusual for the organizer of internal seminar series to have to resort to begging. Internal talks demonstrate three things. The first is that you are a good departmental citizen and are willing to participate in something the department deems important. The second is that it shows you are actively conducting research. The third is that it shows a willingness to present your research and receive feedback on it.
When to list internal talks on your CV depends on what the CV is for. For an annual review, listing internal talks from the past year is critical. For a promotion review it is generally useful to demonstrate all of your departmental citizenship activities. For a grant application it is probably not useful since funders do not really care if you are a good citizen. For job applications, it is a mixed bag and somewhat depends on your personality and other activities. There are often better activities to demonstrate departmental citizenship, but many of these activities are more painful than giving an internal seminar.

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


text:
How to correct errors in proofs of an accepted paper
I have a paper which has accepted in a journal published by Springer.
Today I have received the proofs from the production team. After checking the proofs carefully, we have detected some typos and minor errors in equations and data. To correct them we must change something in some equations and values of the parameters and these corrections do not effect to the results of the papers. On other words, the paper is still exact with the corrections.
My question is that what should I do to make the corrections?

I suggest you delete the first two paragraphs from your question so that it does not get closed because it "depends on the exact contents of your work."

By proofs do you mean the proof of a theorem in a mathematics paper, or do you mean the proof as in the document you should check for final errors before it goes to press?

FWIW, PLOS states that no content corrections will be accepted at the proof stage. I do not know why they claim to be so strict or whether it's really enforced.

Here is my method of correcting proofs.  I write my corrections in a text document.  You can also use the review mode of a PDF viewer.

The copyeditor provides a numbered list of questions.  I respond with a numbered list of answers, with one answer for each question.
If there are repeated errors, I list those first.
I give a numbered list of corrections.  These go from the start of the paper systematically to the end.  Each correction begins with the location, including page and line or figure number.  Each correction quotes the error and correction explicitly.
If figures need to be replaced (which does not happen in practice) then I prepare those as separate files.
I verify author names, affiliations, and grant numbers in acknowledgments.
I ask the copyeditor to send me a second proof, if the corrections are significant.
Everything is submitted according to the instructions, which are different for each copyediting company.  Usually there is a web form.

Thank you for your comment. My equation is that can I correct mistakes in proofs?

You follow the instructions given to you by the journal.
If you haven't been given instructions you email your scientific editor and/or the production editor to ask for instructions.

I suppose that your proofs came with detailed instructions on how to perform the check. Did you read those instructions carefully? Usually also the scope of admissible corrections is discussed in those instructions.
Typically the following will apply:

Fixing typos - certainly OK
"changing something in some equations" - this is hard tell from your description. What is being changed?
Changing values of some parameters - this not OK, since it affects the substance of the paper. If you want to change parameters you should certainly contact the editor before you do that.

I have contacted the editor but I have sent the corrected proofs before.

Are the errors ones that have been introduced in typesetting, or are they ones that were present in your original work?
If the former, just correct them using the journal's facility for doing so - this is the whole point of sending you proofs.
If the latter, then if they are clearly just typos then correct them, but if there is a chance that they change the meaning from what was reviewed - or if data is changed - then you should probably check with the editor first.

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


text:
Theorists facing tenure track faculty interviews
The faculty interview is based on the context of a department stressing on industry interaction. When asked about how to buy lab equipments and find funding, may a theorist answer the search committee that he/she does theory work mostly and therefore doesn't need much money or experiment facilities to start up? Anyway, these questions are hard for the present graduate students and postdoc applicants to answer, as they have no chance to be exposed to these things.

then wont get the job

as they have no chance to be exposed to these things — This sounds like an advising failure. The advisors of these students and postdocs wrote grants to fund them; maybe they could offer some advice!

Also, the word you're looking for is "students".  People cost real money, even for theoreticians.

@JeffE, actually not so unusual. In some places/fields, faculty are funded by the university itself and not by external grants. This isn't the case for top research institutions, of course, but it is true for many doctoral granting universities. Students are funded as TAs, not via grants. Mathematics can be like that. Of course the university always welcomes external funds and may put pressure on faculty to obtain it, but things go on without it. I don't think my own advisor had external funding and I was a TA. He was one of the top math professors at the large State University in US.

I currently work with CS faculty of various subfields and used to work with Chemists. It's a super hard bridge between faculty and staff regardless of field. Staff may have a form to fill out, which seems not to apply to you, but the reason the form exists is because of a simple problem... if equipment is part of your lab.... then... a new set of questioning and forms may ensue, likely as a result of federal regulations (uniform guidance in the US).
There is nothing wrong with having no other direct costs. It's simply hard for some people (not used to your field) to envision, particularly if they normally support physical sciences. So the question for you is why are they asking the question? Is it in regards to capital equipment policies? Are they anticipating space issues?
Think of it this way, when you apply to the NSF (or other federal agency) for funding, they require a facilities page. If you don't have a fancy lab, you don't need to call it out. They read your science and then predict what facilities or resources may be required. For natural sciences, you need a lot. If you state that you have an office space, access to a research administrator, general administrator, and if needs are met, the reviewers should know if that is enough to complete the work. They are looking for mismatches. Don't say you are going to perform chemistry and not describe your lab.
For what it's worth, as a research administrator at a very prominent research university, I see theory folks given a million dollars at tenure. They have a much harder time spending the money than those in the natural sciences. I personally think that senior leadership does not truly understand the field (that's a multi-layered analysis). However, across the board, the theory faculty are getting the point across regarding value. They are our top paid, top startup faculty.  I don't know how they negotiate, but they communicate their value.
Don't stress over the question of capital equipment. Think about what your needs are, what your expectations are. Our theory folks want small labs (contrary to wet labs). Think about how to explain the difference to administrators and deans alike. Think about how to explain your funding strategy.  Which sponsors apply to you?   What is an ideal lab size? What is the ideal postdoc:student ratio?
My best faculty are thoughtful, deliberate, organized, and prepared in everything they do, and that includes paperwork. Google your institution and read up on policies from the Office of Vice Provost. Demonstrate that you know what the playing field looks like and that your field is different. If you are confident in how to describe your field and its needs, more people will trust you know what you are asking for.

very good answer thx. if the position i'm applying to expect lots of contact with industry, i'd guess they'd prefer if i can do some experiments rather than pure theory? is it risky to say i still won't do experiments?

It depends.  With universities, they tend to like basic research instead of applied research.  So sometimes industries will partner with PIs at research institutions to provide a smaller basic research portion.  You may end up being on a lot of subcontracts with industry instead of being the lead institution.  This is becoming a very popular choice in CS.  They are focusing on just a small, but very specialized and technical piece of a larger project.  Be honest with your intentions, but be open-minded.  You never know what you will be willing to do if the right project or partner comes up.

If you don't need lab equipment or space to do your research then just say so and explain what, if any, support you do need to conduct your research (e.g. travel funds, a desktop computer, a chalkboard, coffee, etc.)
If there is an expectation that you will bring in external funding to support graduate students, then you need to be prepared to respond to questions about possible sources of funding and how you will involve graduate student research assistants in your research in a way that will be considered appropriate by both the funding agency and your future institution.   Not being prepared to answer this question could very well cost you the position.

'f you don't need lab equipment or space to do your research then just say so'. that's the way i can say now. but i'm afraid by saying so my chance of getting the offer is lower, if the committee think i have no knowledge of experiments and lab at all, even if i really don't need them

Since you're a theorist, there's no reason to expect you to run a lab.  If they want a candidate who will setup and operate a lab, then this is clearly not an appropriate position for you.  In any case, it's likely that they will expect you, like other faculty members, to bring in research grants to support graduate students.

thx. then how should i show my ability to bring in funds, tho for non faculty usually not available

Ideally, you would have had some exposure to grant writing during your PhD program and postdocs.  At this point you'll have to admit that you don't have any actual experience of writing grant proposals, but you can at least talk about how you would try to approach this.

@feynman Show awareness of which grants and funding agencies exist for your field, be prepared to answer the question what your first proposal(s) would be on. "Showing awareness" should be deeper than "I guess NSF has something for me", more like "I plan to submit to call XYZ from NSF, with a proposal on ABCD".

My response would be that:
I am a theoretician and don't require external funding for my own work so the question has never come up before. Likewise I've never had to support students so that need has never arisen. Likewise a lab. However, I recognize that external funding is important and need to learn how to do that well.
Some of the people will have a hard time with this as their situation is different. Some places need to support students with external grants, so it can't be neglected. But new faculty are, by definition, inexperienced and people can understand that, even if it needs explaining.
But ask your advisor or other faculty members for pointers for at least the most likely sources of funds in your area.

so do i need to research the major funding sources in the country i apply to?

Probably good to do in any case.

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


text:
Major revision: is it faster to revise or to submit elsewhere?
The style of the manuscript was reviewed as being inappropriate for the style of this journal (not widely known), though the results and contents weren't attacked. A major revision is needed to change the writing style. I guess the manuscript is too theoretical and domain specific for this journal in its current writing.
Choosing between revising the manuscript and submitting elsewhere, will the former be faster in review?

"The style of the manuscript was reviewed as being inappropriate for the style of this journal" by whom? the referees or the editor? And is it about writing or about content?

Without knowing the field, the journals in question, the specific situation, the required changes it is hard if not impossible to give any useful comment (useful = beyond trivial). Generally speaking, major revisions are an order of magnitude faster than submission from scratch, but this is the trivial part. The fact that the choice of topic itself triggered a major revision is strange. You talk about "writing style", but being "too theoretical" or "domain specific" is nothing to do with the writing style, it is the actual content of your research.

Voting to reopen because I don't see what's so unclear about it. It simply asks whether it's faster to revise after a major revision decision or to submit elsewhere. The first paragraph is unimportant; the answer to the second is simple enough.

@darijgrinberg by both editor and reviewers. about content

@Greg writing style can change the way one understands the content. the content isn't absolutely objective, and it's up to how it's presented

If they believe the content is off-topic, then why do you want to revise it? A revision shouldn't noticeably change the genre.

@darijgrinberg ur point makes sense. there's not a clear boundary between being off topic and mismatch in writing style. the reviewers say the topic is of interest but the contents are hard to follow

It's usually faster to review a revision than a fresh submission. This is because of two reasons:

With a revision, you (usually) already know who the reviewers are: they are the people who reviewed the paper the first time. With fresh submissions you have to invite from scratch.
With a revision, because the reviewers have already seen the manuscript previously, they can review faster.

Whether you revise or submit elsewhere is up to you (however, if you choose to submit elsewhere, please do tell the journal that you won't be submitting a revision, for bookkeeping purposes).


text:
Does it make sense to translate my bachelor's thesis?
I'm currently applying to several PhD programs in the STEM sector in Europe. Some universities invite me to submit my bachelor's thesis as an optional document for my application. I would like to do that because the thesis can give some insight about my background, even if it wasn't about anything new and it wasn't published.
Problem is, my thesis was written in a language different from English. Does it make sense if I translate it into English and send both the original and the translation for the application?
The thesis is less than 30 pages long and it would be quick to translate. However, I wonder if it is common practice and if it will be considered by a potential committee.

If it really won't take you much time, then I say go for it. What have you got to lose? Just make sure you state that you have translated it yourself from X language.

What language?  If it's common enough, it might not be worth bothering.

Yes I would translate it.
Some pros:

It helps you demonstrate your capabilities in research;
It may help you demonstrate your knowledge of the subject matter in your field if relevant;
It demonstrates that you are oriented toward communicating the findings of your research, which is a graduate capability they are looking to develop anyway; and
It shows initiative.

Some cons:

Its too expensive to translate;
Its too technical to translate;
You think your application would be stronger without it!

These are the only cons I can think of...and my guess is based on what you have said that the pros definitely outweigh the cons :-)

OP's English seems good, but another point to consider is that a translation with very broken English may cast a worse light that no translation at all.

In some countries and universities, if you want to write your thesis in another language you must submit your proposal (for master and Ph.D.) in that language beforehand, or at least at the time of defense, you must have your thesis written in that language to present it to the referees to check.
If you don't have these limitations (if you are not banned by the university), it would be a good idea to translate it. In the worst case, the host university won't accept it! As you mentioned, your thesis is not long. So you won't lose time by doing it. In case you consider your research valuable, there is no negative point when it is allowed by the university. This work can even show your eagerness and your try.
But make sure of the correctness and accuracy of the translation.


text:
How to stay on top of recent literature?
When I started my Masters thesis one advice I got for getting good material to read was to subscribe to several journals' alerts system, so that I would get mails with eTOC (electronic Table of Contents).
This was pretty cool then, for months I could stay on top of what's been published out there and was up to date in my own little narrow area. Now almost 3 years later that list of journals have expanded a bit, and the more work I have at the lab more mails that accumulate in my mailbox. What used to be no more than 10 unread mails is now about 900. The output is more than I can handle, what more restrictive method can I implement?
I guess it is pretty clear that this way of following literature is not sustainable in the long run. So I wonder if there are other and perhaps better ways of staying on top of recently published articles?

Please note that I have checked the following two questions prior to asking this one. I do feel though my question differs from these two in its essence.

Am I reading enough of the scientific literature? Should I read for breadth or depth?
How do we know if something relevant is already published?

possible duplicate of What is the best way of keeping track of academic readings and persons?

@DanielE.Shub for what it's worth, I read the question as being “I have this method, but its output is more than I can handle… what more restrictive method can I implement?”

@F'x precisely!

During my PhD, I subscribed to the RSS feeds of the journals I would regularly read (started with 6 of them, ended up with a dozen). I would skim through titles of all new articles, and read abstracts of those whose title drew my eye. I then found out that some journals (J. Chem. Phys. in that particular case) offer specific RSS feeds for each of their sections, in addition to the “whole journal” feed. That helped reducing the number of journals I was skimming through.
Now, after the end of my PhD, my research interest are broader, the number of journals I like to watch is larger but my time is more limited. This system didn't work anymore, and I set up a new system, which has worked well for a few years. I use bibliographic databases (SciFinder and Web of Science; but I'm sure Google Scholar and PubMed have the same features) to create publication and citation alerts. Here's what I have set:

Citation alerts for all my own papers: if someöne cites my work, there's a good chance I'll be interested in their paper. This one has two additional “strategic” bonuses: you get to keep an eye on your competition, and you can suggest newer work to other authors when relevant (“hi there, I saw your recent paper citing my 2008 article on X, I thought you might be interested on a new extension of this algorithm that we published this year”).

Publication alerts for major players in the field of interest: I have 10 to 20 of those, watching all papers these people publish.

Citation alerts for some seminal or high-impact papers by others in the field: a good way to see how a new idea is adopted/improved by the community. Those tend to trigger a massive number of cites, so you may want to get rid of them after some time. I have between 5 and 10 of those alerts at a given time.

The only drawback to this method: database updates tend to lag somewhat behind the RSS feeds of the journals themselves, so you get papers that are 2 to 8 weeks old.

In addition, use conferences to stay on top/catch up with the literature:

Look at contributions made, see what's new and go check the relevant recent publications.

Even if you're not at the conference, look at the online program and see what looks new.

If you're attending, talk with people… you can also use that opportunity to ask some people (whom you do know well enough):

Have you seen that new technique by the team at MIT? it seems to work really well… I was wondering: what has caught your eye in the recent literature?

I subscribed to the math arXiv, i.e. I signed up to be sent an email every day about the articles posted to the math arXiv (the email contains titles and abstracts).
When I first did this, I got very excited and subscribed to lots of areas that were interesting to me - geometric topology, general topology, algebraic topology, group theory, etc etc. and I swiftly got completely swamped and ended up reading nothing. I decided that this wasn't getting me anywhere, and I unsubscribed from everything except one subtopic (geometric topology) which was most relevant to me.
I also made it a part of my morning schedule to go through the arxiv email (usually sent around 5a) - wake up, read my morning webcomics, go through the arxiv emails, make a note of anything that sounds relevant to me to read later in the office.
In summary then:

Subscribing to the arxiv instead of a journal gives me a manageably small list of articles per day (as opposed to a long list of articles on a more spaced-out schedule)
ArXiv allowed me to focus in on a small field of research - this might not be possible for journals, since they potentially include articles in a range of subject matter.
Making it a part of my daily schedule (particularly for a time when I'm potentially procrastinating from making the bikeride to school) made me more likely to actually do it.
At least in mathematics, it might take quite a bit of time for a paper to make it to the publishing stage, and reading the arXiv lets me be more up to date.

Thanks for the answer. I was not familiar with arXiv, will check it more thoroughly, but conceptually speaking I see two potential pitfalls: 1) it appears to be pretty narrow in terms of fields, 2) I don't see how it's different from getting eTOCs


text:
Does 'securing letters of recommendations' count as one of legitimate reasons of going abroad for one semester?
I am going to apply for one semester of study abroad at a more prominent university than the one I am currently enrolled in. One of my true motivations to apply is to secure letters of recommendations in case I'll apply for a graduate school later on. Should I mention this motivation? My personal statement will be read by both sides involved. Will the mention make it sound that the letters from my university are worth less? Does the reason in itself count as one of legitimate motives to go?

No. Yes. No (emphatically). Find areas the school you'd like to spend some time at excels in, then write you want to take those classes, etc. LoRs are incidental to your stay (I got one from the director of the school I spent a year at, but I didn't plan on it beforehand).

Huh.  I would have answered the third question with am emphatic YES.  Of course growing your professional network, including possible future letter-writers, is a legitimate motive to visit another institution.

@JeffE: While, by the letter of question 3, it is asked if securing a letter of recommendation is a valid reason to go (I agree it can be), the implied question is if this should be mentioned in the motivational letter (L). Just to make sure I understand what you mean: you really say that you consider mentioning this in L is emphatically a positive, implying you'd react well to reading it in applications you receive, and don't read it as a negative if you see this in L for someone you recommend for an exchange program? I'm genuinely curious as you deal with this frequently.

No, you shouldn't mention securing letters of recommendation in your personal statement.  It sounds a little too mercenary, like you are more interested in bureaucratic outcomes like letters than you are in actually learning.  It may hurt the feelings of faculty from your home institution who read it, and it's not really what the other institution is looking for in a personal statement.
On the other hand, you're right that this experience could really help in securing compelling letters, and I think it's sensible for you to take this into account in your (private) decision making.  If you currently attend a strong research university, then getting letters from an even stronger research university probably won't help much.  However, there are many students at teaching-focused schools that don't send many students to graduate school in any given field, and very rarely to the top departments.  That makes it harder for faculty to write strong letters of recommendation, because the comparison group is not so good: even if somebody writes "this is the best student I've seen in 20 years", it's not clear that this is in itself a strong enough statement.  (It's still possible to write a compelling letter if the recommender can offer enough concrete, impressive details, but it makes writing the letter harder and requires the recommender to know the applicant really well.)  If a faculty member can easily compare you with lots of students attending a range of good to great graduate schools, that makes it easier for them to write a useful letter.
So if you're studying in a department that rarely or never sends students to the graduate programs you'd like to attend, then it's very much worth trying to get a letter from someone who has a broader perspective on the applicant pool.  Otherwise it's not so important.  But either way, you shouldn't mention it in your personal statement.


text:
What are acceptable criteria to select publications for a (systematic) review?
I'm in the very beginning of my scientific career, so I don't yet know the standards for (systematic) reviews very well. I feel I don't have so much experience that I could publish my own research in good journals (I have now just two conference papers), so I'm considering to pay close attention for 6-12 months in other peoples' works.
I have a clear research question, but given the massive amount of related papers it's difficult to choose which ones to pick. Of course, I will select papers related to my research question as the first criteria. However, could I narrow the range of included papers more by

publication date (e.g. only take papers published during the past five years),
impact factor or citation count,
type of publication (conference, journal),
sample size (e.g. number of subjects)?

Or, if not these, what criteria are commonly used? I guess the answer is different for reviews and systematic reviews, so please cover both if possible. thank you!
EDIT: I'm considering this so that it would be possible to try publish my results.

If the set of papers to use is not already completely obvious to you, then you definitely should not be writing a review paper (for publication) in that area.  Review papers are written by people who have already published a number of excellent papers in a given field, because those people have a valuable perspective on the area being reviewed.

I do not find any of these points very relevant. The publication date couldbe useful if your topic is such that older references are indeeed obsolete.
To write a review you want to collect papers that describe your topic as well as possible. A review is usually a good point for others to see the depth and breadth of a subject so being complete is usually a sign of quality.
Given that you have a topic, you need to consider how you should organize your information. Is there any new that can come out of the way you organize your review? A review is not just a collection of older results, you need to provide a synthesis. Often the outcome is to made limitations in older work visible or to identify gaps in knowledge or point at directions for new development. Depending on what the purpose will be you may end up chosing papers differently. However, often you do not know the structure until you have read enough and come to realize how the knowledge in th earea is distributed.
So for me there is no real difference between review and systematic review. A review is simply a way to orgnaize and sort older information in a new way so that new patterns emerge and hint at directions for further research or other forms of new ideas.

+1 for "I do not find any of these points very relevant." What matters is the content of the papers.

In health related fields there is a huge difference between a review and a systematic review. The point of a standard review is to summarise an area of research possibly identifying areas of future research, but not necessarily. A standard review is often conducted in conjunction with a meta analysis or leads to a meta analysis to determine if a particular Patient population is helped by an Intervention more than a Comparison intervention on a set of Outcomes. This leads to the PICO search strategy. There are a number of different frameworks by which systematic reviews can be conducted. A Cochrane review is one such system. There is a whole field of literature associated with conducting systematic reviews.
The goal of a systematic review, and a review in general, is to find all the relevant papers. If you want less papers you need to narrow your question. PICO can help with this.

The point of a review of a field or subfield (IMHO) is to tell the story of the development of the field, leading up to explaining what are the major open questions? and why are they important?  Often (though not always), you should focus on big ideas and which developments they have lead to.
If there was a sequence of 10 papers that repeatedly applied roughly the same ideas to larger data sets, because they got bigger and faster computers, that is probably not very interesting, and something you will likely gloss over (or completely omit) from your review.  So you need a way to determine which are the most important papers and start with those.
It's hard to write a review before you know the field.  Here are a few possible ways to get that knowledge quickly:

Read an old review in the same area.  See which papers it claims are foundational, then check to see which more recent papers cite the foundational ones.  Iterate.
Go to lots of seminar talks and see which results always get mentioned in the introduction.  Start by reading those papers.
Ask a more senior student or faculty member where to start.


text:
Rules for notifying co-authors about re-presenting a project at a conference
I am a PhD student in molecular biology & bioinformatics in Australia. I have previously presented one of my projects as a poster at a conference. This was sent for review to all co-authors, changes made and presented.
A couple of months down the line, I was asked to present a poster at a local conference. I re-submitted the poster abstract, which was accepted. I did this without consulting my primary supervisor as I thought any dispersal of the work would be welcome. Since then, she has started to dislike the results of that project. When the conference was around the corner, and I told her I was presenting, she accused me of bad scientific conduct for presenting something in her name. I apologized, explained why I had not consulted her and retracted the poster.
She’s not dropping the matter though and seems to be using it as a target for some larger disagreements she has with me. What are the rules for re-presenting work or posters? Are there any guidelines and how serious was this accidental transgression?

From what you've said this sounds like a honest mistake made in good faith, and if I was your supervisor I'd accept your apology and move on. At your stage it's to be expected that you're still learning some of the norms of the culture, and they're not always clear.
That said, I do get particular about authorship. Let me tell you a story from my previous career...
I was a young PhD researcher, working in collaboration with several other staff and the head of my research institute. Let's call him Toby.
I came to feel that Toby had a significant conflict of interest related to our work, one which was not being properly handled. I felt that my boss was trying to pressure me to accept methods and interpretations that weren't scientifically justifiable, but which just happened to lead to results that were favourable to our institute's funding. Another co-worker felt the same way.
We refused to accept these methods, and soon after we were both fired. While we were serving out our four weeks' notice, we learned that Toby had gone to an international conference and presented these results in a talk and poster, and that he had listed us both as co-authors in this work.
If he'd attempted to do this in a journal publication, we would've been asked for consent to be listed as authors (and would've declined). But because talks and posters don't have quite as rigorous processes, he was able to slip this through. We ended up having to contact the organising body and request that our co-author credits be removed from the published proceedings.
(Toby was furious. Toby also had right of veto over any reference that anybody in the organisation might write for us as we looked for new jobs. It was not a very enjoyable time in my life.)
As my experience illustrates, crediting somebody as a co-author isn't automatically a positive. When my name appears on a paper, I share responsibility for the contents of that paper, so it's very important that I have the opportunity to give or withhold consent for that to happen.
Two important things about consent: it's conditional, and it can be revoked. If your supervisor only agreed to the first poster, then you didn't have her consent for the second. You might think it's almost certain that she'll agree to the second one, but you still have to ask.
(I know my friend will happily lend me $20 if I ask, but it's still not okay to borrow it from his wallet without asking!)
There are reasons why somebody might say "yes" to one request and "no" to another. It might be that they have issues with the conference or its sponsors, or that in the time between one request and another their thinking has evolved and they no longer want to endorse material that previously seemed okay. Regardless of why... it's best to ask.
Moving forwards, my advice would be to say something along the lines of:

As I've said previously, I'm sorry for resubmitting this presentation
  without your consent - I misunderstood expectations for how this sort
  of thing should be handled. I've withdrawn the poster, but I get the
  impression that you still have concerns about this issue. Is there
  anything else that you'd like me to do to remedy this?

Did you approve publication at an earlier stage, before the time you refused to accept the methods (when it resulted in you being fired)? If so, you might want to make it clear. I'm not sure it is implied in I felt that I was being pressured to accept methods and interpretations that weren't scientifically justifiable, since you then say that you refused to accept these methods

@Mark Edit to clarify that my co-worker and I never agreed to accept authorship with those methods. (I think I told my boss that if he directed me to analyse the data using those methods, I would do so, but I wouldn't put my name to it. Something like that, anyway; it was quite a while ago now.)

My opinion has always been that once I sign my name on something (like a paper, or a poster), I endorse it to the extent that it can be presented, submitted, or used for any other standard purpose without any further approvals or permissions on my side. Essentially, publication (or presentation) constitutes putting your work into a public domain. Anybody, not just my co-authors, is entitled to refer to it, to build upon it, to comment on it, to try to refute it, to include it into their lectures, or to do anything else with it that constitutes normal academic communication and "fair usage" after it has appeared in public just once. If I later want to retract it, it is I who should inform the other parties about that and there should be a valid reason for the retraction (say, a flaw in the proof that went unnoticed before, etc.). Mere "disliking" is enough to refuse to get associated with the project in the first place and should be respected then but once you sign something out, you sign it out, period.
How universal is this attitude? I don't know and I doubt anybody does: academic rules of conduct are not written in some universally accepted code of law, volumes 1-13, and it is not unusual to see people disagreeing on what is acceptable and what is not. However, I find the accusations of scientific misconduct totally misplaced here. She could ask you in private not to present the results, of course (anyone is entitled to any private request) and it was rather kind of you to agree (withdrawing your poster at the last moment doesn't look terrific on your unofficial record, by the way, people notice such things), but that is where it stands IMHO unless she communicated to you some serious previously unnoticed flaw in the project between the first and the second presentation.
I don't think that the field and the country matter very much here, but, if somebody does, I'm a mathematician in the USA.


text:
How do you deal with aggressive and rude (irrelevant) questions in a conference?
I was at a conference recently as a member of the audience and during the Q & A segment, an audience member (unsolicited) jumped up and said that the presentation was 'absolutely wrong' quite aggressively. The presenter (junior scholar) was mortified.
Can I ask if you have a particular way of responding to questions that are aggressive or ad hominem attacks without being seen as defensive particularly if the person asking the question is someone senior and respected?

"That's just like.. your opinion, man!"

"I don't think so. You see, because the wrkzwft is indeed quite zvowefi, it may sometimes appear that qozidsf, but, of course, when the covfefe strikes, it can of course happen that zVfase goes wrong. However, this is not the typical case. Rather, quite counterintuitively zvoijs goes towards qpoifeff, and then all our intuitions are off and you have to rely on the computation. I am happy to discuss more during the break."

“Thank you for giving me a chance to address this. I have spent a lot of time considering this point and .... “


text:
Post-Bologna process, is my sociology degree an undergraduate degree or a graduate degree?
I obtained my Sociology degree after 5 years (stipulated) university studies in Spain (Licenciatura) in 2004. Now with Bologna, sociology is only a four-year graduate program.
I am not sure whether to put on my CV that I have a Master (3+2) or Bachelor Degree and how to abbreviate it: MA, BA, or else way.

You write on your CV what you actually have.

Just call it a Licenciatura and indicate in parentheses that it is a five-year undergraduate course of study.  For example you might say (obviously adjusting to the format of your C.V.)

2004 - Licenciatura en sociología (5 year undergraduate degree in sociology), Complutense University of Madrid.
  2004 - Lic. Sociología (equiv. B.S./B.A. Sociology), Complutense University of Madrid.

The reason I'd recommend not translating it as a masters is that the licenciatura not considered a graduate level program (you could homologar 4-year undergraduate U.S. bachelor programs into licenciaturas back in the day), and seeing the abbreviation M.A./M.S. would imply that it is graduate level.  You can discuss it in a cover letter if you feel the need to explain it further.

While the advice to indicate the original degree is reasonable, isn't it kind of the point of the question that the categorization of some pre-Bologna degrees as "undergraduate" or "graduate" level is ill-defined when there was historically no such distinction? For instance, German university Diplom degrees are sometimes described as "undergraduate" (because students did not graduate with any other degree before the Diplom) and roughly equivalent to a Master's (because of the duration, and because what used to be Diplom programs was converted into Bachelor + Master programs).

@O.R.Mapper in those cases I'd probably avoid saying undergraduate, and just state the rough or actual equivalency. The question was about a licentiatura specifically, though

authors: Зергул Бауржан


text:
Postdoc salaries/taxes in California (Caltech) for foreigner
I have seen some confusing information online. I am looking into postdoc positions at Caltech (Pasadena, CA). From my understanding, the annual salaries are somewhere in the 55k - 60 k range. What kind of taxes apply, though? I've seen conflicting information, and am quite confused.
Here it seems that some of Caltech are exempt from federal tax, but I am not sure if this applies to postdoc researchers.
Also, how does one being a foreigner (with a work VISA) affect taxation?

It is likely that Caltech has an office that can give you specific information about your case.

@Buffy Most likely, they will say that they cannot give legal advice.

I think you're on the wrong page of Caltech's website - your link has to do with the university's own finances, and the taxes that the university as an organization does or doesn't pay.  None of that is relevant to your personal taxes.  They have a page about individual taxes specifically for international scholars at https://international.caltech.edu/taxes/Considerations, which I think is the kind of information that you want.

The National Postdoc Association has an Overview of Tax Issues for Postdocs that may be a good starting point.

Here it seems that some of Caltech are exempt from federal tax, but I am not sure if this applies to postdoc researchers.

This just means that Caltech itself is exempt from paying income tax. By default (that is, unless there's a tax treaty), a postdoc receiving money to cover living expenses will pay tax on their income. In California there would be both federal and state income tax.

Also, how does one being a foreigner (with a work VISA) affect taxation?

This can depend on whether there is a relevant tax treaty or not, and how long they've been present inside US borders. See e.g. International Postdoc Survival Guide - Beginner's Guide to Income Taxes for International Postdocs for resources.

First off, postdoc salary levels at Caltech vary widely by department.
Regarding taxes, there are tax treaties between the US and a lot of other countries.  For some of these countries, these treaties have special regulations for (postdoctoral) researchers staying for less than a certain time (e.g. 2 years): If you move to the US from such a country (not your home country, but that of your last residence), you remain tax resident of that country, so your postdoc salary remains taxable in that country, rather than the US. (Note that you still have to pay state taxes in California, but these are rather low.)  I think the philosophy is that you do not give up your residence in said country, but only come for a "long visit". There are various rules whether you can choose where you tax your income or not, and what happens if you exceed the period of time for which you are subject to this tax exemption, which differ by country of origin, so essentially you have to check the relevant tax treaty.  (Notably, with some tax treaties, if you exceed that time you have to tax all of your income in the US retroactively.)
As an example, here is an excerpt from the US-German tax treaty (2006 Amendment, Article XI):

Remuneration that a professor or teacher who is a resident of a Contracting State and
who is temporarily present in the other Contracting State for the primary purpose of
carrying out advanced study or research or for teaching at an accredited university or
other recognized educational institution, or an institution engaged in research for the
public benefit, receives for such work shall be taxable only in the first-mentioned
Contracting State for a period not exceeding two years from the date of his arrival.


text:
Correct verb for professor "writing" student exams?
On their CV, how should an associate professor go about making a bullet point accomplishment that they "designed / wrote / created / produced" student exams? that is, devised several pages of questions (and corresponding answers) meant to test students' knowledge about the subject or sub-field.
How does this verb change for an assistant professor who serves a higher rank professor, but who was given lee-way or freedom to similarly also create/write exams from scratch as they see fit?

Maybe setting?

Since it is a normal and expected activity of everyone, why do you think it needs space in the CV?

Why wouldn't you use "wrote"?

@AzorAhai-him-  I believe that what I express by "took an exam" would be expressed in some dialects of English by "wrote an exam" (and in other dialects by "sat an exam").

In the Netherlands, or at least at my university, the university appoints an "examinator" (=examiner) per course. In almost all cases, it's the main professor teaching the course and it happens automatically. If I wanted to highlight this on my CV (e.g., as a junior who nevertheless is official "examinator" of many courses, I would maybe put that role on my CV. Having said that, I don't do that right now, because it goes quite without saying that as Associate Professor now, I am also examinator of many courses. So long story short: depending on your locale, there may be some role you can list?

It sounds like you are all calling it "setting exams"

@DanielHatton I find it hard to imagine that having set exams would ever be the decisive factor in someone landing a professorship. This is information that, at best, belongs in a Teaching Portfolio, if your discipline or the specific job asks for one.

All that I really can say is what will not describe "creation of exams".
In some versions of English, "writing an exam" would mean "taking the exam" in other English. That is, being an examinee, rather than an examiner.
"Setting an exam" in some contexts is understood as "creating the exam", but seldom in the U.S.
It is not typical, but I'd think would be relatively clear in most versions of English, currently, to say "created exams" or "composed exams".
(Nevertheless, people looking at the CV would think, "hm, what? Of course. Why is this person mentioning this?")

"Writing an exam" would be understood in the US sphere of influence.  "Setting an exam" would be understood in the UK sphere of influence.

A common model used for creating instructional materials is the ADDIE model.  Its five phases are:

Analyze – Gather information about one's audience, the tasks to be completed, how the learners will view the content, and the project's overall goals.

Design – Write a learning objective, identify and break down tasks to be more manageable for the designer, then determine the kind of activities required for the audience in order to meet the goals identified in the Analyze phase.

Develop – Create the activities that will be implemented.

Implement – Test all materials to determine if they are functional and appropriate for the intended audience.

Evaluate – Use formative and summative assessment to assess the project's elements and revise them if necessary.

Use the verb that most accurately describes what you actually did.  In your case, it might be "develop assessment instruments."

I haven't downvoted, but I suspect that overall very few people know or care of any model for creating instructional material and the label "develop assessment instruments" would be hardly understood.


text:
Should postdoc be listed under Employment and or Education on CV?
From what I have seen, most people list postdocs under Employment/Experience on their CV. But recently I saw one that listed a postdoc under Employment and Education.
Is this typical/appropriate?
NOTE: According to comments on this relevant question and its answers, postdocs are kind of regarded as students, in some cases.

Also: what about employed PhD candidates?

@Moriarty Exactly! That is one of the reasons why I asked this question. People list RA/TA positions under Experience and their PhD under Education so I wondered if that extends to postdocs.

A postdoctoral associate/fellow/whatever is usually an employee. While the purpose of the postdoc is educational, it is not "education". A postdoc is (usually) not taking classes, following a curriculum, and completing other activities toward the earning of an academic degree/certificate/whatever. Postdocs should have a contract, do not pay tuition (or have tuition paid for them), have a definite end date to their employment (although that can be renewed), etc. Since a postdoc is an employee, it should go under employment.
However, in some fields and countries, it may be custom to place the postdoc under education because the postdoc is the journeyman stage of your academic career. Ethically, it should not be listed in both places.

NSF Grant Proposal Guidelines (GPG) 2015 Biographical Sketch have PostDoc listed under both Education (although they call it "Professional Preparation"), and presumably it would be listed under the "Appointments" section too. See http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf15001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2f

I would more unequivocally state that the only example I can think of a postdoctoral situation where it would be appropriate to list it under the "education" section of a CV is if one is pursuing a Habilitation in the countries that use such a system. In such a case, one is acquiring an actual "qualification" that can be recognized. In traditional postdocs, such as those offered in the US (and most other countries), there is no degree track, and no course requirements or anything else that the postdocs are following.


text:
What tense should paper titles use?
I have recently noticed that the tense of paper titles can be somewhat odd. This previous question, In what tense (present/past) should papers be written?, has some great information but it doesn't directly answer for titles.
Some random titles:

Improving source code search with natural language phrasal representations of method signatures
A comparison of stemmers on source code identifiers for software search
Using Formal Models to Objectively Judge Quality of Multi-Threaded Programs in Empirical Studies
Modeling Programmer Navigation: A head-to-head empirical evaluation of predictive models

Most titles (in Computer Science) look to be present progressive. Is there a rule/reason behind this?

Usually titles either don't have any verbs or have verbs in simple present. In your examples, there are no verbs in titles. Words “improving”, “using” and “modeling” are not verbs but rather gerunds (in your examples); see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund.

First: the usual (read: boring) way of writing academic paper titles is indeed without verbs:

A study of acquired growth hormone deficiency
  and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism in a subject with repeated head trauma

or using gerunds (which is a verb form, but in that case is used to construct a present progressive but a noun phrase):

Understanding acquired growth hormone deficiency
  and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism in a subject with repeated head trauma

However, I think include a verb is possible, and oftentimes makes the title much catchier and appealing to the non-specialist reader. For example, the titles I “quoted” above are of my own making, but the real title for the article (and believe me, you want to read it) is:

Acquired growth hormone deficiency and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism in a subject with repeated head trauma, or Tintin goes to the neurologist

There: even if I know nothing of “acquired growth hormone deficiency” and “hypogonadotropic hypogonadism”, I know what the paper is about.
Now, if you use verbs in article titles, they are mostly going to be about established facts, generic questions, mathematical proofs, … which means you should write in the present tense.

Vitamin C enriched diet can prevent scurvy
Minesweeper is NP-complete

I particularly like to use questions in titles, as they make quite clear the problem you're tackling:

How hard is the measurement of quartz hardness? A review of the commercial available apparatuses and their robustness
How fast does the swallow fly? Reexamining the impact of the bird's geographical origin

In a few cases, you would talk about a historical event, and then you'd use the past tense:

How World War One was won: the role of time travelers from the twenty-second century
The CERN measurement was not a fluke: finally establishing the Higgs discovery at the 10-sigma level

Did you have any legal hurdles in taking Tintin to the neurologist?


text:
Principal Research Scientist vs. Senior Research Scientist?
I notice that some schools, e.g., MIT EECS, has these two non-faculty appointments, Principal Research Scientist and Senior Research Scientist.
At least true for MIT EECS:
Both of them, just as Faculty members, are PI's and can run their own research groups. One difference I know is that Principal Research Scientist's appointment is reviewed every 4 years, whereas Senior Research Scientist's is evaluated every 5 years (as per MIT's website). Yet, this doesn't tell much.
In addition, Principal Research Scientist falls under "Sponsored Research Staff Appointments" category, whereas Senior Research Scientist falls under "Academic Research Staff Appointments". Does this tell something?
What is the exact difference between them and the Faculty members (i.e., professors)?
Why aren't they just called professors?
What are the differences between these two?

It sounds like the Senior Research Scientist position is just slightly higher up the ladder than Principal Research Scientist. But neither position has tenure, which is why they're different from professorships (they might also differ in salary and teaching obligations).

The probably aren't called professors since they likely have no teaching responsibilities.

"Principal XY" is typically a higher rank than "Senior XY". Maybe you got it in the wrong oder?

@xLeitix No, I didn't get it wrong. I actually feel the same as you. But see 5.2.1 and 5.3.1 http://web.mit.edu/policies/5/5.2.html

I can't say for sure, but the word "sponsored" appearing in one and not the other makes me wonder if maybe the sponsored position is funded entirely by external grants and the other involves some salary paid by the university. That's just a guess, though.

@MattReece So it would be reasonable for us to guess Principal's salary depends on external funding (due to "sponsored"), whereas Senior's salary comes from the university.

Turns out it's the opposite, of course.  "Sponsored" is from the University's point of view.

According to the MIT EECS pages, there are two tracks:

Academic Research Staff.  These are mostly shorter term (such as a Postdoctoral Fellow), and are funded externally (by grants and similar).
Sponsored Research Staff.  These are longer term appointments which are funded by the department.

Senior Research Scientist is an Academic Research Staff position, because while it is long-term, it is also a position for which the researcher is expected to procure their own funding.
From 5.3, the SRS's funding:

Appointees to this rank generally are expected to raise funds to
  conduct research and cover their own salaries.

Principal Research Scientist is a Sponsored Research Staff position, and is funded by the department (though I'm sure they can get their own funding also, their salary is paid by the department).
From 5.2, the PRS's funding:

Funding responsibility resides with the department, laboratory, or center that is the locus of the appointment.

From 5.1 on the difference:

Two types of research appointments are described in the following
  sections: long-term appointments, which are classified as sponsored
  research staff appointments, with the exception of the Senior Research
  Scientist/Associate/ Engineer position; and short-term appointments,
  which are, in general, classified as academic research appointments.
The purpose of the campus research appointment structure is to create
  professional sponsored research staff categories with employee
  benefits and privileges in order to encourage long-term research
  careers at MIT. The concept of long-term professional careers,
  independent of classroom teaching and supported entirely from research
  grants, is not a new one for the American research university. This
  mode of research, with professionals working in departments,
  laboratories, and centers, is an important mechanism for universities
  to maintain research viability, enter new fields, and bring
  researchers to the campus.

It seems evident that Senior RS is basically the same position as PRS, but not funded by the department.  In some cases, the PRS could earn more, because (for example) a NIH-funded SRS would be limited by NIH regulations, while a PRS who is funded by the department is only limited by whatever MIT chooses to pay them.

This is not accurate (mostlyWright's answer is closer to the mark).

For scientists,there are "Research Scientist", "Principal" and "Senior". The latter two can be PIs. The later two also have short term tenure meaning the university will cover their pay for a short term should their funding lapse. I believe for Senior it is one year. Senior are equivalent of full professors in rank and help set the research direction of the whole lab or group. Principals can seek and run their own grants and may or may not have some departmental funding if the dept has large support grants.
Senior is definitely a bigger deal than Principal. There is a big salary step to senior. At MIT Senior is limited to 10% of faculty and principal to 15%. Scientists don't have to teach or have grad students and have no "tenure clock". you will typically find them at larger research groups and labs that have dozens if not over a hundred staff and students.

In many U.S. institutions, MIT EECS being one example, there are parallel Professor and Research Scientist career tracks.  Typically, they compare as follows:

Professors are required to teach, supervise students, are always primary investigators, can gain tenure, and have 9-month salary paid by the department, with summer pay dependent on external funding.
Research Scientists are not required to teach (though they often do, particularly graduate seminars), sometimes supervise students, are sometimes primary investigators, cannot gain tenure, and all of their pay is dependent on external funding.

Both tracks have rank denoted by adjective (e.g., "Assistant, Associate, [], XXX Chair" for a professor).  Typically 'Principal' is higher than 'Senior'---the numbers on the MIT EECS pages look to imply the opposite of that, but I am not certain.

the numbers on the MIT EECS pages would tend to confirm that? Principal is renewed every 4 years, and Senior every 5 years. Shouldn't Senior sound higher here? :)

@FarticlePilter Actually, I got the numbers backward; on http://www.csail.mit.edu/biographies/PI/biolist.php there are 10 Principals and 4 Seniors.  I will edit.


text:
Supervisor not satisfied and only willing to see me every two weeks, what should I do?
My research supervisor is a quite strict person who constantly criticizes me for my faults (such as slow progress, or always asking others for help on programming issues).
I don't blame him being a bit too strict with me, because anyway supervisor is here to supervise and give constructive suggestion. I really learn from his lessons for me. In fact, I am very grateful for him being willing to teach me some lessons. His comments are always very helpful.
During the last meeting, he seemed not very satisfied and happy with my progress. I have previously told him about my plan of submitting a paper in November. It seems that he thought this kind of slow progress would fail the aim in the end.
At the end of meeting, after criticizing me for asking others for help too much instead of solving the problems myself, he decided to schedule the originally weekly meeting to two weeks later.
Obviously, I am quite worried as the submission deadline is just in November. Given my poor performance, I have no right to suggest getting the meeting every week.
It seems that my research indeed gets stuck here. I kinda need the supervisors' advice to move on. What may I do to save this situation?

It sounds like your advisor wants you to figure stuff out on your own. So, maybe you don't need his advice to move on!

@JeffE  yeah, exactly! He really wants me to do everything on my own. It is a really training challenge, but sometimes I am really directionless. FYI, I am only an undergraduate who aims to apply for a PhD program in the future.

You are lucky that at least he has scheduled bi-weekly meetings with you. I know some other unlucky folks who meet with their advisers once a month !

Wait, he's criticizing an undergrad for asking help with programming issues? I hope he realizes you're an undergrad and not some seasoned researcher. IMO, it's great you're seeking help. Part of research is know how to get out of a tough spot fast. Kudos to you!

"Once every two weeks" is actually "quite frequently" for an individual research project. Your supervisor, probably, just noticed that more often than not you could not tell him much after just one week of work (very few students can, actually) and decided to listen to your "progress report" once in two weeks. If you are really doing your work and aren't just dragged by him through it, this shouldn't slow you down in any way and I bet 10 against 1 that if you get something interesting to tell him tomorrow, he will listen to you the day after tomorrow no matter how far the scheduled meeting date is.
The idea of operating from a "submission deadline" in an unfinished research project looks totally ridiculous to me. The whole difference between a research project and house cleaning is that you never know how much time you'll need for the former and whether you'll be able to pull it through at all. In my own work, the failure to success ratio is 9 to 1 and that is generally considered quite good. You have to learn that things take time and that you may fail completely when doing research. It is normal and there is no reason to freak out about that. Even in the case when you see the general way to do things and are certain that it must work, the "little details" may take forever.
You can request direct help now and then but the request should be not in the form "I just don't know what to do next..." but in the form "I've done this. Now, for the next step I would need something like this. Unfortunately there is this particular obstacle in the approach I am currently pursuing. Do you have an idea of how I can overcome it or I should try a different route altogether?". You supervisor may share the "bird's view" of the road with you (and it is sort of his duty) but to go around trees, to jump over brooks and to climb hills is your job unless you really face an impenetrable thicket, a fast deep river, or a steep mountain on your way). Telling you how to do every little thing every time is no fun for him and takes the most important part of the research experience away from you. Passing the routine work (like programming of a known algorithm) to others is a no-no at your current level. You may "outsource" your own work only when you can do it faster and better yourself, but there is yet another task at hand that nobody else can do at all. You may (and should) seek general information, but not ready solutions to your particular problems even if the latter are as trite as "Why does this stupid while loop stop one step earlier than it should?".
So, my general advice is to relax, to forget about all deadlines, and to proceed on your own and at your own pace however slow it may seem to you. Just don't stop altogether and give up unless you are ready to declare an official failure and quit completely.

That's a good summary of the research experience. However, research related deadlines of various kinds do exist, however unfair and unreasonable they may be. Though an undergraduate researcher shouldn't have to deal with such things when he is just learning the craft.

Great experience shared!

There may be several factors at work here:

First, the advisor may simply have other commitments that prevent meeting on a weekly basis.  I know that as my group has gotten larger, I tend to meet only with new members of the group weekly; older members are on an every-two-weeks or as-needed basis (per mutual agreement).
Second, the advisor may be cutting back on the frequency of meetings so that you learn to become more independent. I know that the big breakthrough in my own graduate research came at a time when my co-advisors were both completely out of the picture for a while (one was on sabbatical and the other was on a temporary leave of absence). This might not work for everybody, but it can make a big difference if you "take off the training wheels" and start working things out for yourself.

Thank you very much! I am wondering whether this "independence training" works for an undergraduate whose knowledge and skills on research are really limited? It seems difficult for one single undergraduate to get the work published all by himself...

@perfectionm1ng: you seem to be fixated (here and in other questions) on publishing.  I would suggest that you don't worry about publication and focus instead on doing an excellent job on the research tasks you're working on.  Publication follows good research, not the other way around -- or, to put it another way: good research is necessary, but not sufficient, for publication.

@perfectionm1ng: There's never really a bad time to begin such training—especially with better students and budding researchers. It's a skill you really have to develop before you've finished your PhD, so the earlier you've mastered how to learn, the better off you will be, no matter what area you choose as a graduate student!

Thanks for the tips! Yea, as you said, I have to learn all this sooner or later.

Your supervisor is treating you like a grad student. This is very likely a good sign, but it can also be quite hard. Many of the problems you listed are very similar to my own early grad school experiences.

My research supervisor is a quite strict person who constantly criticizes me for my faults (such as slow progress, or always asking others for help on programming issues).

I also tend to receive mostly negative feedback from my very amiable supervisor. In the early days he would start out by saying something positive first. As time went by, the positives got mentioned less and less, until they essentially stopped. Now that I am almost done, the negatives have slowed down to a trickle as well, AND I MISS THEM. I learned to appreciate the importance of someone taking a close look at my work and giving feedback which helps improve the end result. Because it's not about me - it's about doing high quality work. Dealing with mostly negative feedback is a typical experience for a researcher, and it takes some time to get through the soul-crushing part of it and start valuing the informational part. The way around it is to have a passion for the truth which overrides the need to feel valued for being right. It takes a while to get there.

I have previously told him about my plan of submitting a paper in November. It seems that he thought this kind of slow progress would fail the aim in the end.

It sounds like you set yourself an unreasonable deadline, and that your supervisor could see that you're not yet quite at the level where you can write a paper. But that's OK. It just takes time. Imagine that you're to work on your next paper all alone. Which are the things that would be terribly difficult to do without others? Those may just be the things you need to work on right now. Programming is often a crucial skill for researchers, but it can be really difficult to get through that first period where you get stuck for hours over trivial things such as proper syntax. But that's simply what the learning process looks like. It truly gets easier with time.
All that being said, I am not saying that you're wrong to feel bad in this situation. It could be that your supervisor isn't particularly good at giving feedback and that he has a bad intuition on how difficult it is for a newbie to get into programming. But you're not alone, and you're getting a potentially valuable glimpse of the grad school experience right now.

So how did you get over this hard period during your starting grad study?

I wouldn't say it's a hard period, but rather the typical life of a researcher. You're always doing things you don't know enough about (yet), you're always mainly hearing how your work could be improved rather than what's good about it. It takes a while to get used to, but for me, it was always balanced with the excitement of being at a great institute, finally researching what I passionately cared about. But it really helps if you can find a way to not take it personally. It's not about evaluating your intrinsic ability, it's about judging whether you attacked a problem successfully.


text:
How to use MLA for a paper in Spanish?
I'm currently working on a Spanish paper in MLA for an undergraduate course and have stumbled on some confusion for my Works Cited for which I can find no definitive answer. MLA says that I should use the header "Works Cited" before my citations, but does this still apply for other languages? Should I put "La bibliografía" or "Las referencias bibliográficas" instead? Thank you!

I always used "Bibliografía", the article sounds weird to me.

You could check with Spanish Language SE.  However, this is a great question to ask your instructor, since s/he may have a preference.

@aparente001 I think it'd be more on topic here then on there, although it probably would be okay there too

I have always used/seen for MLA in Spanish, and instruct my students to use Obras citadas.  In truth, Bibliografía is vastly more common in native-Spanish, non-MLA works, but the same could be said of English Bibliography.
Since MLA keeps the references to strictly the works that were, well, cited (as opposed to read during research or useful for further reading), thus making a difference between a bibliography and a list of works cited, it has always seemed logical to me to make the same distinction in Spanish.
And just to give you a specific reference, grabbing a random journal I have here —Hispania, which generally uses MLA— references for articles are found in a section entitled Works Cited (English) or Obras citadas (Spanish/Portuguese).

I am not a native Spanish speaker, but I have quite much experience in reading about MLA in Spanish and have seen much on how the works cited page is required to be entitled by different universities whose primary language is Spanish.
In a vast majority of cases, the recommended Spanish title for Works Cited is Obras citadas. Here are some sources to prove this affirmation (words put in bold by me):
Grafiati – ¿Cómo formatear página con la lista de las fuentes referenciadas en MLA (8ᵃ ed.)?:

...Título se centra sin usar cursiva y negrita. El título recomendable
es "Obras citadas" ("Works cited").

Universidad de Los Andes:

Al final del trabajo se debe incluir una sección titulada "Obras
citadas" con los datos de las obras consultadas.

Norman Marín Calderón – El estilo de redacción del manual MLA: la nueva edición (2016) para el usuario hispanohablante:

...los elementos antes mencionados, según se utilicen en (I) la lista
de “Obras citadas”...

Sometimes, you can also stumble upon other recommendations, for example, the one provided in Purdue Owl – Índice de Obras Citadas de MLA:  Formato Básico:

Titule la página Índice de Obras Citadas (no ponga las palabras Índice
de Obras Citadas en cursiva ni entre comillas), centre el título en la
parte superior de la página.

Note that all these examples are not any official translations of the MLA recommendations into Spanish. As none actually exists, different guidelines can be offered locally by your university, scientific journal, and so on. In general, I believe that 'Obras citadas' is the most widespread option and the closest one compared to the original English title. I would stick to it, if no other guidelines are provided by your institution.

In my own Spanish classes, our professors instructed us to title the "Works Cited" page as "Fuentes" (meaning "sources") instead.