text:
Should professors pay undergraduate students doing research in their labs?
I have some undergraduate students doing research in my lab, and I pay them by the hours. I've observed that the students usually do what I tell them and don't go beyond that (as we usually expect from research) even though I encourage them to do so. They also work exactly the assigned hours (says 10 hours/week). You know, like the regular employees in a company, not like a researcher in academia.
I discussed this with other faculty members in my department, and some of them told me that I have been doing it wrong. That I should not pay the students (except during the summer) as this job is for them to have research experience and learn research skills. Only the students who are really interested in doing and learning research will volunteer to work in the lab for free, and these are the students we want in the lab, not the students who (mainly / only) work for the compensation. And my colleagues told me that they had very few undergraduate students working in their labs for free, but those have been very good students who would co-author papers and continue to graduate schools (Master or PhD).
On the other hand, I've heard from some good undergraduate students (in terms of GPA and technical skills) that they would never work an unpaid position.
I've been thinking about this lately. Am I doing it wrong? I'm not cheap, but if paying the students to do research results in wrong motivation and expectation for them, and if not paying them is a good filtering mechanism to select good students, maybe I should do that.
What do you think? Do you have any good strategy to have good undergraduate students doing research in your lab?
Btw, I'm in the US.
Updates: I was not clear in my original post, so here are some clarifications.

My expectation: the research tasks for my students require them to get familiar with a programming language and learn to use some special software before they can do the research. These skills are not taught in the formal course of study, so I can't find any undergraduate students who posses these skills. These are very valuable skills in my field, especially in industry. If I were them, I would spend my personal time to learn these skills as fast as I can, and, in parallel, spend most of my paid time in the lab to use these skills to do the actual research tasks. I would do that because I am excited about doing good research work. That's my expectation. My current students have spent almost all their paid time in the lab to learn, rather than to do. And they only learn during the exact assigned work hours. Two months in, and they are still mostly in the learning / training mode.
One might say that companies pay new employees to learn / train / retrain before they can actually do useful work. But a professor / university lab is not a company. Compared to a company, even a small startup, I have very limited funding and resources (not to mention the retaining rate of undergraduate students after training is much lower than at a company). I must figure out the best way to spend my fund.
Purely from the productivity point of view, paying undergraduate students to do my research seems to be the worst way to spend my research funds and my time. A skilled PhD student or part-time contractor can finish the tasks much much faster and likely at higher quality than my group of undergraduate students can finish in 3+ months. I know that because during my postdoc, I mentored a number of good PhD students. The total cost would be similar in the end. Given that, why did I hire them and agree to mentor them? Because I liked that they seemed to be interested in research, and I wanted to give them opportunities to gain such skills and experience.
However, if their cost is eating too much into my limited funding with a minimal return, I should have a second thought about it because in the end, no one but I must take care of my own business (my research, and eventually my tenure). Getting research funding has become increasingly difficult.
Do I care about disadvantaged students and want to give them opportunities? My colleagues and I are going to organize STEM camps for many underrepresented students in the area, free of charge (of course with external funding). But I think this should be separate from my research career, for now.

I'm thinking between paying them for research work with no credit, or not paying them for credits (indepedent research). As I said, it seems suggested to me that the latter is better.

Usually credits/remuneration are mutually exclusive.

You don't eat with credits, you don't pay rent with published papers collaboration, and you don't pay tuition fees with sense of accomplishment. bear that in mind always when considering having someone work for free. I can't see what's wrong with working the exact assigned hours or doing the exact assigned tasks, what makes you feel that removing retribution would increase and not lower that desire? unless you held only one payable spot and unfairly make them compete with their research to obtain it, which would be despicable.

One slightly related question, are you paying them properly with paystubs and taxes?   Or is it "under the table"?

"They also work exactly the assigned hours (says 10 hours/week). You know, like the regular employees in a company, not like a researcher in academia." Grad students (and undergrads, new profs etc) are not indentured servants and should not be expected to act as such.

Not paying them is  "a good filtering mechanism" to select wealthy students.

@iammax This. OP's mindset is what drives young researchers crazy, as they apparently have to work extra hours for free, because of the "magic of academia". Also, about that thing of "just working the necessary hours, so they must be here for the money": Usually, undergraduate research is very underpaid. In Computer Science, as it is my field, a student that has passed about three introductory courses can work as a programmer for at least twice the salary compared with working with a professor, so I am pretty sure your students are as motivated as they can get.

The situation you describe ("do what I tell them") is almost always considered an employee/employer relationship. As such, this is a legal question, which will depend on the specific jurisdiction in which you are located and the exact circumstances. Any and all of the employment laws at the Federal, State, County and City level could apply, or not. To provide an accurate answer, we would need significantly more information (at a minimum, the State and County. We probably need the type of school, potentially the source of the funds used, etc. (e.g. to determine if only Federal laws apply)).

Under most circumstances in the USA, requiring them to work time which is not compensated is unlawful, commonly illegal, and usually caries at least civil penalties for the organization, if not criminal liability for the management involved (i.e. potentially for you personally, as their manager). I strongly recommend you become familiar with the employment law which applies in your circumstances. If you are considering anything other than paying at least the minimum wage for each hour worked (and providing all breaks, meal times, etc. required by law), then you should seek legal counsel.

Tim how many hours above your assigned working hours do you work? Do you come to work during weekends? Are staying till 9pm missing dinner with your family to do some work for your boss? Are you teaching additional classes for free in the morning? If no, then what is the problem with don't go beyond that even though I encourage them to do so. They also work exactly the assigned hours

This sort of twisted mindset is only possible in the land of the "free".

I did research work in the summer (as an undergrad) which did not count toward course credit. My motivation in doing so was to obtain experience which I could use to find other research opportunities and, eventually, a PhD. My first appointment paid me enough to survive during that time (e.g. pay rent) and that's all I asked for. If you don't pay a working student, you are merely filtering out the unwealthy ones, and providing advantage to those with money.

@SalvadorDali Since you asked, I am paid for working 40 hours/week, and not paid for summer months. I typically work 50-60 hours/week, and still work that many hours, unpaid, during most of the summer. In my field at a research university, and as a foreigner, this is what it takes to survive (i.e., to maybe, possibly get tenure). And I, and all my fellow graduate students in my field, when I was in grad school worked 30+ hours/week when we were paid for 20 hours/week legally. Was it illegal? I don't know. Did we complain? No. As we understood it's necessary, and we were very motivated as well.

I am currently hiring 3 undergrad students in my lab, paying $11/hour when the minimum wage is like $8 or $8.50. In my department, I'm among the only few who actually pay undergrad students doing research. For most other professors, an undergrad student gets credits (and pays tuition for the research course) for working in their labs. They want to gain research experience for their future jobs or grad applications or whatever, and, other professors told me, they work hard to get good results and good grades. I wonder if that's a better way to hire students. Probably I didn't ask properly.

@Tim I think your title and first paragraph (for those who even read that far) result in a somewhat emotional reaction. You are saying you could pay them but won't. Wouldn't we all be insulted if a supervisor made that calculation about us? The factors of limited funding and students contribution make the question more complicated. At least for some of us.

Let the student decide. "Cash or credit?"

That lead paragraph encapsulates so much that is awful about the culture of science in the US and is just astoundingly open and unreflective about it.

So I'm not a professor - but how much does an undergraduate really cost in terms of dollars out of your grant?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ChQK8j6so8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJtrLKGZZFg

It's unfair to take valuable labor from anyone, including students, without compensation. On the other hand, new undergraduates just starting in a research lab are often 90% training and 10% productivity (*). For new graduate students, it might be 75%/25%. So the training alone might be pay enough when a student is first starting out.
(*) 1 undergraduate summer = 1 graduate student month = 1.5 postdoc weeks = 1 professor week. That may sound harsh, but it's my own experience after 30 years spread across all four of those categories. It also varies by student.
A typical progression might look like this:

Join the group for a month without pay or credit, and demonstrate
that you can contribute and collaborate. Solve a simple technical
problem or two.
Get paid relatively low wages for a quarter/semester/summer to be a
simple assistant to others in the group: an apprentice. Just do what
needs to be done that day. Become an expert? Higher pay.
Get research credit for a project that's actually yours. You're
expected to produce publishable results, if not a full paper. Increased
future career earnings are worth the cost of tuition.
Get a summer or other research fellowship that combines the best of
2 (pay) and 3 (interesting project).

Those who want more pay or more freedom will work hard to earn it. Those who don't aren't rehired next term. I had one mentor tell me to "fire" one student each year. Looking back, I wish I had accepted that advice much earlier in my career. Be explicit from Day 1 what you expect so they're not surprised and you're not disappointed.

Having training periods is not unique to academia. People working in private industry still get paid while they catch up to the group. In my state, you have to be paid for any training your employer makes you do (as it should be); including things like HIPAA or whatever.

In industry there are unpaid internships and volunteer roles. They probably fit closer to the undergraduate researcher than on-the-job training would.

@AzorAhai: "Having training periods is not unique to academia. People working in private industry still get paid while they catch up to the group" - go check lawyers. IIRC, trainees often have to pay the company for being allowed to be interns in the company/agency. But that probably depends on the country and "prestige level"..

@quet Well that's a garbage arrangement. Where is that allowed? Do you support that?

Generally, yes undergraduates should be paid for their research.  This is an equity issue.  At many institutions, a large portion of the student body has to work while they study in order to survive.  If student research is unpaid, those students will not be able to participate.  Students who have to work are often also members of other underrepresented groups such as racial minorities.
It is also a justice issue.  If students are doing valuable work, it is only fair to pay them.  It is also unjust to expect students to work more than the assigned hours.
I should add that it is not appropriate to pay students for work that earns course credit.
If your research students are not achieving what you want them to do, you need to be sure you are setting clear expectations.  You also need to be willing to part with under-achieving students.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I should add also that there may be ethical implications to not paying people at least minimum wage for the time they conduct research for you, notwithstanding earning credits. These should be assessed by your ethics board prior to receiving approval for a study, and you may have to answer to them if someone complains.

@aeismail Comments are for explaining downvotes though.

@Dan really?  I thought ethics boards (IRBs) were concerned with how subjects were paid, not with how researchers were paid.

@AnonymousPhysicist I think that'll differ between institutions, but it's fair to expect a study plan to include detail of the minions you'll enlist to help with it.

The critical issue here is "if students are doing valuable work". Undergraduates researchers are, by and large, not worth the time it takes to oversee and train them. Professors are generally happy to help them gain valuable experience, but they are doing them a favor, not taking advantage of them

@KonradRudolph Unfortunately, the mod tools for moving comments aren't very flexible, which makes it hard (maybe even impossible) to move the discussion to chat while keeping the critique here.

I have never, ever discussed compensation, or been asked to, in an IRB application.

I generally agree with your answer, especially the last three paragraphs are spot on. I ask for an additional clarification, though. "Students who have to work are often also members of other underrepresented groups such as racial minorities" seems entirely unrelated to the issue. Could you please explain how that statement is relevant to the question and the rest of your answer?

@user3209815 If you don't pay, you advantage wealthy students.  Advantaging wealthy students and disadvantaging racial minorities are statistically related.  Disadvantaging racial minorities is wrong.  Therefore you should pay.

I was an undergraduate who was paid for his work (rather than receiving credit; I had the option of one or the other, but research credits in the department I worked in were useless to me). I worked at that lab throughout undergrad and am now a staff scientist in the same group.
You really should give your students one or the other, or both, if your university allows it. It seems to me fairly unethical to have someone do work for you without compensating them. Of course, there are realities of budgets, but you really should strive to pay people for work they do.
(Honestly, it's ridiculous that you have to pay to take research credits, but that's a different post.)

They also work exactly the assigned hours (says 10 hours/week). You know, like the regular employees in a company, not like a researcher in academia.

Well, yeah. Before I was hired, we set an expectation that I would work 10 hours a week in my mentor's lab. (In fact there may be a limit on students' working hours, my university's was 19.) I don't understand why you think anyone would work hours for free when they are paid hourly. If you need more than 10 hours/week out of them, then hire them for more hours.
Even if you had volunteers; you should set some sort of expectation with them for how many hours (on average) they should put in. Yes, some weeks will be more, some weeks less, but a volunteer should know how much work you want out of them.

Only the students who are really interested in doing and learning research will volunteer to work in the lab for free

This is not true; let me be a counterpoint. Only the students who can afford to will volunteer to work in your lab for free. That is, students who have support from their parents, or who don't already work a job for money will work for you for free. I am sure that the best undergraduate research assistants do not come solely from the pool of people with wealthier parents.

Am I doing it wrong? I'm not cheap, but if paying the students to do research results in wrong motivation and expectation for them, and if not paying them is a good filtering mechanism to select good students, maybe I should do that.

No, not paying them is not "a good filtering mechanism to select good students." You sound like a new professor, and I think your own "filtering mechanisms" will improve as you interview and hire more undergrads over the years. At my lab, we went through about three for a position over three quarters before settling on a good, motivated undergraduate.

Edit:
After thinking about this for a few days, I would also point out that some types of relationships don't need to be paid. For example, students at my university can do honors projects in their department. Supervising these students is more of a service from professors than an employer/employee relationship, and undergrads seek out professors to supervise them, rather than professors recruiting students.
I assumed from your description of your students having been hired for 10 hours/week that this isn't the relationship you have with them. To put it another way, if you are getting value out of them that either you or a graduate student would have had to perform (e.g. feeding rats, interviewing human subjects) you should pay them. If you put out an ad looking for undergraduates, you should pay them.
In terms of equity, you should always be trying to pay your undergraduates, but I don't want to deny the existence of some relationships where not paying them may not be unethical.

"If you need more than 10 hours/week out of them, then hire them for more hours."  There is often a regulatory limit on the hours, for good reason.

@Anonymous I mentioned that in my answer - at my university, they could have been hired for almost twice that many hours if that's what they actually need done.

@AnonymousPhysicist ...but apparently some professors are expecting researchers to go against reason and law and work more hours pro bon.... sorry, I meant... for "passion and motivation and sugar and spice and everything nice"

@xDaizu If you need 40 hours of work every week; hire four undergraduates ... it's not a complicated calculus.

You may be assuming that the students who only work the minimum time required are motivated only to get the paycheck. I would speculate that students actually work the minimum time required to keep you happy. Dedicated, high-achieving students know that they need both research and grades to get into grad school -- keeping you happy achieves the first, and maximizing their time studying achieves the second.
Whether you should pay them or not is maybe opinion based. Here are a few points:

Many schools have too many students and too few research spots; taking only those willing to work for free seems like a decent way to thin the pack
But, many students require a paying job; by not paying the students, you may inadvertently advantage wealthier students.
A successful arrangement I've seen is that the professor pays for "useful work" (usually manual labor, or maybe work from a senior student who has learned something) and only offer unpaid positions for other work. But, in the US, "unpaid" is often not an option -- students either have to get credit or pay -- and since students have to pay for credits, this means they are actually paying for the privilege of working.

Well, I didn't fault the students. I want to find a way to motivate them to be interested in research. It seems suggested to me that, by paying them (instead of giving them credits or requiring them to vonlunteer), I put them in the state of mind that they just need to finish the X hours/week satisfactorily and I will be happy and will tell them "good job." They won't immerse themselves in the research and learn more to win my approval and confidence in them, because they don't think it's necessary for fulfilling the contract and get the paycheck. The unpaid students may be more motivated.

Fair enough, updated my answer. I'm just trying to point out that the students may well be interested in the work and wish they could do more, but realistically find getting great grades to be higher priority.

I think payment should depend on the type of work being done.
If an undergraduate student is doing menial work with limited training value, they should definitely be paid. I would include cleaning lab equipment/dishes, running very simple experiments, animal husbandry, filing paperwork, etc.
If an undergraduate student is mostly learning techniques and applying them to their own research project, or a shared project where they can be considered an author then they can be paid or compensated with course credit. However, if such a student continues in their work to the point that they are no longer mostly learning, the lab should definitely consider offering to switch them to a paid position.
If an undergraduate student is bringing existing skills or training to the job then they should definitely be paid.

I think, in an ideal world, all undergraduates should be paid for their work, but in many cases it is actually a cost to a lab to take on undergraduates. They take a lot of time and resources from the other people in the lab.
In my experience, many professors are willing to take on this additional burden for the benefit of the university and the next generation of researchers. However, budgets are limited, and compensation with credits is often the only way a lab can afford to have students work there.

There may be a cost in taking undergraduates, but without labs taking undergrads, labs wouldn't get trained undergrads and grads... so I'd say in this world, not just in an ideal world, all undergrads doing lab work should be paid.

@einpoklum I think your argument is actually the argument against requiring paying undergraduates. It would be great if there was special funding set aside, but there isn't. If labs were required to pay undergraduates, but could not afford to do so or felt like the funds were better spent towards other things like graduate students and supplies, then there wouldn't be trained undergrads available.

If there isn't, then the university/research institute staff should demand it from management and/or the funding entity, and if it's not received, take collective industrial action.

Collective industrial action isn't that effective when the political parties in power are actively against funding increases for your industry and would jump at any chance to reduce funding or prevent academic research. @einpoklum

(sigh) that's sad to hear...

Thanks for the answer. One of my concerns is to dry up my limited startup fund for expenses that should actually go to other things like PhD students or scientists, or lab equipment. I can spend a lot to train undergrad students who won't contribute as much to my lab / research and will unlikely stay after they graduate.

Yes! When I was an undergrad, I worked in a lab starting my freshman year and my PI paid me $3 over minimum wage and gave me research credit. The university could only pay me for 20 hours/week max since I was a full time student but by the end of my senior year, I was probably working 40 hours/week and did not care that I was not getting compensated. By being paid for those 20 hours/week I could focus my time on research instead of having to get another job to pay for my expenses. My PI even paid us more during the summer for staying on and because he truly believed that we should not have to worry about money during the school year. Now of course, not every student worked as much as me, but the lab recruited really great undergrads who were very dedicated to their work. Like others have commented, this culture of having "free interns" has already become illegal in many industries, science is just lagging behind.

A student doing their prescribed research practicum, i.e. as part of their studies, should receive appropriate teaching and their credits and marks as detailed by the course they're enrolled in.
This is part of their studies, and they should not be paid (by you) - If they find someone to pay them for studying [military, scholarship], that's fine - but IMHO there should be no other money involved in the purely study-related relationship between you as examiner and them, just like you don't pay them for listening to your lecture.
Students working for you should be paid for the number of hours they actually work. IMHO this is also important to ensure a clean professional relationship when you meet them again not as employee but as students in a lecture/prescribed practicum/exam.
To me, such a clean relationship is a matter of personal integrity and honesty. Both are IMHO important in research.
I don't want to work with people who cheat, and I don't cheat neither.

Let me answer also from a German perspective (chemistry).

What I've seen so far are rather different the tasks for student employees vs. students doing the research practicum they are required to do for their studies.

The research practica prescribed by my studies were rather like tiny theses. You got/chose a project, went for literature, developed something (e.g. I implemented a new experimental setup for the 1st year practicum), discussed this with your supervisor and in the end handed in a report. Expectation was that the supervisor spends more time in supervising/teaching them than they'd need to produce the work output of the student.
These students would typically work roughly the prescribed number of hours - partly because these practica also happen during the semester so they are restricted in time by the lectures they attend
(though they'd also try to make sure they hand in a good and finished project)
In contrast to that, students employed for helping were there to actually help their supervisors, i.e. a clear net gain in work done. E.g. not a literature survey for their own research but running an errand to the library. Not developing a new experiment, but just making sure all solutions are ready for the next batch of 1st-year-students. No measuring for their own project, but maybe working as "autosampler" for the supervisor. All in all, rather comparable to a technician job. (Which doesn't mean that the student cannot learn anything, but the amount of learning is more like the expected gain in experience with any kind of job rather than at a university course.)
Time are kept on a schedule or time sheet, I've never seen a discussion about asking more than the agreed hours without compensation in that context.

The German university system (i.e. the corresponding law) is very sensitive on possible pressure/abuse of power in the surroundings of exams. Our professors are public officials. Mixing money and exams is a big no-no (although the other direction is of course worse).

A professor asking a student to work without compensation for anything but the official courses the student is enrolled for and who is or will be involved in examining the student would get close to "acceptance of benefits by a public official" i.e. corruption (in relation to importance and vicinity of the exam).
In other words, the practice you describe from your colleagues would be considered illegal over here.
If a student is employed, certain IP (exploitation) rights go automatically to the employer here - whereas a student explicitly holds all IP rights to the work done during their studies, including the thesis. Students are typically not aware of this. Both you and the student may be thinking you paying the student for a compulsory course is just nice. But particularly with a good student in a STEM lab (high chance of producing something relevant in terms of IP rights) this may be considered taking an unfair advantage of the student. And again, we're getting close to questionable behavior of a public official - now even without intent.

Some courses prescribe or allow that the students do some of their practica outside university. These practica can be paid (but often/typically? are not employment). Even a thesis can be done in industry this way. However, the official construction is that the marks are given by the professor (who is not part of the contract between student and company), and, particularly for external theses, the professor has a duty to make sure the conditions are not unfair against the student.
In my studies, external prescribed practica were in research institutes rather than in companies and we were not paid (just like our fellow students who did the same practicum at university). Voluntary longer practica (e.g. during semester break) were not called practicum but student summer jobs (Werkstudent), typically had regular employment contracts and like the student helpers you were expected to actually work, i.e. produce a net output.

if paying the students to do research results in wrong motivation and expectation for them

I'd say on the contrary: as a professional, I expect to be paid for my work, and this is what the students should expect and learn to expect as well.   More precisely, I expect to be paid for signing/handing over my work.  If the work stays my own, and I am the one to decide what to do, that's a different proposition. I'm also happy to negotiate the exact terms. I've happily been doing research where we found a good balance with comparably low wages - and I quit a research position where I decided the balance was not OK.
and you mention that unpaid work/over-hours are usually expected in research.
In addition to the non-monetary considerations above, over here the concept is that there are certain levels of salary that already include all necessary over-hours. This is clearly true for professors, and equally clearly not the case for student helper hourly wages.

All this refers to students up to Master thesis. PhD "students" are not considered students in Germany, and there things work completely differently.
<rant> In particular, the rules to avoid abuse of power are somehow systematically suspended. </rant>

Re your final paragraph: the laws are changing fast in Germany; as I've heard, there are plans to start awarding PhD students credit for their work in research labs that might make it illegal to pay them a salary for it. After all the efforts by PhD representatives to ensure normal working contracts for all PhD students of the Max Planck Society, it may now turn out that they will have to go back to stipends to financially support them.

@LLlAMnYP: that's interesting to hear. Could you post a link to that discussion. As you probably gathered, I find the current situation of signing away all IP rights for half a wage deeply troubling - I've seen perfectly legal but IMHO decidedly unfair treatment in that respect. Scholarships could solve a lot of trouble - but the funding agencies would need to pay out the equivalent to employer's gross wage as the scholarship holder has to fully take care of their social insurance: the 1450 €/month (Studienstiftung including 100 € health care allowance) correponds to about 30 % TVL E13 II.

Or, the other way round: 50 % TVL E13 II (i.e. 1360 €/month net) corresponds to about 2300 €/month scholarship, 65 % (net 1680 €/month) to about 2950 €/month scholarship.

I'm afraid I cannot link anything as that is hearsay from my colleagues. What I know is what I relayed.

Would the same students that do good work when not paid do bad work when paid?
If the answer is no, would all students that do good work also work for free?
If the answer is also no, the only reason to not pay would be to have a way to filter out unmotivated students. But let's be honest, that can't be the correct way.

This was asked a while ago, but I feel the need to chime in.
It is absolutely unfair to not pay an undergraduate student simply because you’re worried that paying them would result in a lower work ethic.
For context, I am currently an OOS third-year undergraduate at UW-Madison. I work part time, about 15 hours/week and attend class full-time. My school is entirely paid for by financial aid (which tells you a bit about my financial situation since UW doesn’t give out a lot of grants unless you’re a bit below the threshold).
What I’m saying here is that I, and many students like myself, NEED to make money to pay for food. I worked in a lab last year and had to quit because I was only getting paid $9/hour, even though I am on a work study with a high limit. Most of the labs on my campus will not pay undergraduates even if they have a work study, and if they do pay, it’s well below the average for other on-campus jobs.
To not pay undergraduates AT ALL is unfair and excludes all students that simply do not have the time to commit to 30+ hours/week for classes, 15+ hours/week for work, AND 10+ hours/week for research. We have to eat, and so often times, we have to choose between a decent paying job and research. My advice would be to advertise to work study students, and pay them a decent wage (whatever amount would be considered “good” for the specific campus). You’ll get motivated, hard-working individuals, and they’ll be more motivated to work extra hours.
For clarification, work studies are paid for by the federal government until the limit is exceeded (if they’re receiving $3,000 or more and getting paid $10/hour, they most likely won’t exceed the limit for the academic year).

While I was studying I was a paid research student at my university (in Germany if it matters). While I was only paid for a certain amount of hours, there was one thing that greatly motivated me to put that extra bit of work in above my contract:
Working towards my thesis. While it was officially not allowed to start on the thesis project early (check your departments rules on that, yours may very well differ), doing work on a project and using said work as a foundation to do more interesting research during the thesis was perfectly acceptable. In short: I worked, did the 'boring' part of a thesis while I worked (learning the theoretical framework above courses, learning the laboratory procedures, doing preliminary experiments), and when I was ready to begin my thesis I could draw from a pool of prebuilt knowledge/data to accelerate my progress and do interesting experiments using advanced techniques.
So to sum it up: If possible, give an additional incentive, as in the possibility do link a thesis with the work the students are doing and they should be interested in putting extra hours in. Students are all about efficiency, managing university, job, socializing and spare time activities.Knowing they get a small head start on a thesis should (at least for the good students) be reason enough.

... although this is of course borderline in terms of what is allowed. On the one hand, by the exam regulations which would frown very much on one student getting a head start another doesn't - and on the other hand, the possibility of power abuse and undue pressure in the context of an important exam by a public official.


text:
What if point systems for tests were different?
What if when taking a test you could select multiple answers and the percent per question you got was
(100)(1/n), n being the amount of answers selected (only award points if any a selected answer was correct, and only for multiple choice questions). What this does is give people the option to sacrifice a chance at more points, and take a better chance at getting less points. What are some pros and cons of this system, would it be in any way worth trying?
Addition:
If you think this question fits better on a different site, please note. I have no idea what tag(s) to use, and I don’t know how well this question fits in Academia.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment. And please be civil in the discussion, as is expected in a professional environment: unfriendly comments will be certainly deleted without notice.

One major drawback is answering them all gives points while it does not show that the test-taker knows the answer. It also doesn't discriminate between selecting the two best answers out of five and the correct answer and the most incorrect.
A common way to do this sort of thing is (given 5-answer questions), is to take off 1/4 of a point for incorrect answers and award 1 for a correct answer. Therefore, a student that guesses randomly earns 0 points on average, where as normally they would earn 20% of the points.
The SAT did this when I took it, and I use it occasionally when I write tests for a high school science competition, typically when the material is fairly basic.

It makes sense to award -0.5 points for wrong answers for 4-choice questions, so that guessing is disincentivized and it makes sense to answer anything only if you're >50% certain, and otherwise leave the question blank since you genuinely don't know.

@Peteris that assumes every wrong answer is random, which is probably not true, so a penalty of -0.5 seems extreme in my opinion.

One of the principles of good multiple choice design is that all choices must be plausible.

@Buffy Sure, but I've never felt like I've been able to write four equally plausible alternate answers. Maybe it's easier to do that in some fields. You can also include answers that are obviously wrong (or fall out of a common mistake) to identify problem areas. Depends on the goal of the test.

If you use them at all then one of the main principles should be that a wrong answer is a diagnostic for some misconception the student has. Thus you can use it to actually guide the student. It is a waste of everyone's effort if you just use it to "award" points. Educators are paid to teach students, not to grade them. Sadly, not everyone accepts that. If you reject that claim then you can only "serve" students that don't really need to be taught. Again, a waste of everyone's efforts.

@Buffy Yes, like I said, I often write tests for competitions. For those, I don't care what misconceptions they have, since I'm not teaching them.

You are not the first person to think about this idea.
People use similar ideas in forecasting and your idea is similar to the Brier score.
The premise of this foresting is to be the best at predicting the future.
People weight their certainty of predictions over time (e.g., the probability of rain tomorrow is somewhere between 0 and 100%).
Over the short-term, the Brier score penalizes certain wrong answers (e.g., if you say there is a 95% chance of rain but it does not rain, your score is lower than if said there was a 55% chance of rain).
But, over the long term, this method penalizes both uncertainty and inaccuracy (e.g., if I consistently make right predictions with 55% probability, I will have a lower score than if I make correct predictions with a 75% probability).
The Good Judgment Project uses Brier scores to evaluate people's ability to forecast and would be a good starting place for you to you look.
That being said, I don't know how your proposed idea would work on exams unless you wanted your students to study game theory, forecasting, or predictions rather than your subject material.
In general, many if not most education experts think multiple choice questions are a bad way to assess learning (e.g., for some of the reasons described in this article).

Now, if the actual subject of the course is game theory or forecasting, I could see some use for this system when used on a small exam. For all other courses and situations, not so much.

Is the final link correct? It links to the same wiki page as earlier, and not to an article

@spyr03 yes. I've updated the link to https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/12/schools-standardized-testing-fail-students. Thank you for catching that.

This answer doesn't seem related in any way to the question asked. The domain is completed different. How does this relate to grading of exams?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Am I supposed to add the name of a surgeon who had no contribution?
I'm need an urgent consultant regarding authorship rights.
Three years ago one of my professors asked me to write a surgical case report for one of his residents, later I found three similar cases and added to the article. I collected all data and followed all cases alone. The professor only gave the idea and neither the professor nor his resident made any contribution to writing the article or even reading what I've written. At last, they said this case in not worth publishing and we are not interested to publish your manuscript. They gave me permission to publish the article myself but the only document I have is a text message. Tonight, I got acceptance of my article and I want to make sure that I can publish that without the name of the surgeon. I have aknowledged their name.

Welcome to Academia SE and thank you for your question. Unfortunately, as it stands, it is hard to understand who is who in your story, and what their potential contributions are. There are the professor, the resident, and the surgeon and several they. In particular who said that “this case in not worth publishing and we are not interested to publish your manuscript”? Also, what does resident mean in this context? Please [edit] your question to clarify.

There are many high quality sources online that address authorship questions under the banner of research integrity or publication ethics. This is just the first such result I get from a search: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html though there are many more, including field-specific guidance.

You need to ask these questions before submitting, not after acceptance.

My take from your description is that the surgeon gave you his clear permission to publish without his name attached -- in the form of a written text message. Assuming that the wording in the text message is unambiguous, there ought to be nothing for you to worry about: He's expressed his opinion, and you're free to proceed.

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


text:
Is there any provision to provide reference to the paper which is in process to get published in journal at the time of graduate applications?
I will be presenting my paper to a conference this month. The papers presented in the conference will usually take 3-6 months to get published and indexed in the journal.
While applying for admissions in next 2 months, I will not have any online reference to submit to the admission committee, because the paper might not have published until then.
So, is there any provision or any way using which I will be able to share the paper/publication with the admission committee?

Are you allowed to put the paper on arXiv or whichever common preprint repository is used in your field (if any)? If so you can just include a link from there to your CV and any other profiles you have.

In general, the answer would be no since different conferences have different procedures. For the one of interest to you they may have something such as pre-publishing to arXiv or similar. This is appropriate for your CV:  "...to appear".
But you can also just say that your paper has been accepted to the conference that will be held on date future. You can also send them a copy of the paper if you like and they will accept it. And you can offer to send it in any case.


text:
Are letterhead and signatures necessary in the LOR?
My manager (one of the recommenders) said that he is working from home for several months due to coronavirus. It will not be possible for him to give the recommendation letter on the letterhead.
Instead, he said that he would submit it via email.
My question is, will this letter count towards my application?

The letterhead probably exists in electronic form, and signatures can be added digitally.

@DanRomik, Respected Prof. Can you kindly tell me what are all the ways in which recommenders submit the recommendation. For example, email with reference number, form with PDF ...

It depends on the specific university, I can’t say. But in the US most universities will expect recommenders to submit the letter by uploading a PDF of the letter to some web portal. There might be an option to mail in a paper copy for those who prefer to do things the old-fashioned way.

Is there any option to submit it via an email using the application reference number?

You’d have to ask the university where you are applying. But I think it’s the wrong question, if your manager knows how to use a web browser then he can upload it through the browser just like everyone else does.

In this era of networked printers, few people ever actually load letterhead paper into a printer any more.  Instead, most organizations have electronic "identity" or "branding" collections that include templates for letterhead, business cards, etc.
As such, in my experience, most recipients (in the US and Europe at least) expect letters to arrive in PDF format. Many will not even allow a letter to be sent physically any more.
For most recommenders, then, using "letterhead" just means taking care to use the fancy formatting to make a good impression, just like one might wear formal clothing to make a good impression at a fancy event.  In dealing with academics, however, eccentricity is to be expected, and variation from norms is often tolerated.
Bottom line: your recommender should probably be able to use letterhead electronically. If for some strange reason they can't, it shouldn't be a big deal, as long as it's still easy to tell they are a real and respectable person (e.g., emailing from an institutional address).

@DanielHatton For certain subsets of the math/compsci community, sure. For most academic communities, that's just giving them extra work that they will not bother trying to figure out how to do.

Also, take into account the coronavirus situations. Almost all employees are working from home and the work load is high.

Also, @jakebeal, can you elaborate on the authenticity if the recommendation is sent via organization/institutional email.

@DeepakTatyajiAhire If I get a recommendation letter sent from "toyota_freak@hotmail.com", I have no idea who is writing to me.  If it comes from "mary.jones@microsoft.com", then it's probably come from somebody named Mary Jones who works at Microsoft (or else a rather unusual phishing attack).  Not a particularly challenging test, but significant all the same.

Many universities have online systems for submitting recommendations in which the recommenders will get an email with a link to submit.  In many of these they can paste the recommendation into a form or else upload a PDF.  No signature needed. I usually do PDF with my letterhead template but it's not necessary.

Yes, it will count. Since you write "manager" I assume it's someone in industry, not academia, and so your manager may not be familiar with academic letters of recommendation.
Probably the most important thing is that the letter should be a separate PDF document, and not just an email message.  If the organization has an electronic letterhead, your recommender should use it. If not, then the recommender should put all the information one would find in a letterhead at the top of the letter.  It should absolutely be mailed from the organization of the recommender, and not from someone@gmail.com.
I have a facsimile letterhead and a scanned signature in blue that's set up as an Acrobat stamp.  I can make a PDF look like a scanned paper letter more easily than I can print and scan a paper letter!
Finally, if your recommender is not an academic, here is some advice I've written about writing letters of recommendation which the recommender may find helpful. http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/faculty/rbrow211/recommendations/recommend_advice.html
The advice about FERPA is specific to the United States, and if your recommender is not an academic at an institution where you've studied, it does not apply at all.  It probably doesn't apply for a letter of recommendation from an academic as there is a specific exemption in FERPA for such letterd.

My manager works at Microsoft and he will be submitting it via email from his organization email ID

That will be perfect.

Thank you @Bob Brown! This is a great relief.

I am not sure about this.  You ask if a letter send by email without letterhead and without signature will be ok.  If the system only accpects LOR via some annoying online portal, then the safe answer is no.  The letter might never even get into the system.
You need to check with the place you are applying.  My guess is that if they accept a LOR by email, then the letter you propose will probably be fine.


text:
Chances of getting admitted to USA universities for Fall 2021
As I see, a lot of students have already deferred their Fall 2020 applications to Fall 2021 next year due to Covid 19.
In this scenario, does this mean that, the fresh applicants for Fall 2021 will have to compete to with more number of applicants and less number of available seats?
In this case, will Canada or Europe be a better option, because there should be some guarantee to get an admit, and this guarantee is much less for USA?
With the fear of not getting admitted and a heavy application fee in US dollars is already intimidating.

I'd guess it is impossible to say. Too much can happen.

@Buffy, can you try to explain the important things according to you in brief

Who knows when the pandemic will end? Who knows if the US can learn to handle it better? Who knows what individuals will decide in times of uncertainty? My advice is to be flexible. Give yourself choices.

What about the second wave? Then the third... fourth ...

Who knows how many people actually deferred? Who knows how many are taking classes locally and may just stay local at some other institution? All in all many unknowns, some of which may become clearer between now and the normal December (or later) application deadlines. The only thing clear is that nothing is clear right now.

(Voted to re-open.) The possible fact that we do not have hard data on the number of people who deferred, etc., does not mean that this question is flawed. I'd think that elaboration of the mechanisms, alone, could be useful to people. The situation really is unprecedented, I think.

This is going to depend on your field, and the schools that you apply to and what their individual situation is, among other factors.  As someone in the US, that's also not to say that things won't be competitive in Canada or Europe either, as there are Canadian universities, as well as possibly European universities, that are just as reputed as some of the top universities in the US (at least as far as what I know in my field), so it's a flawed assumption, at best, to assume you'll be admitted to a program if you apply to Canadian/European universities.
The only advice I can give would be to contact the programs you are interested in and ask what their situation would be for the upcoming admissions cycle and if you're better off applying in a future cycle.  What I will say is that graduate admissions is generally competitive and a crapshoot no matter what the timing is.  Therefore, if you want to apply to US universities, and see where you get lucky/hope for the best, since the worst they can do is say no.

Yes... apart from the fact that in some currencies the application fees (e.g., to US universities) are oppressive.

I get that, but even then, it is not like applying to US universities is going to be that much less competitive or predictable even after these uncertain times end though.

Actually, to my perception, the current unpredictability (in the US) is essentially unimaginably worse than usual. Worse than 2008 by far. The flawed handling of 19 doesn't allow sane planning for "after", etc. And the nature of the economic disruption in the US is already unprecedented... and will "beat its own record", I'm afraid. Dunno...

(I do hope my pessimism is proven wrong...)

@paulgarrett Also whatever happens in the US in the next ~2.5 months is probably going to be at least as if not more influential than COVID for international applicants to US institutions...


text:
Are reputations earned and questions answered on Stack community considered as worthy publications?
Are reputations earned and questions answered on Stack Exchange community considered as worthy  publications?
Can they be included or considered as publications?

No. But they are not entirely worthless, see this.

And see this: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7552/stack-overflow-reputation-in-cv

Useful work in academia (I'm coming from a US perspective; perspectives elsewhere I think follow similar trends but may differ a bit) falls into three broad boats:

Research
Teaching/education/mentorship
Service/outreach

Publications fall under the category of "research". Stack Exchange participation definitely does not fall under this category (except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances; I don't think those circumstances are much worth considering in any general answer given how rare they are).
Teaching/education typically considers activity within the university. That's the stuff that students pay for (or more generally, the university receives some compensation for the benefit of the students).
Service/outreach includes all the "extra" stuff academics do: it includes participation on faculty committees (service to the university) and also includes service to the broader community. If, for example, an academic volunteered at a local primary/secondary school, that would fall under "service".
Service is almost certainly the least appreciated of the academic trinity, and service to the whole world is probably not weighted as heavily as service to the local community. Service in a local community or to the university itself is more easily justified to other stakeholders, like government officials who control university budgets. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value, just that it has the most chance to be undervalued.
Stack Exchange participation might, at best, be seen as a form of Service.

No.
In academia, only publications in traditional academic venues count as publications.  Publications might have the same content as stack exchange answers, such as in https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2970/papers-that-originated-on-math-se

Well, still, there are "publications" in the sense of peer-reviewed, and then there are literal publications, as in making things public. It seems that nowadays, in math, things on arXiv potentially have some weight, especially if one is already an established person...

Not just "potentially"!  They don't have as much weight as Annals papers, obviously, but arXiv preprints are definitely considered seriously in hiring and promotions decisions—not for bean-counting purposes, but for the more important purpose of evaluating the quality/taste/impact of a candidate's research.  I'm downvoting in disagreement with the second paragraph.

@JeffE arXiv is from 1991; it's a "traditional academic venue" compared to Stack Exchange.


text:
Query regarding permission for Indian to work as postdoc in UK
I am applying for a Postdoc in an UK University. They are asking whether I have permission to work in UK. How can I know my eligibility to work as Postdoc in UK? What type of visa issued by UK for postdocs?
Detail:

The University of Bath is a sponsor under the Points Based System. Where there are no suitable applicants from within the EEA, we may, depending on the position, be able to issue a Certificate of Sponsorship.
  For further information, please refer to the UK Border Agency website (new window).
Please select one of the following options*

I am a British Citizen/EEA National.
I am not a British Citizen/EEA National and I am not currently eligible to work in the UK.
I am not a British Citizen/EEA National, but I am eligible to work in the UK. Please give the reason below.

@scaaahu - subtly different, I think, but will answer & point to that

The EEA is the EU plus a number of other European countries (eg Norway) whose citizens have employment rights in the UK. Assuming you're not a dual citizen, option 1 won't apply to you.
If you do not have any reason to assume you are eligible to work in the UK (eg you don't already have a UK work visa) then you should tick opiton 2 - "I am not currently eligible". It is very unlikely that you would have eligibility without already knowing the reasons for it (eg "I already have a work visa").
Then (as @scaaahu says) read this answer to find out how the system works after this point. The important thing to remember is that the university is potentially able to sponsor you to get a visa, so ticking "no" won't stop the application. If they decide to take you, they will be able to take care of the visa issues.
Good luck with the application.

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


text:
Preparing for a CS PhD in Undergraduate
I just finished my first year as an undergraduate student majoring in computer science at a state school not known for computer science. Due to AP credits and such, I have the opportunity to graduate in two more semesters (which will make four in all). To facilitate this, I am taking a class at a different institution this summer. Near the end of last semester, I went through a month or so of anxiety with regards to what to do after graduation. Eventually, I decided that I want to go into academia. Based on what I’ve read on the internet,

There are considerably more CS PhD’s than open faculty positions
Because of (1), it is important that I get a PhD at a prestigious university
PhD applications are highly dependent on research experience and letters of recommendation

I currently have a 4.0 GPA, but my undergraduate college will not help me on applications. Further, I have no research experience. I intend to find a research opportunity when I return to school this Fall, although I don’t know that any of the CS professors at my school are known at the top CS graduate programs.
I am also aiming to talk to some professors at the university I am taking a summer class at about any small possibility of me assisting them in their research over the summer, as this university has a more highly ranked CS program than the one I attend.
My primary interest in in computer security.
Basically, deciding that I want to undertake a PhD kind of puts my schedule on overdrive. I will be taking the GRE and applying to programs in the Fall, so anything I have on my application kind of has to get done over summer.
Have I made any glaringly incorrect conclusions? And
Is there anything else I can do to improve my chances of being accepted into a top PhD program?

What's your hurry?  Are there financial considerations that are pushing you to compress the normal timeline in such an exaggerated way?

It's really not that big of a stretch for me to graduate this early, besides the one summer class, I'm only taking an average of 15 credits each of these four semesters. If I didn't take the summer class, I would be paying for an entire extra semester for four credit hours toward my degree (because of the way my school's prerequisites work, this class is kind of a bottleneck). I'm not compressing my schedule per se, and for me to not graduate this early, I would be filling my schedule with free classes, which I can't justify paying for.

Yes, I'm familiar with those bottleneck courses, good description.  Glad you found a place to take it.  It's true that undergrad research experiences strengthen an application but I think not having that is far from being a deal breaker.  But do read the application instructions carefully at the programs you want to apply for. // Make sure one application is for a master's at a safety school; that way, if you don't get into a top PhD program (as seems to be your goal), you can do your master's at a mid-level school and then apply again for a PhD at a top school.

The following constitutes my $0.02 with regards to your inquiries. First of all, some fragments of your statement caught my attention. I list them below:
"Eventually, I decided that I want to go into academia. Based on what I’ve read on the internet" - I would suggest you try and get some input aside from information you've gathered from the internet. Your current CS professors might be a good choice. Ask them about what PhD programs, about their experiences, about their opinions, etc.
"[...]but my undergraduate college will not help me on applications." - This fragment leads me to believe you attend a college (undergrad-based) and not a Research-1 university. Is this the case?
To answer one of your questions (the last one), see if (Summer next year) you could join a Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program. Those are usually big resumé boosters when it comes to Ph.D. program applications.

Yes, according to the wikipedia page, my college is in the R-2 category. As far as REU goes, I was under the impression that I would be applying to PhD programs in the Fall, and acceptances would come in in the Spring. Are you suggesting looking for an REU the summer after I graduate?

You should be pushing to get into an REU program next Summer (2018). The REU program experience should be already in your resumé when you start applying to Ph.D. programs. If I read correctly, you are taking a course at another university during this Summer. If so, and if this university offers an REU program, I would highly recommend that you enquire about their REU programs, e.g., find out about their requirements, find out about research topics/projects, speak to the faculty member(s) in charge of REU programs, etc. Hope this helps! Good luck!

My expected undergraduate graduation date is Spring 2018. Would you suggest I work in the industry for a year, applying to PhD programs that Fall?

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


text:
How do I deal with crying in front of my supervisor?
I just started my PhD two months ago and I am already feeling stressed out. I don't know how to find a research gap and I'm also not good at communicating or explaining anything. My supervisor told me to reply to his emails and also to communicate with others properly. So while I was presenting I got overwhelmed and cried. Now I'm feeling embarrassed about it. I feel like I'm not cut out for this PhD life. How should I deal with this going forward?

"I'm also not good at communicating or explaining anything."
This is where you can improve, no rush, the others are humans as well, even if they may not show it. You are a PhD student, even when presenting something you may realize you do not master the topic: state you have still to do some of your "homework" and think about yourself 2 weeks from now, accept any positive feedback and if someone bring your "lack of knowledge" at the personal level, please filter their comments, they are nor helpful nor worthwhile to spend time on them ... everyone in the audience with a brain will understand

@EarlGrey That looks like the seed to a great answer. Care to expand?

"reply to his emails" -- Do you also have in person 1-on-1 meetings with him? It's generally easier to discuss personal struggles and get "life advice" face-to-face. Particularly if it's a more informal "chat over coffee" type setting, rather than an "update the boss-man behind the big desk" type setting.

I just have weekly meetings with him and my CO supervisor where I show what I have done

This might be a good moment to reflect on, or explore, what draws you towards PhD studies. There can be several reasons, but it’s good to start understanding more about yourself if only for your own resilience.

There is nothing at all wrong with crying, nor is there any reason to be embarrassed for crying.  On the other hand, if you are "not good at communicating or explaining anything" (your words), you may want to reconsider whether or not getting a PhD is a good match for you.

People should be allowed to be fully human even if it means crying at times. It's probably a significant proportion of graduate students that cry at some point. Graduate school is hard for a variety of complex reasons. It's important that your find a support network which could include peers, mentors, friends, family, spiritual/religious, or therapeutic professionals.

Did they have a box of tissues handy ?

For perspective: I know at least two successful academic colleagues who, as PhD students, cried in front of their supervisors on occasion — and that’s just the ones that have told me.  So I don’t think it’s uncommon at all; and it certainly doesn’t mean you’re not cut out for research.

@EndAnti-SemiticHate: Rather than saying “…reconsider whether getting a PhD is a good match…”, I’d urge OP to simply work targetedly on those communication skills.  They come more or less easily for different people, but they can absolutely be worked on and improved.

@PLL Yes, I agree.  Like most skills, they can be learned.  And like most skills, those specific skills come easier for some, and are more challenging for others to improve.  But one will likely want to have basic competency of such skills before beginning a PhD program, as they are a prerequisite for such an intense and demanding endeavor.

It is perfectly normal to struggle and feel at sea, especially when you are right at the start of your PhD.
I have regular one-on-one meetings with students -- a couple of hours each week -- and this is basically on the high end of normal. I don't monitor how they organize the other 38 hours of their work week, because an important part of being a good PhD supervisor is giving my students the space they need to develop into independent researchers.
However, this is an absolutely huge amount of unstructured time, and it is likely that you have never before been on your own that much. Figuring out how to use that time is really, really hard, and it is genuinely not surprising that you are finding it a really stressful experience. Breaking down into tears in a meeting indicates that you are finding the experience more stressful than usual, but honestly not by that much more than average. I think most people are more likely to feel sympathetic than to hold it against you.
The advice your supervisor has  given you is actually good advice, though when you are embarrassed, it is really difficult to see past the sense of shame to take it.
Let me break this down.

Your advisor has asked you to reply to his emails.
This probably (a) sounds like a reasonable request, which (b) feels emotionally impossible, and that (c) makes you feel like a failure.
The number one thing I tell my students is that the moments they most need to talk to me are the moments that they least want to. If you are doing a PhD, that means you have spent your whole life being "good at school." As a result, when you are struggling, it can feel like an invalidation of your whole sense of self.
But when we do research, we are doing things that literally no one has ever done before. This necessarily involves grappling with difficult problems and trying approaches which end up not working. So struggle is built into the process.
Actually replying to your advisor's emails (and even better, emailing them proactively when you have difficulties) is a key tool for minimizing that struggle.
You have an advisor to give you advice. If your advisor is a mid-career academic like me, that means they have probably spent 20+ years working in the area, and (a) they are less emotionally bothered by failures because they have failed so much and gotten used to it, and (b) they have a broader perspective on the field and can help suggest new lines of attack.
There are few things better in my professional life than helping one of my students "get it", and then watching them zoom past me to do things I couldn't even have imagined. I'm a middle aged dude thinking about his mortality, and passing on what I know to young people who wield it in ways uniquely their own is really deeply calming. You aren't your advisor's rival: you are their legacy to the world. As a result, I want my students to succeed, and when they struggle, I want to help them.
So building a mentor/mentee relationship with your advisor, rather than seeing them as someone you need to impress and manage your image with, is important. (Yes, for career reasons, you do need to impress your advisor. But you do that by building a strong cooperative relationship with them!)

Your advisor suggested talking to other people, too.
The problem with being a mature academic is that the struggles you are going through, are struggles that we went through decades ago, and time has a way of blurring memories.
Talk to all the other people in your research group, both in your advisor's group, and the people who are supervised by other professors doing similar things in your department. Talk to everyone: postdocs, senior grad students, and your junior peers.
Let go of your shame about not knowing things, and give yourself the permission to ask people questions. It is safe to say that most of your peers are giant nerds, and giving them a chance to explain things to you is basically an enormous gift to them. (There might be a few people who sneer at you for asking questions. But they are likely a small minority of the group, and you can just stop talking to them, and talk to everyone else.)
When you ask people things, it is a very good idea to do active listening, where you ask clarifying questions and rephrase what you are told in your own terms. It is also often helpful to start by asking your peers, and then working your way up the experience hierarchy. Your peers will probably have very similar confusions as you, and then once the basic confusions are resolved, you will be more able to interpret the broader perspectives that someone who has seen more things will have, and decide if you agree with them or not. (It's ok to not agree with people, as long as you've made an effort to understand them. You are here to develop as an independent researcher, remember.)
Paper reading groups are a great way of starting these conversations. If your group has a paper reading group, join it. If it doesn't have one, start one. If you worry you will be embarrassed if your advisor or senior postdocs are present, don't invite them. (Reading groups which exclude the faculty, so that the members can ask dumb questions without embarrassment, have a long and storied pedigree.)
These conversations are how you learn to identify research gaps. Identifying research problems is a key skill, but it isn't a discrete, trainable skill like shooting 3-point goals in basketball. It is the totality of your experience as a researcher that lets you identify interesting problems.

To sum up, the stress you are feeling is normal. You are here to learn how to do research, and you shouldn't beat yourself up for not knowing how to do the thing you were admitted into the program to learn how to do. So relax, and let yourself ask people questions about the subject that you love enough to spend half a decade studying.

This is really helpful. You have summed up what I'm feeling. I have the imposter syndrome, so it has been a stressful for me. But learning that this is the norm makes me a little bit better.

Others have provided good answers on all but this point: Crying in front of your adviser.
If it is any consolation to you, every empathetic professor has had students cry in their office. It is not uncommon. I'm not going to say that we like it, but it's also not something that is entirely unexpected or unprofessional. We know that our students are under pressure, and in some sense a student crying in the office is also an indication that they feel that sharing their emotions with us is at least not an entirely terrifying prospect. It's a reflection of us having empathy.
In other words, perhaps don't make it a habit, but you're also not likely to see any negative consequences. It tells your adviser that they need to ensure you get the support you need, and I hope for you that you have an adviser who knows how to give that to you.

Yes. Supervisor assured me that it's normal and gave me plenty of advice. Hopefully I won't make it a habit. I need to get past that embarrassment and make myself better.

That’s very optimistic and positive!

I wish I could upvote this answer more than once.

There @Anonymous, I did it for you have one me too.

@Memyself, that's actually very good to hear. Wasn't sure from your post above how others reacted, and was concerned maybe the prof wasn't so understanding. Sound like they're trying to be empathetic and generally positive., which bodes well for you being able to work with them as you learn and grow through this process.

@Memyself - You said "I need to get past that embarrassment and make myself better."  You need to give yourself time to "get better".  Try this on for size: be as generous and kind to yourself as you would be to a friend.  If that seems too difficult, ask yourself "why should I not?"

Starting a PhD is a big change, and it is no surprise that you need time to adapt (i.e. more than 2 months).
How to find a research gap can be tough. You could talk to your supervisor about what the right strategy is for finding a research gap. Alternatively, talk to your fellow PhD students or maybe a postdoc.
As to getting overwhelmed while communicating: it depends on what the real problem is: it could be being mildly shy and you would "only" need a little practice, to coming from a different culture and needing help adapting to the new culture, to something more serious needing professional help. Notice, that none of my options included quitting. Many universities have resources available to help you. They are usually a good place to start.

Thank you for the advice. I am little bit shy , so I need to improve upon that. I generally don't like to ask help from others thinking it may inconvenience others. So I know it is a learning curve and I need to go out of my comfort zone. Doing that practically is the hardest thing

Have a cry when you need to, and then focus on substantive improvement
Although other supervisors may react differently than me, I don't think you need to feel any embarrassment for crying, and it is not a big deal.  PhD candidates will often struggle with work expectations initially, and it can be cathartic for them to have a cry to let out some of that tension and pain of adjustment.  (In truth, I've only seen this occur with female PhD candidates, not male candidates; in any case, it's not a big deal.)  Just focus on the substantive problem of improving your communication skills and understand that this might take some practice to get used to.
Responsive communication is something you will need in any professional area, whether in your PhD candidature or in a professional work environment.  There is no need for you to feel like you are not cut out for your program --- it is normal to come in with skill gaps and have some initial difficulties plugging those gaps.  Take your supervisor's advice to plug your present skill deficiencies and do not infer that you are inadequate for your program --- if you are not doing well in your program then this is something that will be communicated to you explicitly in your formal feedback.  Have a cry whenever you need to (privately or in front of your supervisor) and then pick yourself up and focus on substantive improvement of your skills.

This makes me feel better. I felt embarrassed initially since I felt like I broke down much earlier in my PhD journey. But hearing that this is normal alleviate my stress, anxiety and embarrassment a little bit

The earliest part of the PhD candidature is usually when you are confronted with skill gaps that were not as big a problem in undergraduate work, but are now starting to cause problems.

Every major university generally has a wellness centre. For example, UIUC has one: https://wellness.illinois.edu/
Check out your university's wellness centre. They're made for, and qualified to deal with situations like this. This is more common than you think it is, and talking to a person irl about the situation will definitely help you.
Hope I helped.

Ok. You cried. Done. Now to the future. Ashamed? No need! We all have feelings and some are so overwhelming we cannot  always control them.
Now it is time to look to the future:

For feelings: Have you consider meditation? It helped me a lot. It allowed me to discover the moment when my feelings were getting a bit to much, identify them, re-frame them as just a thought, and the concentrate on the task at hand.
Have a long talk with your pillow: what drives you to do a PhD? Do you want the title for a better future in industry? do you want it because you want to become expert in an specific field? or do you do it because you do not know what else to do?. It does not matter the answer. The only thing it matters is that you know why you are doing it and that you agree with that decision. Once you really know, all the challenges ahead can be deal with if you know why you are doing what you are doing.
Once you know why, then work on the how: You said you are shy. If you can, try gradually to be in different situations testing your limits of comfort. No too rash, but not to subtle too. Follow some of the advises given here like a graduate office, activities that can help you overcome some of the things that you do not like about being shy. Remember: being shy is not a problem unless it limits you and what you want to be.
And yes: answer e-mails and be part of the team by talking with others. Academia grows upon the shoulder of the previous researchers. Good luck!


text:
Automatic citation management - am I doing it wrong?
I am currently working on my PhD thesis (evolutionary computational biology). Naturally, I have lots of citations, and I use Mendeley's automatic web importer, reference manager, and Word plugin to automate citations. However, when I went over them I found that about 50% have some kind of problem that needs to be fixed manually. Examples of common issues include wrong journal name (e.g. "Nature 2020" instead of "Nature") and missing DOIs.
I understand that automatic citations are not perfect, but I think 50% is way too messy. So my question is: am I doing this all wrong? Maybe there are tools for automatically checking/fixing citations generated by Mendeley? It'd be great if you share your experience and working methods.

Any program I've used requires automatic formatting, so I don't think you're doing it wrong.
Personally, I use Zotero now (free and open source) or .bib files when I'm writing with Quarto, LaTeX, or R Markdown (I've got script to pull citation details from the Digitial Object Identifiers (DOIs) and many citations pulled from DOI require hand editing).


text:
Should I change my primary supervisor?
I'm in my second year and 8 months into my PhD, I am supposed to complete one  SLR and two empirical studies to successfully complete the PhD. I am supposed to be working on a pre-existing database that has the data I need. To access it you need to pre-register your studies (which I've done in 2022). I also have the ethics approval from my uni.
The issue is my primary supervisor will not let me either contact the team to get the database nor would she let me look into what data I have! I feel extremely exhausted by this. I have tried to mediate and explain and request the data for my analysis but every time I do I am asked to wait. When I raised the issue finally to the higher-ups, I found out later from our faculty research coordinator that my primary supervisor had falsely told them that I already have the database and that I am doing quality checks on them. Which is completely untrue, I showed all the evidence to the research coordinator but they seemed to continue to advice me to try and work with my primary supervisor to finish the PhD off or downgrade to a masters.
I don't understand why I should do this? Especially when there hasn't been any issue with my progress. So I looked up the university policy and it clearly states that I can change supervisors if I wanted to. So I am inclined to do that instead of continuously being gaslit into believing that I'm doing well when I truly haven't done anything for my PhD other than the systematics review (which is not complete either btw).

related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/26398/can-someone-change-phd-supervisor-without-changing-research-direction

related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/69051/changing-current-supervisor

You need to have an open discussion with your supervisor. Do you have any co-supervisor? If you do, you could seek help from them. The purpose is to get things clear and know the specific reason why your supervisor stops you by touching the data. Direct communication to your supervisor and focusing on the fact is the best solution at the moment.
Of course, you can move to another supervisor as the last option if you believe that you two cannot work together any longer. Make sure that you can find a better supervisor who could better support and will to take you from your current supervisor. You may not be able to continue for your current work due to IP issues. You need to check with the graduate research office to clean it.
Do not take any rush decision or broadcast your story to anyone who should not be involved in your case. You may not know the whole story, and you may need to survive in the same community in the future.


text:
Asked to suggest referees 9 months after submission: what to do?
I submitted a research paper to a mainstream journal of my math subject domain in December 2023. I did not hear anything from them since, so last month I reached out to them. My editor informed me that she had sent my paper in January 2024 to two referees, none of whom have responded to her invitation till now. She then asked me to suggest "a few names" of some people who I believe could be "good referees" for my paper. She said that she would choose two of them anonymously and invite them to referee my paper but if they too eventually don't respond, then my paper will be rejected.
There are various situations I am thinking about. Most of these have been described in THIS post (suggested to me in the comment below).
The simplest thing is to go ahead and suggest her some names from my field. In this regard, my question (which has not been answered in the above post) is this: can I suggest the names of two people who are acknowledged in my paper? Will it be ethical? I am leaning towards suggesting them because those are the only two people I can GUARANTEE will agree to referee my paper.
Another thing I can do is withdraw my paper from the journal without suggesting her referees or waiting anymore. While the journal is not very prestigious, I am sure I will submit some of my other papers to this journal in the future (2-3 years). I am an early career researcher and I have seen a decent number of papers from my math field getting published here in the last 10-15 years. My question (which has not been answered in the above post) is this: By withdrawing my paper now in response to the editor's above message, can I come across as rude or arrogant and potentially sabotage my chances of publishing in this journal in the future?

This question is similar to: The editor cannot find a referee to my paper after one year. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.

@Anyon Thanks, I edited my question to be more precise, and I have now indicated why the question you mentioned above does not address my concerns here.

The question in the body "Can I suggest people I acknowledged" is unrelated to the title question. Please ask one question per post.

What makes you certain that the suggested reviewers will agree to review?

@Allure I have to suggest a few names and the editor will choose two of them. Of course, I am not certain the two people she randomly chooses will agree to review. I suppose that is a risk I have to take. This situation is also discussed here https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/164007/the-editor-cannot-find-a-referee-to-my-paper-after-one-year.

@Katrina You've written the only two people I can GUARANTEE will agree to referee my paper. How can you be sure these two people will review your paper?

Oh, those two people had some relationship with me while I was carrying out my research, they were interested in my paper and they are editors and reviewers for other journals. In fact, I also kept them in the loop in my 9-month review process. While I did not confirm this with them explicitly recently, given their relationship with me, I am assuming they will agree to referee this paper. Maybe "guarantee" was a strong word.

@Katrina It could be that they decline citing a conflict-of-interest, then.

@Allure thanks, that's a good point I did not think about.

"she had sent my paper in January 2024 to two referees, none of whom have responded to her invitation till now" -- well, that's poor stewardship of the journal on the editor's behalf: These two are not likely ever going to respond now, eight months later. The editor should have looked for others in February already...

@WolfgangBangerth That's why I was also thinking about moving to another journal, but slightly concerned about starting the whole process afresh and if it's the right step. But I think if I suggest new referees now, it will still be "pretty much" the fresh start of the process.

@katrina: Well, have that conversation with the editor. You don't lose much if you go back and forth with the editor for a few days, explaining your questions and asking for their advice. Perhaps they say that they have one review but need a second one (in which case it'd be a shame to just withdraw). Or perhaps they're completely oblivious to the situation and then you know for sure. In any case, having a conversation never hurts.

Yes, you can suggest people you acknowledge in the paper. It should be obvious to the editor that there is some relationship and that the likelihood is of a positive review. You should, however, point out that they are acknowledged. The editor is the one making decisions about whether to invite them and how to evaluate their review, so there is no ethical issue. It might be wise to suggest a couple of others, however.
Withdrawing and submitting elsewhere is also an option, but probably not a better one. For some papers (maybe in math especially) there are a limited number of qualified reviewers in the world and another journal's reviewer stable might overlap with this one. But, I wouldn't consider it rude.

You’re overthinking the issue. She asked you to suggest names, so suggest names. That’s all there is to it. Any ethical implications of who the journal chooses to ask to review your paper are the responsibility of the journal and not your concern. This is assuming you are not hiding any material information on your relationship with the prospective referees you are suggesting (e.g., that one of them is a family member), and that you have not corruptly colluded with or bribed any of the people you are suggesting to guarantee a positive outcome.
Do not suggest your PhD advisor or any other person who has an obvious conflict of interest. Even if you are not hiding the nature of the relationship, such a person cannot be used as a referee. However, just being named in the acknowledgements does not constitute a conflict. And it’s expected that you suggest people who are somewhat familiar with the paper, so it’s quite likely such a person might be mentioned in the acknowledgements.
You can withdraw the paper, and I don’t see a reason why that should hurt you, but I don’t see how it would help either. You may as well try out the editor’s suggestion first and see what happens.

"However, just being named in the acknowledgements does not constitute a conflict. And it’s expected that you suggest people who are somewhat familiar with the paper" Really? Maybe this is a difference in math, but I am picturing an acknowledgement like "Thanks to Dr. Romik for his helpful feedback on an earlier draft" wouldn't be an appropriate reviewer. Maybe "Thanks to Dr. X for sharing her data on OSF" wouldn't constitute a conflict

@AzorAhai editors look for the most objective reviewer out of the pool of qualified people. So if I am thanked for providing feedback on a paper, it probably makes it less likely that an editor would ask me to review the paper. But (in pure math at least) no one will think it’s especially ethically problematic for me to be a reviewer for that reason. And to the limited extent that it may be perceived as problematic, I’d argue that asking the author of a paper to recommend reviewers (whether they are people who were mentioned in the acknowledgements or not) is far more problrmatic.

I suppose, for me, anyone I am thanking in the acknowledgements is too close of a collaborator to be a reviewer, since why else would they have read my manuscript? Haha. I suppose. I also dislike the practice, but I am now in the habit of generating potential reviewers as I write a paper from people I'm citing that don't know me/my PIs.

@AzorAhai it’s certainly possible that someone named in the acknowledgements would be too close to the author to serve as referee. Those two things are correlated, but one is not the cause of the other. And if there was a rule that people named in the acknowledgements could not serve as reviewers, many papers could not be reviewed effectively…

It seems we have very different norms about acknowledgements, then.

There're two different questions in the OP:

can I suggest the names of two people who are acknowledged in my paper? Will it be ethical?

The danger here is that the reviewers will have a conflict of interest. If they are acknowledged, then they presumably have firsthand knowledge of the work. For many editors/publishers that would be sufficient to disqualify them as reviewers; for other editors/publishers it could still be OK as long as the conflict of interest is disclosed.
You can pass the decision to the editor by disclosing that the suggested reviewers are acknowledged. If the editor invites them anyway, then it would be on the editor. Because there's a chance the editor will say no, you might want to suggest other, non-acknowledged reviewers as well to speed things up slightly.

By withdrawing my paper now in response to the editor's above message, can I come across as rude or arrogant and potentially sabotage my chances of publishing in this journal in the future?

Probably not. Journals see so many papers that most individual papers fade into the background. If your paper is unique in some way - which doesn't have to be the academic content, it could e.g. be if you submitted as a solo author while a PhD student and listed three different affiliations - then the editor might remember it. Even then they're unlikely to take retributive action. It's ultimately the author's prerogative which journal to submit to; furthermore if they agree that 9 months with no visible sign of review reflects badly on them (most people would), then they're more likely to be embarrassed than angry.

I don't think it follows from the quoted part that the reviewers will have a conflict of interest, though OP's comments certainly make it seem that way. Similarly, in general, I don't believe "We thank X for helpful discussions" implies a firsthand knowledge of the work, but the comment stating "while I was carrying out my research, they were interested in my paper" make that interpretation likely.


text:
How people build their connections for the sake of publications
A long time ago, I discussed this with a PhD candidate. He was honest and always shared his experience in his academic life. One of several things he has mentioned is the importance of building some connections for the sake of publications. Unfortunately, he did not elaborate on how one can make this skill. I would like to pursue my PhD, and before doing so, I need to publish some papers, at least as a second or third author, until I know how the publishing process works.
When I was conducting my Master's, which would have been the perfect time to publish, my supervisor was extremely hard to deal with concerning publications. He doesn't believe in publications for the sake of it; instead, he only publishes new and extremely fancy ideas, if there are any, or he enhances some approaches, but these enhancements also must be invaluable. I've read several papers from big names in the same field with simple yet effective ideas. This is not only me complaining about this issue, but all his students do so. Honestly, my supervisor is friendly, respectful, and has a PhD in engineering with a solid background in mathematics. However, he is meticulous about his reputation. For example, he conducts his publications without sharing or telling his students about them. I can understand that, but as a grad student, I think I have a right to know how publications are done. Unfortunately, this kind of experience is hard to pick up from books.
So my question:
How do people conduct, share and publish their ideas based on connections they build off-campus?

"He doesn't believe in publications for the sake of it" he sounds like a good advisor

@Luigi,  he is good I can say that but his PhD students publish at most one or two papers if they are lucky yet better professors than him are way tolerant and involve their students in their publications. Remember, he doesn't publish surveys which is completely acceptable.

There are often trainings offered ba the library explaining the publication process and showing submission processes. One could also ask nearby PhD students for the opportunity to look over their shoulder or assist them.

If you insist on publishing with off-campus fellows, could you please clarify your current position? Are you still in the master program?

Your advisor probably was simply trying to be objective and tell you that, by the standards of your field, the content of your thesis was not innovative enough for a publication. (Don't take it as a bad thing, this is true of many thesis, depending also on the field).

You have it backwards: first produce good science then think about publishing it. Whether you "need" papers published is irrelevant.

At the time you are going to publish your first paper you will most likely not be the single author. So there will be others to guide you through the process. Everyone goes through this. As already said, focus on producing good science. It is not worth to publish crap just because you feel you need to publish and it will hurt your reputation. Listen your advisor. If he publishes good stuff, strife to do like him, not like the "number collectors".

What is your question? How to find collaborators? How to convince your supervisor to coauthor a paper of yours that they find premature? How to convince them to make you co-author?

@Roland, where is the link that discusses finding collaborators?

@FuzzyLeapfrog, I'm done my Master.

@skymningen, "It is not worth to publish crap" no one says that. People take the phrase for the sake of publications in a wrong direction and forgot the real question.

@CroCo Honestly, the stuff people publish "for the sake of publications" is very often not well thought through and at the end of the day crap with a catchy title.

I support the use of the word 'crap' in this context. It's not an academic term by any means, but its disparaging nature highlights the noteworthy disdain felt by the academic community to such articles. They are not likely 'crap' in the context of literature as a whole, but their expendable, commodified nature in the related disciplinary cannon makes them surplus and potentially useless.

People who attempt to publish for the sake of it are of little credit to their field. Publishing is about giving back to your field, not taking from it. The likelihood of publication is not based on 'networking' as such, it is based on the strength of the work. If you submit a high enough quality manuscript to a journal, it will be reviewed/accepted regardless of your network. Focus on good writing and research, the rest will come.