text:
Just started a postdoc, but it went REALLY bad, REALLY fast. Stay or go?
I just started my 2-yr postdoc, but things have gone sour really fast. So, I really need some career advice as to what to do.
Over several months, I did the interviews with the supervisor and the lab and things seems to be really great (although I got a strange feeling that the lab members were trying to deter me from joining, see below).
I joined the lab last week, and the condition of the lab and the equipment was really poor (but the supervisor said it was great...), but I got along with the supervisor and the lab great. However, this week took a turn for the worse. My supervisor has been vicious with me for several days and we have had a major conflict almost everyday this week, which I believe is a bad sign when something like this happens when starting a position. The other members of the lab said that the supervisor is frequently is overbearing, micromanages, and has "lost it" on them for reasons as asking for vacation. As I said, I met with these lab members via Skype over the summer and I felt that there were trying to warn me not to join the lab, and today they confessed that this was true. One of the lab members did file a complaint against the supervisor. The situation was that the supervisor typically makes numerous phone calls during weekends and the one time the lab member did not answer, the supervisor was furious with her. She then made a complaint to the appropriate person in the department.
I am concerned about the supervisor and more concerned that this is not going to help my career at all since the mentoring by this supervisor is poor quality (this is how the other lab members feel after being there for almost 2 years. They are leaving immediately after that). She has promised a good work environment, additional pay to the NIH base pay, flexible time off and great equipment, but all of this is not true. The other lab members confirmed that this happened to them too. Basically, this supervisor promises a lot of things and does not deliver.
So with all of that being said, is it wise for me to leave ASAP and look for a better opportunity OR is it best to stay put and complete the 2-year postdoc (or most of it). I don't favor leaving a job this soon and would rather give things a chance, but this place has been extremely BAD. Furthermore, the lab members feel that this is not a good workplace and confirm that the behavior of the supervisor will continue (they have their reasons for staying, but really regret joining). For these reasons, I don't feel staying is beneficial to be perfectly honest.
I would rather not have to ask for advice about this, but I am in an uncomfortable situation and any advice is extremely appreciated. Hopefully I expressed this clearly... I'm kind of a mess right now.
EDIT:
I have resigned from the position. But, I have obtained a new position with someone I know well and has helped the careers of people I know. Aside from the conflict with the supervisor and the experiences of other people in the lab, the position I'm resigning from just does not offer any development for my career as per my impression prior to arriving in the lab. Unfortunately, what attracted me to this position was not the reality. Even giving this position more time would not change the condition of the equipment I have to work with (and the lack of equipment), the lack of safety practices in the lab, nor would it change the supervisor's lack of organization, leadership and the control of her emotions.
Also, I discovered that all of the current lab members plan on leaving within the next few months. Past/current postdocs typically do not last more than 2 years.

You already know what to do. Don’t walk. Run.

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

@RH88 With all the descriptions you provided, it seems the supervisor is an abusive person who does not care about the students. No matter you (or other lab members) decided to leave or not, please do a favor to future postdocs (and also to yourself) and report this to a higher authority (e.g. department chief, labs director) in the university/institution which the lab is part of. The supervisor needs to be understood or reminded that he/she cannot break the code of conducts and the contracts you have with him/her.

@JalapenoNachos Mental health is more important than publications.

With all else the same, given an choice between staying in a bad situation that cannot be resolved or leaving it, the decision is easy.
Of course, all is never exactly the same. When the balance is uneven, I hold at the point where you are that following your passions and desire for healthy growth is the most important factor. You can and will end up in situations where leaving has worse consequences than staying and you must therefore resolve the issues at hand or let go (and stay where you are). Is this case really to that point for you? I sense not.
As you weigh the various concerns, realize that you owe the lab only the respect that you will never be dishonest. The promptly, professionally delivered statement that "I am leaving because this is not the fit that I really wanted" is all that is required at the end of the day.

re "given [the] choice between staying in a bad situation that cannot be resolved or leaving, the decision is easy": i have been in that situation twice now in my most recent career moves. The trick is actually keeping your head out of the sand, talking to your friends/family/mentors/coworkers-you-can-trust, actively introspecting... doing all that to ensure that you are aware enough that you are in that situation. Earlier in my career I made the mistake of keeping my head in the sand in bad situations... and the bad-situation blew up in my face resulting in not smooth transitions.

@user32882 You can always say screw it and leave, in principle. But then you have no income until you find a new job. It might be hard to stay in your home. You can't provide for your dependents. It's not actually that easy for most people to leave their job without another job to go to straight away.

@DavidRicherby I completely agree. What I mean by saying "screw it" and leaving is doing it in the safest and most reasonable way possible, not by losing it all of a sudden and quitting your job in a split-second decision. I am talking about the deliberate, planned outcome of weeks, perhaps months of applying for new jobs and going to interviews without your current employer necessarily knowing. The second you start looking for a new job is, to me, the first step of saying screw it and leaving. The idea is to not quit a job until you get a new job offer.

@user32882 OK. When you said "screw it", I thought you meant leave immediately. I fully agree with your expanded version.

When saying "I am leaving because this is not the fit that I really wanted," bear in mind that "this" might also be more precisely expressed as "abusive 'mentorship', poorly equipped lab, fearful co-workers, and dishonesty about the conditions of employment" CC'ed to HR along those lines might also help—not you personally—but future postdocs and their averted misery.

You, and only you, are responsible for your own happiness.
If you don't leave, you'll be miserable for 2 years. A poor postdoc now might also damage your future career, although probably not fatally. Are you OK with that? If so, by all means stay; otherwise, nobody is going to intervene to improve the equipment in the lab, make your supervisor less abusive, make you happy, etc.
In the end it's your decision to make, but I would strongly incline towards leaving.

"You have a right to your own happiness." Not sure about that, but everyone is definitely responsible for their own happiness.

@Mast I was going to quote the US Declaration of Independence, but then realized how that is jumping the gun. Edited, thanks!

@Allure the Declaration of Independence says people have the right to pursue happiness, but it doesn't say they have the right to catch it if they decide to chase after it!

Start looking for new positions immediately and make this your primary occupation.
If you can cope with the working conditions, consider staying until you find a new position. Set a high bar for this. Your mental health matters more than having the job, presumably. Workplace bullying might very well be illegal where you are; consider gathering evidence and submitting it to the local police or relevant university services, if those are reasonable options.
If you can not cope with the position, leave.

In any case, tell your former advisors and other senior people whom you know that the person is abusive. You should have been explicitly warned before going there. Spread the word among all the people you know well, and who trust your judgment.
Spread the word of their abusiveness by telling what happened, with evidence where possible. You can also tell how you reacted to the events. Either do not describe your guesses about the motivations and other unverifiable factors, or at least be very explicit about what they are. Stick to the truth, because you might be challenged, and then you will rather defend your version of what happened, rather than your guesses about what someone else was thinking and feeling.

I absolutely cannot condone the manner used to recommend to "spread the word ... all the people you know ... (this person is abusive)". Bad-mouthing anyone by labelling them as abusive, regardless of the validity of the statement, is absolutely NOT professional and may border on being unethical. I hope this post might be edited to make a recommendation "spread the word" that is followed by what and how to do so in a professional manner rather than in a seemingly vindictive one.

@JeffreyJWeimer I stand by spreading the word if someone is genuinely abusive; otherwise, they will continue the abuse. I edited in a couple of words to have you spread the word among the people who trust you, not everyone.

The best way to "spread the word" is NOT by calling a person abusive. It is by framing the incidents that occurred in an un-qualified, objective manner. The actions were abusive. Whether the person behind them should be labeled as abusive is a not a call the OP is qualified to make, nor should he be asked (indeed here told) to make it. Certainly the OP should not be told to call a person abusive regardless of the trust leve at the other end. By example, since your reply has not recognized this, would I be OK now to label you as dense? I have a lot of folks who "trust my judgement".

@user2258552 An assumption is required. I have no grounds to make such an assumption. Regardless of the prior level of trust that anyone else has with the OP, they given second hand information that could be false in that instance. The OP must be qualified to apply the label. Being qualified to label a person "abusive" is a bar the OP likely does not meet. The best the OP can do is to make factual statements about the incident. Here we agree. The call for the OP to "spread the word (that the person is abusive)" is otherwise misplaced. This is not an opinion, it is an ethical stand.

@JeffreyJWeimer You make a good point about sticking to verifiable claims. Thanks. I added a paragprah. The way to tell that someone is abusive is precisely to tell what happened and stick to the truth.

Thanks. Well stated. I've upvoted accordingly.

"consider gathering evidence and submitting it to the local police": I'm not sure cops will even know what the hell is post-doc to be able to intervene in this problem :) !

@aloneprogrammer this is an underrated comment.

The quicker you leave the easier it will be for everyone. A postdoc position is usually a transitional stage which isn’t good, overall. Thus, don’t waste your time on one which is already gone bad.
There are professors looking for postdocs by the dozens. Spend all resources and time you can muster in networking , and try to avoid your predatory supervisor. You don’t owe this person anything.
When you got all contacts you need for the best, take your time at home packing, and then let them know you’re leaving. Probably your supervisor will be taken aback (usually postdocs are desperate and will just accept any abuse) and show nicer faces. Don’t fall for apologetic rhetoric, and just move on. Make sure you make good friends with your labmates, ad they’re probably good fellas.
Good luck!

"Don’t fall for apologetic rhetoric, and just move on." − Yes, this very much. Manipulative people will almost always use a sweet tongue to keep you in their grasp. People who truly regret their actions will make concrete and public amends, not just exercise their tongue.

In this case, even if they offer concrete improvements to your working conditions it would be a bad idea to stay based on that. Your supervisor has lied to you before, so there's no reason to think that she won't lie to you again. Even if things improve in the short term, those improvements are likely enough to disappear if they're not things she believed she should be providing in the first place in a work environment.

–1 "A postdoc position is usually a transitional stage which isn’t good, overall."

Your supervisor has a department manager. Escalate this. There is no reason that this should be treated any differently to abuse from a manager in any other place of work.
Before you do though, make sure you have evidence to show. If you were promised a top notch lab, make sure you have evidence of how the current state of the lab and equipment is not up to standard. If you were promised extra money, get your pay slip out. If you were promised flexible time off, make sure you have all the emails from when you have requested time off and been refused. And most of all, make sure your meetings with her are never just one-to-one, so that there are always witnesses to her behaviour.
You may find that her boss doesn't like her either, and they'd like a reason to get rid of her.
Worst case, the department manager does nothing. In that case you're no worse off than you are now. From what your describing, it's already about as bad as it gets.

The choice to "escalate this" is not in itself that easy to make. Nor is it perhaps necessary or always possible. Nor should it be done lightly. Ultimately, we have no justification to propose that actions based on rules of intimidation and confrontation (i.e. ESCALATE THIS) are valid to resolve inter-personal conflict. The better statement here is to recommend for the OP to collect objective documentation in case he determines the issue should/must be brought to superiors to resolve. No manager likes to have to do the equivalent job of separating fighting children on a playground.

@JeffreyJWeimer Absolutely, it's not easy to do.  That's why it's essential to have your evidence in place.  You can approach your supervisor's boss informally, if that's possible, and say how uncomfortable you are with having to raise this, but you feel it's the only constructive way forward for the department.
It's also important to be clear that you're not looking for any personal advancement, you're just wanting to do your job effectively and get the pay/conditions you'd agreed when you started.

This seems like odd (bad) advice that is based on mis-applying business logic to academia. Academic departments don't usually have a "departmental manager" who is a faculty member's "boss" and who can "get rid of her" like that. There are Departmental Chairs who can influence such decisions, but probably not in the 2-year time frame being discussed. It's just not how universities work.

@Graham The call to escalate this should never be the first one made at the start of a confrontation. I sit on the other side as an instructor. I have students who are handed the equivalent of your first paragraph and take it as gospel. At the first sign of conflict (and I can at times be rather blind to my own faults), they run to the Dean and I subsequently never have a chance to work to resolve the conflict with them as the respectful first step. I hope that you might consider to revise your post to correct this mis-perception.

Thank you all for the comments. The behaviour of the supervisor is bad, and is off/on, but can get very bad. The major issue for me is that working here with a poor work equipment, guidance, and people that warn me not to work here are major red flags. I need something that can help me development my career most of all.

@JeffreyJWeimer I'm afraid your expectations are unrealistic, because the person on the receiving end may have no expectation that you will be respectful - and in the OP's situation, they may have ample proof of disrespect, lying and generally acting in bad faith. It is perfectly possible to disagree without it constituting "conflict", and if it does then I'm afraid your students are doing exactly what they should be doing.

@Graham I say, the first step is to state the case professionally to the advisor or instructor regardless of expectations. Simply say "I think our discussions are one-sided and my input has no value". When confronted with a student's complaint, my Chair will ask whether the student has at least talked with the instructor about his/her concerns. As for respect, how is it then viewed when a student jumps straight to the Dean due to no expectations of respect and the instructor was only having a personal crisis. In any case, I agree with a need to document the abusive behavior.

@JeffreyJWeimer One-sided is different - I would be disappointed if the lecturer didn't know more than their students! :) That is bad teaching, not letting students express themselves, but is not of itself abusive. Abusive is rather different, and is never acceptable or justifiable under any circumstances. As for respect though, if students are jumping straight to the Dean because they believe their instructor is unable to respect them, and they have good cause to believe this, then this absolutely should reflect badly on the instructor. And they would be right not to respect the instructor.

@Graham > And they would be right not to respect the instructor. ... I might still say that respect is due to the process whereby complaints are initiated. An email to the instructor that says I/we are frustrated by a lack of respect is all that is needed. It is the underlying lesson that is otherwise conveyed that all issues with interpersonal relationships can be beaten if you have a big enough stick that I cannot condone.

I think this answer does not account for typical power structures in Academia: supervisor in the context of academia typically means a professor, and though there is usually a department structure with someone as head of the department, they are often more like peer to the professor, they do not have the managerial oversight you would find outside academia. Some academic departments may vary, but it very much does not make sense to treat this like a workplace situation.

Lots of good advice in the answers already, but one additional factor to consider: the next time you apply for a position, you will quite possibly be asked for a reference from your most recent supervisor.
If you leave this situation ASAP, you will have the option of saying "I was only there for two weeks, I suggest talking to my previous supervisor instead."
OTOH, if you tough it out for two years - or even a few months - this abusive supervisor will almost certainly be writing the reference that you take to your next job application. This might not be a good thing.

This is excellent advice. However mind that being "asked for a reference from your most recent supervisor" is not the usual practice in many countries, to what regards academic positions.

@Scientist huh, I wasn't aware of that. Changed "almost certainly" to "quite possibly".

Great! As an example, for a postdoc in China I was only asked for a recommendation letter from my PhD advisor, although I had already gone through two previous positions before (RA & postdoc). On an extreme case, in my home country (in Latin America) no reference letters are ever necessary for any position, including full professorship.

@Scientist thanks, that's fascinating to know! I've been in academia-ish government work for the last ~ ten years and clearly my experience on this point is less transferable to true academia than I'd thought.

Having left early once won't impact your career. Everyone who's worth working with will understand. It can even get you some extra respect in an interview. So if you don't have a record of leaving fast already:
Start job hunting.
Leave when you have something new or it is getting to bad there.
Meanwhile: know you don't be there for long and put on your (professional) whatever face and enjoy the show. Or at least don't let it get to you.

Simply submitting to the abusive manager does nothing to break the cycle of abuse.  If you are convinced that the manager is wrong, then you must do something.
Escalating the issue in the organization is a good thing, something that has low downside for you and which you can do right now.  If the organization defends the supervisor, then you don't just have an abusive boss: you also have an abusive boss's boss.
Submitting to an abusive boss's boss does nothing to break the cycle of abuse.  If you are convinced that the boss's boss is wrong, then you must do something.
If you have exhausted your options for escalation, then you have another choice: To get THE LAW involved or to leave quietly.  In any case, begin documenting your interactions with your supervisor very carefully right now!
Make a log of what the supervisor says using direct quotes.  Explain the context.  Write the time and place, and name each person who would serve as a witness.
If the abuse is not by words, then write exactly what it is the supervisor is doing.  Again, note context, time, location, and any other persons who may serve as a witness.  It is not necessary to get their consent, but it would be helpful if you knew which of them would probably help you.
Document this crap as long as you are willing to.  Then, if you are in the US or the UK (or Canada, Western Europe, or another liberal country) get a consultation with a lawyer.  This should not cost more than a hundred dollars / hundred pounds / dozen lunches / whatever.
Even if you decide not to speak with a lawyer, retain your paperwork; don't give it away; keep a copy at home.  Let somebody you trust at the institution know that you are doing this.  The paperwork will help you emotionally later when you begin to doubt your own rationale for leaving, and it may help the lawsuit that another employee does file.
Good luck!

Having your smartphone at hand to record any abuse and interaction helps a lot on this. So simple, and nobody does it.

@JeffreyJWeimer, we're talking about intense fights every day, corroborated by others who call the behavior abusive.  Would you think it was worse if the abuse was only directed at old post-docs?  Male post-docs?  Post-docs of a certain (or not of a certain) race/religion/etc?   ...and if those things make it worse, then why is it OK now?

@JeffreyJWeimer, I'm not suggesting that the individual start with a lawyer: I'm suggesting that they approach the supervisor (presumably this has already happened), then the boss's boss (which would get HR involved), and if they are convinced that the boss's boss (together with HR) are wrong, then to consider getting a lawyer, or to leave.

@JeffreyJWeimer, it is never wrong to speak with a lawyer.  All the academic due process problems we've heard about (with sex harassment) would not have happened in courts--- they happen in internal investigations.

@JeffreyJWeimer, if the employee has signed an arbitration agreement, they are bound to those terms, but they still have the right to a lawyer.  http://www.insightemployment.com/pg15.cfm

@elliotsvensson In retrospect, I have focused solely on the question of whether to leave or not. This was the sole question that was posed by the OP. I have not addressed the question of whether/how to handle the abuse. This is an underlying question, and I must agree that your statements fully address it. Due process is to be respected. To initiate it, the OP should meet in person with the Chair of the Department or, when appropriate, with the Dean of the College, and should outline the situation.

KEEP A RECORD OF EVERYTHING.
Keep a record of:

every email;
every meeting;
every conversation, even casual, in the corridor,

that you have had with:

your supervisor;
the other lab members.

In the future, you want to be sure that you remain objective and remember facts, not impressions.

Clearly, you don't want to be there anymore. But I do understand your hesitation to just leave. Inevitably, you'll have to tell the people you're applying to and possibly future employers why you left. Then they'll have the option to trust you, or worry that you're just the kind of person who complains and doesn't play well with others. Unfortunately, due to the power dynamic, and the fact that other post docs choose to stay, you may not be framed in the best light. I have two recommendations to overcome that:

As someone else said, file a complaint, or at least talk to the person above your supervisor. Preferably something in writing, but do whatever you're most comfortable with. That way you can tell any incredulous interviewer that at least attempted to make the situation better - and who knows, you might actually make the situation better, if not for you, maybe for the other postdocs.
The other thing I would recommend is reaching out to your own Ph.D. advisor if you had a good relationship (or any Ph.D. mentor you had along the way). Scientific communities are pretty small overall. So it's possible your advisor could reach out to any potential NEW employers and explain your situation, so when you have to explain why you left after such a short time, they've already heard it from a PEER. That way the power dynamic of that specific conversation is shifted.

Thank you for this advice. The impression of leaving early is something I am concerned about. Currently, I'm on option 2 (speaking with a long-time and very trusted thesis advisor). They may have a position in their lab as well. We are going to speak later today. The lab members in the current lab I'm in said that my decision to leave is takes a lot of courage, and they wish they made this choice when they started.

@RH88 Sometimes, just taking a hiatus for a month helps recalibrate everything. I know of post-docs who did so for other reasons.

@RH88 I understand that, in the narrative of those who endure this situation, leaving is seen to take 'a lot' of courage. In fact, I tend to think that it would take a minimal amount of courage and common sense, a sense of perspective, and the possibility to arrange financial and organizational buffers for the transition. Your colleagues have been kind to you to warn you not to join, and you have been perceptive enough to sense that. Don't fall in the trap they fell in: thinking that superhuman courage is needed to live decently. There are very elegant answers in this post. Thanks for sharing.

I had a similar experience during my PhD, not a postdoc position.
I sucked all up and stayed. Had my share of supervisor-bullying and made my days really bad. However, I managed to finish my PhD and got my degree.
I can now say to my ex-supervisor: F U without any remorse or mind conscience.
I thought of finding another supervisor, but no one can guarantee you a fair supervisor! You might end up with even worse supervisor (that is the truth).

Big like for that F U part though ;) !

As someone who is in the same situation (i'm currently moving from a bad postdoc lab), just find a new position. Don't wait until things get worse. If the PI is not as everyone says, there's a high probability that they will sabotage you if you don't follow on their steps.
This in itself counts as a signal of a bad lab.

I am sorry to say, but I think the "leave now" answers are false.
You don't know enough from this position yet: your description clearly shows that you are under the influence of a bad first impression.
You don't know your other opportunities yet: if you would know, you would know, what to do, and this question wouldn't exist.
The other people saying that the supervisor is... bad, are still here, why?
So:

Don't do anything before you don't learn this place a little bit better.
Don't do anything before your other opportunities aren't enough clear for you.

Learn and watch. And look for the alternatives, silently.

...and write down, in detail, exactly what your supervisor is doing.  You don't need to show this to anybody, but it will help you in all your thinking.

So maybe the supervisor really isn't that bad, the other lab-members are just liars collectively plotting against the supervisor and the new postdoc? Not better. I've watched lots of people stay with terrible supervisors. The most common factor seems to be they are very poor, usually international, who feel trapped for financial reasons. Relocating to a new job is expensive. Apartments also typically require long leases that are very expensive to break.

@ASimpleAlgorithm I didn't say that he should remain, I said that he shouldn't do any irrecoverable before he learns both his situation and the alternatives well. Yes, these things are hard, but he might be also a "new dog in the flock", i.e. he has to deal with some "inital transient" while he adapts his group. In the place of the OP, I would give them more time (mainly, to clear the crucial thing: why the others won't go, if it is really so bad?), but yes it is quite possible that also I would go.

@ASimpleAlgorithm If there are financial reasons to avoiding any change: I think then the correct thing is: collecting money in the first months for the move, and then never allowing to get into such a situation.

I have to commend the OP for making the decision to leave, which is the right one, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, I only know this now where it's too late. When I was in the exact same situation, I felt like I had to suffer through and I did. I just went through a 2-years Post-doc under the direction of what fits the description of a narcissistic PI with all it entails from exploitation, unreasonable demands, public shaming, aggression, rudeness, threats, and all that without any real underlying cause or justification. I have fulfilled all my duties and more and always at highest standards. Though, in the end, I'm not sure I will be an author on a fraction of the publications from the work I was involved in. Right now, I'm being bullied into stepping down from a first-author article I prepared. I was made all these promises in the beginning and I thought I found paradise. Though, other lab members had been oddly quiet when I mentioned such promises and so I realised quickly that something wasn't right. What I know now is that loosing a couple of months by leaving a just started position is not a loss at all, it's a win. It frees up time and opportunities to find a better place and be productive, because abuse and exploitation are not beneficial to one's career or well-being. I just finished Post-doc and am looking at almost zero research output and I'm receiving immensely rude and aggressive e-mails almost on a daily basis. My advice now is, as soon as you realise that something isn't right, trust your instincts and what people in the lab tell you. Most likely, you are not an exception and leaving is the best choice.

There is a proverb. "It is easy to be smart, afterwards". I think it is better to optimize not for instincts. Optimize for your real lifelong goals, and the possible probabilities visible at the moment.

I'd focus on your goal and weigh if this environment is the best option among any other options/opportunities you may have for the current circumstances and your goal.
To share my experience and a learnt lesson, it's not wise to escalate emotionally (such as making intense fight- often becoming a prolonged bad relationship), but also not good to stay long in an unhappy environment being silent and isolated. If you can address and resolve it without hurting the relationship it would be great, but if the behavior is repeating to others as well, maybe the chance isn't that high. Like someone mentioned above, try to be objective and observe the person, interactions and most importantly yourself (how you perceive and feel and why, and what you really want to do about it for the best of your interest). You can be clear of what to do if you know what you want.


text:
Scientific Topic on Wikipedia originated from a Scientific Article with Low Citations
As fas as I see it, one way to known if certain scientific article is important or relevant, is to see how much cited it is .. For example, let's take Karl Schwarzschild
He's known better known for an article called:

Uber das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einstein'schen
  Theorie

He published this article in 1916 and from this paper, concepts like Schwarzschild Black Hole, Schwarzschild Metric, Schwarzschild Radius, Schwarzschild Coordinates were originated
So, all of these topics are in wikipedia and one should expect this article to be highly cited, and it is, according to google scholar it has 1331 citations, so it is an important or relevant paper
Schwarzschild publised other topics, like this article:

On the deviations from the law of reciprocity for bromide of silver gelatine

In this article originated the concept of Schwarzschild's Law, one might think that that scientific concept is not as important as a Schwarzschild Black Hole, so, if you see how much cited it is, according to google scholar, it only has 62 citations
From here, we can do a conjecture, the more cited a research paper it is, the more relevant or important the scientific work it is, and if a Scientific Work is important, it is going to be possible to find that topic on places like wikipedia.
My problem comes with certain topics that sometimes I find, for example this one: Fubini–Study Metric. Since it has its own article on Wikipedia, one should expect that the paper where Eduard Study introduce this concept to be highly cited, but when you see where it was originated:

Kürzeste Wege im komplexen Gebiet

published in 1905, you only find that according to google scholar, it only has 14 citations ...
For a topic with a wikipedia article almost as big as the one of Schwarzschild Radius, this doesn't make any sense to me ... What's going on? Google Scholar is not giving me the corerct number of citations? Does it really has only those citations?, Does the concept was not originated on that article (Wikipedia says it was)?

There is no relationship between Wikipedia content and Google Scholar citations.  And there is no need for them to be related.

Are you making the assumption that the relevance of an article is defined by being on wiki?

Well, kinda? I just tought that if a topic was popular, probably the paper too, and probably it would be on the wiki

There is also only a weak relationship between the number of google scholar citations and scientific relevance, especially for pre-internet publications.

@SolarMike if so, here are some counterexamples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unusual_articles

@henning--reinstateMonica ate you confusing assumption with example?

@Solar Mike I meant to say, here are some examples showing that the assumption is faulty, just as you say.

@henning--reinstateMonica shame the comments disappeared, if you had said that at the beginning it would have been clearer.

This question slightly reinforces my policy of ignoring citation counts.

Wikipedia is a volunteer encyclopedia. People write whatever they want to write about. Someone found Fubini–Study metric interesting enough to write a big article on it (you can look through the article's history to see who they are). This doesn't mean the subject is very notable, only that it meets Wikipedia's so-called "general notability guideline". Therefore there's no reason to expect that the scientific articles that initiated the Fubini-Study metric to have a lot of citations.
As an illustrative comparison: the relatively obscure Bowling Green State University has a much more comprehensive article than the more highly ranked, bigger, and richer University of Tokyo. This doesn't mean that Bowling Green State University is somehow more notable than the University of Tokyo; more likely it means that among Wikipedia editors there are more BGSU alumni than UTokyo alumni - which shouldn't be surprising, since these Wikipedia articles are written in English. Compare the same articles in Japanese.

English Wikipedia is written in English. Wikipedia exists in many languages.

To illustrate mmeent's point to this otherwise excellent answer: Bowling Green State University vs.University of Tokyo in the Japanese Wikipedia.

This answer is incomplete as it only deals with the Wikipedia side of the equation. See the answer by user123675 for the citations side. Having an article in Wikipedia is probably more significant than having many citations. Citations (or the lack thereof) can be accidental, but writing a Wikipedia article requires quite some work and motivation.

Citations are a poor metric for judging the quality or importance of a paper. The number of citations varies widely field by field: to stay with your example, papers in physics get a lot more citations than papers in math. It is impossible to compare.
This is especially true for old papers. For something settled as long ago as the Fubini–Study metric (more than a century!), people will prefer to cite modern accounts written in more accessible language. You wouldn't cite Leibniz or Newton when talking about differentiability, would you? I expect that their papers (if it even makes sense to talk about such things) to have abysmal citation metrics compared to modern standards. And yet nobody would even dare suggest that calculus is not important.
You also seem to be under the impression that the importance of a topic is the same as the importance of the paper where this topic was introduced. This is not the case. Maybe Study defined his metric as some kind of afterthought in his original paper and didn't really see the value in it, but 50 years later someone discovered something life-changing about it and now nobody can get enough Fubini–Study metric. In this situation, the original paper would barely get any citations, and the more recent paper would get tons.

(+1) but 50 years later someone discovered something --- Indeed, if one looks through the google searches for this paper one will find it cited in several books (real books, not just journal volumes that show up in google-books), which I think is a much more significant indication of the paper's influence than how many citations it gets by other papers.

But then, it should't be called Fubini-Study Metric, it should be called Fubini-Study-This_Another_Person Metric .. or I don't know ..

and there is also old papers very cited too, like the example of Schwarzschild (written more than a century too!)

If something is called after someone you can be sure (s)he made an important contribution, but you can be equally sure (s)he did not invent it. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

The size of a wikipedia article says nothing. A large article just means that there is a single or a few people on the internet who are interested enough in this topic to write it down. So even obscure topics can get a large article on wikipedia.
The number of citations is also very complex. There is often a bandwagon effect, where an article gets cited because it got cited a lot before. This way an important article could get eclipsed by a less important one. Science is done by humans, and humans are imperfect.
So if you want to know a field, you should know the highly cited articles or books, manuscripts, or whatever the usual form of publication is in that field is. But you should also keep an eye out for the "forgotten" literature. The problem is, that there is just too many articles to read them all. Fortunately, you are not alone. If all researchers in a field keep an eye out for these hidden gems, then there is a fair chance they will eventually be found.
To find out if "Kürzeste Wege im komplexen Gebiet" is such a hidden gem, you will just have to read it and make up your own mind if you consider this a worthwhile article.

I agree with the other answers that your general premise is flawed. But even if it wasn't there were some other errors you made.
First of all, you are comparing a math paper with a physics paper. While the two are somewhat adjacent, the publication culture in both is quite different. In particular mathematics tends towards few but longer papers. As a result there are inherently less citations. 14 is not great, but personally, I'd still consider that a well accepted maths paper, especially for its time.
This leads to the next point, if at all, citations are only a measure of how well an idea was received in the next few years after publication. As soon as an idea becomes "general knowledge" and possibly enters some of the text books, people stop citing the original paper. Sure you'll need to attribute ideas, but calling it Fubini-Study metric does exactly that. To illustrate this point, searching google scholar for "Fubini-Study metric" gets me 7040 results. People are using the concept, but they don't feel the need to cite the original paper, in the same way you wouldn't cite Euklid's elements whenever you use the Pythagorean theorem.
Finally, note that google scholar isn't especially good with correctly parsing references, especially if they aren't in a machine readable form, which is never the case for older papers. Springer for example lists 35 citations and I don't believe that either number is even close to correct.

Well, there are older math papers really cited like this one: "Ueber die Theorie der algebraischen Formen"  published in 1890 where Hilbert intruduces Hilbert's Basis Theorem. It has 800 citations and it is a math paper even older

either way, I think the answers they gave me are right, more or less, thanks

It would be so cool people citing Euklid's Elements when using Pythagorean Theorem .. I guess, the modern citations system, could be only valid for papers that are not older than 150 years, more or less ..

and also, I don't think it is entirely true that citations are only a measure of how well an idea was received in the next few years after publication. As counterexample, let's take John Michell paper from 1783 talking about black holes. Nobody in that time cited that paper, but nowadays, since black holes are popular, it has 391 citations, for an article written more than 200 years!

@DieDauphin $\forall \neg$ is not the same as $\neg \forall$. I never said that there aren't old papers which are extremely well cited even decades afterwards. But if they aren't, it doesn't tell you that they are unimportant. (Which is a general problem with using citations as a metric, but that is another story.)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What's the meaning of *abs* in URLs of arxiv.org
On every paper I read, the URL-path contains abs before the ID of the paper. I mostly read about machine learning if that matters.
Does it mean abstract? Or absolute path?
See the example: .

The question is off-topic, but presumably short for abstract, since it links to the abstract page of the preprint.

Hi and welcome to Academia SE. Sorry, but only the developers at arXiv can answer about how they chose to implement the repository. In any case, for any standard user of arXiv, the meaning assigned to the path is irrelevant.

@MassimoOrtolano I think we actually can answer this by referencing arXiv's public documentation, see the "URLs for standard arXiv functions" section at https://arxiv.org/help/arxiv_identifier_for_services But maybe it's still off topic?

The relevant "case law" for questions about arXiv, etc., seems to be this. So, seems like the on-topic-ness of this question comes down to whether we consider the meaning of "abs" to be related to academia, versus related to arXiv's internal software engineering.

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


text:
How important is the orthographic/typographic rigor?
Science and Orthographic/Typographical Errors

Some people appreciate the attention to have their orthographic/typographical errors corrected/pointed out.
Others find it uncool to just point formal errors, finding it ideal to jointly comment on the content.
Given that, in terms of scientific rigor, how important is the orthographic/typographic rigor? And how does that vary?
As a side note, on a personal level, I find that reading a scientific text with orthographic/typographical errors is quite a turn off.

Is "how important is the orthographic/typographic rigor?" a fancy way to ask "Should I tell people about spelling mistakes in their work?"

.... in what? Are you talking about reviewing articles?

Are you commenting on drafts of papers not yet published? In that case, pointing out typos is helpful. On the other hand, if you are commenting on things already published, then there is nothing the author can do about it (books excepted since they may have second editions) and so there is no point in pointing out typos.

I would be happy if a referee pointed out such errors in a manuscript of mine, so I usually do it. It shouldn't influence the referee's verdict, but if a manuscript arrives at that stage it's possible the authors and editors will not notice anymore, and it will go into production with the errors intact if no one says something.

Interesting article on how Reviewers should deal with nonnative English speakers reports.

Orthography and typographical correctness are much less important than scientific (methodological and theoretical) rigour. Yet all scientific publications should of course also be well-written, and in general there's nothing wrong with casually pointing out a typo, wrong glyph, or similar glitch.
However, if you're writing a review, grade a student paper or discuss a presentation, this better not be your only comment!

If you put divide by A instead of divide by B then there can be serious consequences...
But any non-serious typo is ignored by most of us (a been there, done that myself approach), with a wry smile...
But if a document contains many typos then it does get noticed...


text:
Scientific character in tech related bachelor thesis
So I am currently on the task to find a question or specific topic for my bachelor thesis.
The field I am looking in is the micro service approach.
There are few topics I consider writing about, e.g. evaluating technologies (e.g. Netflix stack, docker, kubernetes ..), challenges of microservices and how technologies deal with them (resilence, performance, load balancing, scalability), analysing/evaluating state of the art technologies (probably new trends and such).
I would like to hear if you think these topics are having a scientific character or if its more some kind of summation.

Whichever one you pick is for you to discuss the suitability with your advisor.


text:
How to convince co-authors it is unethical to include false research citations in "working paper" being submitted to a conference?
I'm third co-author on a paper that was re-submitted for publication after primary author redid data analyses when I discovered that our original data had been significantly flawed.  A month or so went by, and then I simply was sent notification of the new submission, without ever notifying me, and giving me no chance to review it or suggest changes. I found changes in the wording of the Conclusions which I disagree with, and when I checked a particular citation which the first paragraph in the Conclusion section was based upon, I discovered that the citation is a gross misrepresentation of what the cited person said. The cited person has told me by email and phone that the citation is "bogus" - it is false information, and not in any way derived from her scholarship.
Here is an analogue of the citation, but I changed the name, and it is not about car drivers: "Jones (1989) reported that no medical evidence exists to indicate that one sex possesses a significant physical advantage over the other in the relevant skills necessary to be a racing car driver."
The first paragraph of the Conclusion goes like this:
"This is in spite of biological and medical evidence that indicates no readily apparent comparative advantage for male racing car drivers.  In fact, female car drivers appear to have a relative advantage over males in number of physical characteristics important for racing car driving success."
The reality is that there actually IS biological/medical evidence that males have advantages in Reaction Times and upper body strength necessary for steering under adverse circumstances.
The person who was misquoted never even mentioned racing car drivers, and told me to please remove any mention of her from the paper.
I asked the co-authors to retract the paper before it was sent out to reviewers, and they refused.  The senior author mentioned that he had cited the author in a previous publication, and that it was merely a case of unintentional "sloppy writing" - and that he would remove the citation after getting responses from the reviewers.
They did not want to be embarrassed by having to pull the paper back a second time.
I told them they were subverting the Peer Review Process by knowingly submitting Research findings which did not exist, and which were patently and provably false.
I told them that the citation obviously was one of the lynchpins of their argument that there are zero physical differences which could account for differing race results, and that the relatively poorer race outcomes for females must therefore be supporting evidence of gender bias against female racing car drivers, and that this bogus research finding might sway the reviewers in deeming their conclusion to be appear internally valid, when it was not.
They disagreed, and asserted that it was little more than a typical editorial problem which they would solve in the normal way, by making changes after the inevitable suggestions for revision from the referees.  I had pointed out a number of other problems which I had - including the absence of summary descriptive statistics of winning percentages in the Results section, and they said we could discuss all these other problems which I found later, before final submission.
They apologized for their oversight in not notifying me, asked me to be "patient" and trust that there was no malfeasance here,  offered to include me in all subsequent revisions, and suggested that I was welcome to ask to have my name removed from the paper if I still disagreed.
Soon after, the virus pandemic started, I fell ill (not from covid-19) and decided to just let the matter drop until reviewer feedback emerged.
And now, a month later, I received  copies of notifications from a virtual conference that they were presenting their "working paper" - and the working paper is exactly the same as the one they submitted to the professional journal. That paper has been sent to 8 people via CC.
No changes, the exact same FALSE claim about scientific medical evidence - which turns out to be non-existent, and actually in the opposite direction.(Note: what especially bothers me is that they cited a paper which discussed potential advantages of females regarding size and flexibility, but which also specifically mentioned male physical advantages related to reaction time and strength. They could not possibly have read the paragraph they cited without seeing the cited advantages of reaction time and strength, the reality of which they denied three times throughout the paper, but especially in the key Concluding statement).
I complained again, repeated my accusations of unethical academic misconduct, and asked them to retract the paper for proper editing. They apologized, and respectfully disagreed with my conclusions, and told me it was necessary for them to obtain addition feedback from fellow professionals in this conference, and that this was a part of the Peer Review process, that it would not look good, and that I should just be patient and Trust the Process.
I have told them that it is misconduct to disrespect the wishes of the author whose work they misrepresented, and refuse to remove her name from their paper.
I told them it is misconduct to knowingly present FALSE evidence and FALSE conclusions to a group of conference attendees who will likely just accept their authority - AND their conclusions - and who will likely share with other people the false belief that there is zero biological or medical evidence of physical advantages for males.
They disagree once again with my conclusions regarding their actions, asked for my patience, and reminded me that I can have my name removed before any final publications.
How can I convince these people who are entrusted with managing a department and teaching young students about ethical science that they have a Blind Spot regarding their own behavior?
Am I the one who is wrong about the ethics of this situation?
I have seen reports of people FIRED and careers destroyed for submitting false research data.
I did a search on Google, but can not find any websites which specifically offer me ammunition in explaining why their behavior represents misconduct and a lack of integrity.
Can anybody help, please?

Can you remove your name from the conference presentation (because it's wrong) but leave it on the paper (that will allegedly be right when it's finally published)? (It's easy for me to talk about removing your name, because I'm old enough that one publication more or less won't make much difference. I realize that you may be at a very different stage of your career, where every publication matters.)

Is the mis-cited author, Jones, aware of the unchanged "working paper" being presented at a conference? Is she aware of your effort to get it corrected?

The main issue for me is how to get these people to realize that what they  are doing is Unethical. If I send them here, and enough people say that it is misconduct to knowingly disseminate FALSE Research citations misrepresented as "evidence" then I can get my point across. Maybe. Anybody have any references to send these folks to for Remedial Research Ethics?

See https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/93929 for an earlier discussion of the immorality of submitting results that one know are wrong. (That question also has a link to an earlier one.)

There is probably no answer to your question. Given their behaviour, your coauthors seem impervious to research ethics considerations. Maybe they think that their transgressions won't harm them professionnally, and maybe they are right. You cannot make a donkey drink when it is not thirsty.

I think we'll be more able to help if you can refocus the question away from "how can I convince these people they are wrong" and instead towards "what actions should I take to meet my own ethical obligations".

I'm amazed that nobody seems to be able to cite any actual documentation that knowingly submitting incorrect statements or citations in your Lit Review and Conclusions is unethical and academic misconduct.  At this rate, what is to stop these folks from saying that I am conjuring up an Urban Myth, and being hysterical....which is basically what they have said.

@AndreasBlass The thread you linked to has vanished. Can you please add a link to the earlier one that had a similar discussion?

@DavidWhite Unfortunately, the earlier question is about a somewhat different situation, where the problematic part of the conference paper was only minor mistakes. In case you still want to see it, the link is https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/85168/finding-mistake-after-a-conference-proceedings

@AndreasBlass Thank you!

This question was asked a long time ago, but remains on the unanswered queue. The comments make it clear that the OP wanted "actual documentation that knowingly submitting incorrect statements or citations in your Lit Review and Conclusions is unethical and academic misconduct." Because we don't know what field the OP is in, it's impossible to provide such a statement specifically in their field, but it's easy to find such statements in general, e.g., using Google and phrases like "ethics", "misconduct," and whatever field you're in. Here's a statement I found from the American Statistical Association:

Statisticians are subject to the general moral rules of scientific and scholarly conduct: they should not deceive or knowingly misrepresent or attempt to prevent reporting of misconduct or obstruct the scientific/scholarly research of others.

So, indeed, the situation the OP describes is academic misconduct, if the other two authors "knowingly misrepresented" the cited paper. I've seen this kind of thing happen before, because referees rarely check to ensure that the cited paper's main conclusions match the sentence in the paper describing them. It is entirely possible for the wrong description to sneak past the referee and get published. So it's very good that the OP was trying to prevent that from happening.
If the other authors made an honest mistake (e.g., their idea of what the cited paper says was based on an existing wrong description, and they never actually checked the cited paper), then I agree with their course of action. This mistake is probably easy enough to fix after the referee comes back with a report. Pulling the paper back to fix one sentence in the literature review might annoy the editor and referee more than help. There are lots of questions about how severe an error should be in order to justify pulling back a paper while the referee is reading it.
If the situation was deliberate, then the OP can stop it at the final stage of the publication, which requires the author to physically sign a piece of paper giving the journal permission to publish. At that point, the author could insist the co-authors fix the bad sentence in the literature review. The editor might go back to the referee to check the new sentence, and that could conceivably lead the paper to be unaccepted (but this seems unlikely to me).
As for the co-authors presenting the paper at a conference, I can understand them not wanting to change the paper until after hearing back from the referee, especially if they disagreed with the OP about what the cited paper shows. Getting feedback from other experts is one way to resolve that disagreement. But it's annoying if they did not at least check the OP's objection by reading the cited paper and discussing with the OP whether or not that one line really was incorrect.
I think the OP's concerns that the paper was sent to eight people are a bit overblown. Most academics understand that working papers can change a lot before they are published, and that different parts might have been written by different authors. People won't hold it against the OP. The researcher whose work was misrepresented has a right to be angry, but the OP can demonstrate that they were trying to get the other authors to change this line, and it's a work in progress.
I think the OP would be wise to not remove themselves from the list of authors, for two reasons. First, it's unjust to lose a publication because of bad behavior from the other authors. Second, only by staying on the list of authors can the OP prevent the wrong sentence from getting published.

You pointed  out, in the comments on the question, that I link I gave (also in the comments) had died. That question and its answer had been deleted, but I think they're worth summarizing here. The question was about the situation where one has published a paper and then discovered a error in its methodology that could completely change the conclusion. It asked whether it would be morally correct to submit the paper, unchanged, to a conference. There's one answer, whose essential part (in boldface) is "No. It is not morally correct to do so." [continued in next comment]

In a comment under the question, David White pointed out that a link I had provided, also in a comment, had died.The linked question and its answer had been deleted by "Community [bot]" after being closed as a duplicate of another question. As I indicated in a later comment, the deleted question was relevant here but the prior question that it duplicated was only about minor errors. So I think it's worth summarizing the relevant question and answer here.
The question was about the situation where one has published a paper and then found an error in its methodology that could completely change the conclusion. The question was whether it would then be morally correct to submit the paper, unchanged, to a conference, with the assumption that the mistake could never be caught.
There is one answer, whose essential part (in boldface) is "No, it is not morally correct to do so." It lists three reasons, which I summarize as: (1) You already know about the error. (2) You could get caught. (3) You're probably just too lazy to repeat all those experiments. (In case anyone cares, I commented that (2) isn't relevant to "morally correct; morality is independent of the probability of getting caught.)

Great, thanks for sharing for the sake of those of us who do not yet have enough reputation to see deleted questions.

I think the bot was wrong to have deleted that post. I have undeleted it.


text:
Does a 3-year PhD experience in a non-German EU university count in determining the salary for a TVL-13 (100%) position?
I was wondering what paygrade (Stufe) I am likely to get for a position advertized as TVL-13 (100%), knowing that I have a 3-year PhD experience from a EU (non-German) university.
The postition's title is Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter in German but Research Engineer in English. Also, if we consider the kind of tasks/responsibilities involved in the position, it involves working in a EU project, which is something I did during the years of my PhD.
All similar posts (linked below) seem to be referring to the case where the PhD work has been conducted in a German university. So, I wanted to check if that wasn't the case, would chances of getting a higher grade be reduced or not?
I don't know if this is relevant, but unlike question (3), I paid taxes during my PhD.
Closely-related questions:
(1) Post-doc Salary in Germany
(2) Criteria of experience recognition for “TV-L 13” position
(3) Does PhD work experience (scholarship was tax free) count in Postdoc Salary contract (TVL-13) in Germany
Less closely-related posts:
(4) What is the difference between TV-L E13 and TV-L E14 positions? Is it negotiable?
(5) German postdoc salaries (TV-L E14)

I think it'd be entirely appropriate to contact the employer with this question. The Stufe can make quite a difference and what sort of experience counts might depend on "local customs" to some extend. I know Germans are fond of rules but academic experiences have become so international that the rules are often far too blunt to encompass all cases...

okay @Roland, thanks for mentioning the Arbeitszeugnis document. I'm still very early on in the application process, so I haven't been asked about it yet.

@Roland This is likely administration-dependent.  I know at least of some places where the new boss has to write a statement as to why the qualification acquired during a PhD abroad is equivalent to (whatever) which justifies starting with level 2/3/... (well, usually 2).  Of course, additional documentation never hurts.

@user126706 Note that even with a 3 year German PhD experience you would only get level 2. You would need 3 years + 1 day to get level 3.  (Basically, the level carries over if you change jobs, but not the runtime within the level.)

I worked for three different universities in the same Bundesland (state) in Germany. Although they all followed the same general regulations, the interpretation was rather different.

one considered my PhD (on a scholarship, so not employed) as relevant experience, one not.
one said my Cambridge University (UK) degree was a Fachhochschulabschluss, one considered it as full university degree.
one was willing to negotiate (not with me, but with the institute that I should work for), one was not.

So you need to talk to your future boss and to the university that wants to employ you.

"one said my Cambridge University (UK) degree was a Fachhochschulabschluss, one considered it as full university degree." - That sounds ridiculous. Was the problem perhaps that the durations of your studies for B.Sc+M.Sc. were together only 4 years instead of 4.5 years?

It may, by the way be that the future university will be unable to tell because the process to estimate the "Stufe" only gets started once the hiring process is started. This is especially the case if the "Personalrat" is involved, which will not look at the case before that.

@DCTLib Indeed, I only studied 4 years and did not write a "long" master thesis, so that they put me into TV-L 12.

@JFabianMeier, thanks for your answer. It's impressive how your experience was considered in different ways by different universities. I am still in the early stages of the recruitment process so I don't find it appropriate to ask at this stage. But if I make it to final stages, I'll definitely ask and share the outcome here as an answer.

@DCTLib I also know of cases where people without a master (but with a PhD) would get a lower level than those with a master + PhD.

In the end that is something you can only clarify with your potential future employer. However, so far - from the little experience and insights I have - both options can occur: I know people who worked for the public administration before (which in the end is also paid according to the TV-L or TVöD) and started on Stufe (level) 1 - while others with just practical but related job experience started in a higher Stufe (level). So in the end it most likely depends on your institution and its flexibility - as well as your negotiation skills (and the availability of other applicants or the lack of such).

If the position is project funded, it may depend on the negotiation with the project leader. If it is a state funded position, then it should be up to the universities' policies. However given your experience, I think is unlikely that they only set you up for the first level/Stufe.


text:
Defer and re-apply or attend?
I am set to begin a MS/PhD in an engineering discipline at a top 5 program. I mention this because, despite the concerns I will lay out below, I am sure that I'll be able to make good connections through this department.
However, in my specific subfield the options are a bit limited. The sort of research I originally intended to focus on I would be able to conduct at this school. That being said, this field is very interdisciplinary and, after lots of preparatory literature search this summer, I am starting to feel my interests shift. I now feel that a different side of this field would probably fit me better, research for which would fall under a different department. The problem is that there is nobody who specializes in this particular concentration.
On top of this, the weirdness of starting a graduate program during a pandemic has me wondering if I would be better off deferring and possibly reapplying. My undergraduate record is pretty strong (high gpa, multiple publications, etc.) and I feel confident I would be able to get in somewhere. However, I worry that this coming admissions cycle will be brutal and if I am better off taking my current offer and trying to make it work.
Perhaps it would be best to go and, if I truly want to shift focus and cannot there, master out and reapply. To be clear, I would re-apply for a different engineering discipline.
Any advice would be much appreciated, thanks.

Tangential, but related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/110902/68109

Thank you for sharing this. Maybe I should discuss my concerns with a professor I have been in communication with over this summer before making any decisions. I am a little hesitant to due so though as I don't want to offend him.

This is about your personal preferences, and shouldn't be decided without considering what you would do during the deferral period.

Yes, that is also a difficulty here. Unfortunately I am not sure what I would do for the next year if I do not attend. I feel my options are a bit limited by the pandemic.

Commenting just to point out that after reading more literature your preferences might shift yet again. Go to a good department, do good work, graduate, and go on with life.


text:
How to ask for expanding scholarship duration from grad school?
I am a second year masters student who studies mathematics and this is my third semester. I found my advisor at the middle of second semester. My college offers scholarship for grad students which includes tuition, housing and some monthly stipend. I am supposed to finish my masters in 2 years, after that they cut out the scholarship benefits. Now, I would like to ask for one more semester before my graduation. The reason is, I want to write a qualified thesis and during that time, I need a house to stay, and some stipend to make a living.
I think that these reasons are enough, however, I heard that the college science does not support students after 2 years in general. So, what can I do about it? What else can I say? Thank you.

What's a "qualified thesis"? (My quick search didn't reveal anything useful.)

How are those reasons different from any other student wanting "more time"? What do all other students do if they can't finish in time?

I can finish it in time with a standard thesis like anyone else. By qualified, I mean an extraordinary thesis.

The only way I can think of is just to ask around, including your thesis advisor, graduate program coordinator, and students you know what they've heard about the possibility of getting one extra semester of funding. In some places (Universities and/or countries) this is available, only available subject to a sponsor/advisor, requires a special grant/scholarship request of the department, or absolutely never happens and is not an option under any such scenario. You might get the opportunity to make your case, but you might just have to do what you can in the time you have and move on.

My department offers full fellowships (tuition + stipend, healthcare is publicly funded in the country) to most academic Master's students. They are all limited to two years. The department does not have the ability to extend the scholarship, nor does the university.
That being said, it happens that some students take longer than 2 years to defend (it's an academic Master's, so it's generally expected that the students will have published/submitted at least one or two papers before they graduate). In those cases, the remaining months are fully funded by the advisor, usually in the form a research assistantship from a grant that is directly related to the student's Master's project.
However, if you were at my institution, your request for an extension would sound naive and borderline preposterous and arrogant. An extension is something that occurs organically as you show that you are doing good work and need the extra time to finish and polish your thesis. This is not something that is requested as soon as you start doing research. If your advisor/university is going to invest more money on you, you must demonstrate that you are worth the money and have a good motive not to have finished your thesis in time. Writing a "qualified" thesis is, I'm sorry, a terrible excuse.
The least awkward way to approach anyone about this is to ask about the possibility of (and not demand!) an extension once you are more acquainted with your advisor. A good way to approach them about this issue would be by leading a conversation like this:

As you know, I have been studying the effect of wheel geometry in the
  performance of hamster-powered supercomputers. I demonstrated that
  heart-shaped meshes are very efficient, but as you know, that's the
  expected result, given that hamsters tend to work harder in the
  presence of love-displaying figures. I think that it would be very
  promising to investigate whether plastic or steel wheels are more
  efficient. If we demonstrate that plastic wheels are just as good as
  steel, we could see a significant cost reduction in hamster-powered
  supercomputers, and would certainly yield a very impactful paper. But
  as you know, that would require 3D printing the wheels, which would be
  very time-consuming, and would likely require more time than the four
  months I have left. I will start working on the plastic wheels as soon
  as possible, but if more time is necessary to finish the experiments,
  do you think it would be possible to grant me a fully funded extension
  of a few more months so that I can finish the last experiments and,
  hopefully, write the paper?

All of that is, of course, assuming that the possibility of getting a funded extension even exists.

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


text:
Moving from a modest research laboratory to a laboratory with a prestigious research portfolio. Tips to be successful?
Background
I have done my PhD (Computer Science) at a university (in a third world country) with very limited resources. My research was not funded, my previous lab didn't provide any research support at all (except a desk, internet access and access to some research databases). No training, no equipment, no projects.. they didn't even reimburse students for conferences/travel, etc. As a result, I was very limited in my research (experiments, submission to conferences/journals, etc.). I really had to work a lot and sacrifice a lot so I can defend my thesis in good time and with very good results.
Now I received an offer from a very prestigious university in the world. It's quite the opposite of my previous lab in terms of research support, funded projects, etc. So this is a completely new work environment for me. I know that the key mindset to have is research is research, but sometimes I feel that my pace will be slower than previous postdocs and for that I need to adapt and adjust quickly. What advice can you give to a researcher with my background?

I've no advice for you but I do have some encouragement. You were offered this excellent position because the people there thought your work was good (in spite of the limitations where you did it) so they think you will manage the transition well.

Along with research, work hard to make a lot of connections. Certainly connections at the new university, but beyond that through conference meetings and collaborations. Build a circle around yourself. Join the circle of other, more senior people.
Get a sense of all of the research trends around you, even if it shallow outside your specialty.
And, keep connections back "home". In the future you may have an opportunity to do something good for students there as well.

Understand what you have available to you, new assets, and learn how to take advantage of them. I expect you'll be competing with others who take for granted, and benefit from, kinds of support you would only have dreamed of.

Haha exactly! I am planning to make most of this opportunity!

Everybody comes from a different background.
Whatever your experience was so far, it got you to where you are now.
Take advantage of the new opportunities you have, but also take advantage of your previous experience as well.
Being able to do so much with such limited resources means you have become good at exploiting those resources, nothing was served to you on a silver plate. You have worked hard to make all of that happen.
Many of the new people you are going to meet do not have that experience and maybe things were easier for them. At the same time you may be surprised to find people who come from a similar background to yours or even more difficult places.
Don't overestimate and don't underestimate. Just make the most out of your personal experience.

Ask early enough. So if you do not understand something it is ok to think about it, do own literature research, but don't take too long. (Like sitting in the lab for 2 month, and when you are asked 'how is it going', 'oh I didn't know how to start the measurement' or whatever). Usually people do not ask enough but try to also avoid things you could find out quickly (like 1+1).
Take notes. Also, take notes. And don't forget to take notes. People are getting annoyed if you ask the same question more than twice. (Best to only ask once, which is possible if you ... take notes ...). About any question, like technical and administrative.
When you are asked to write a paper, for e.g. a conference, check out the other papers by your group, to see how the presentation of content is preferred. Also have your draft ready early. Nothing more annoying if somebody sends a paper round with 'dateline today, please have a look'). If you are asked to correct a document (like a paper draft), use the Word 'track changes' function.
When you get a result in your research, talk to your supervisor where to go from there. If your supervisor suggests a problem, ask which method you should start first (if there are different methods to attack the problem).
If a PhD student (which you will supervise) has a question and you don't know, don't give a wrong answer. Let him/her explain the problem in more detail to you, and either figure out a solution together or refer with the question to somebody else.
Usually prestigious universities focus on results and high output (yours might be different, so check); so focus on results and high output.
Edit: I forgot. How long is the contract? Usually if it is a 2 year contract, look for the next post-doc after year one (so publish often, publish early).

Don't care about anyone judgement or the "pressure" to be on par with the others. You are already on par with them, since you got the offer.
Do your own job, at your own pace, use as much as you can from the "prestigious" university, don't play down your requests, ask top of the notch resources/informatics/library access/attending and organizing conferences and workshops. Especially about the last point, be reckless in your requests.
The following applies especially for "top" universities in the US&UK, less for Germany&France.
The prestigious university hired you because you showed the potential to deliver great results, but the prestigious university wants the results to be published under their affiliation to prove they do the best work possible. For their own gain/prestige/interest.
Remember: you are working for them, it is not like they are being compassionate in providing you an opportunity to collaborate with them.
Then do networking with your peers and the levels above, but ignore their paternalism, ignore their compassion, ignore their suggestions how to work for the first 2 years. I mean, try to get involved in as many social activities with your peers from your department and from other departments, avoid like the plague the PhDs from your department (for reasons that will be clearer to you with time), avoid talking too much of work ... try to network with people that have some interest in life, apart from work.
And keep having fun in your work/research!
Disclaimer and Off-Topic: I did this, I had great fun, I had an easy transition to the  company of my dream when the option to continue in the academia was, at the time, unfortunately limited to moving to one of the most dangerous place in the semi-civilized world, Detroit, or to the Central United States (no offense to the people living and working there, but they are wrong on so many levels: wrong history of exploitation, wrong environment, wrong urban development, wrong social welfare ... at least the soil is very fertile, but they are working on screwing that as well).

Could you explain why a PostDoc should avoid working too closely with the PhD students?

I was a bit unclear. I refer to PhDs not funded by the PD. Being in a prestigious university, PhDs will have more than enough stress/workload on their own, as a PD you would end up bearing a large chunk of it, while the PhD should and must find its way out on its own or with the direct, official supervisors. For the random PD helping out there is almost certain reward of "nothing", because of rigid and formal supervisions.
Ok, it's human to help others, but the same time spent with a single PhD may be used to co-operate with a peer, or helping 10s of other people (outside the Academia).


text:
What should be done when the theory behind a PhD thesis turns out to be wrong?
I have a friend who has been working on a PhD dissertation for over 3 years and he is supposed to be wrapping it up. Unfortunately, his thesis involves a complex model and populating the model with hard-to-obtain data. After having finally gathered all the data and plugged it into the model, he is finding that the theory is more or less non-predictive and does not work. In other words, he had an interesting theory, having been tested against the data it turns out the theory is wrong.
So, in this situation what would you do? Just write a dissertation that says, "well four years of research shows that this theory is wrong"?

In a somewhat similar situation, I ended up starting over.  It took a couple of dispensations from the dean.

Is this their own model or an already published one?

@BryanKrause It is  a model derived from a pre-existing famous model.

@TylerDurden Showing a model doesn't work, or fails in a certain case, can be way more interesting than showing a known model works.

Related, not quite a duplicate: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30995/what-to-do-when-you-spend-several-months-working-on-an-idea-that-fails-in-a-mast/31082#31082

Without exception, the theory behind every single PhD thesis is wrong.  Einstein proved Newtown wrong about many things and no doubt some smart person will prove Einstein wrong.  The question is not whether the theory is right or wrong, but whether it is useful.

"In the spirit of science, there really is no such thing as a 'failed experiment.' Any test that yields valid data is a valid test." - Adam Savage

The title reads "... the theory behind a PhD thesis ..." but the question itself only refers to a hypothesis formulated by the PhD student about some model and some data. Please do not confuse "theory" with "hypothesis". Your friend had a hypothesis which his experiment did not support. The theory behind his hypothesis is something entirely different, much larger, much more general and much harder to invalidate.

publication bias: negative results are not worth publishing

Your PhD shows that you can do science the right way. Your title is PhD, not PhD in The Effect Of Radiation On Multiple Bodies In A Vacuum In The Context Of Spherical Cows. Having a thesis which proves that something is wrong somehow sucks, but it is not a problem per se with the fact of getting the title of doctor.

Basically he's screwed. Just tell him to live on with this phrase in mind: "The purpose of a good university is to give a foundation to fail, not a foundation to get an A"

If you could show that the well-trusted Riemann Hypothesis in fact turns out to be wrong, that might quite well be publishable - and bring more fame than "just" a PhD

Why was the theory wrong? "It didn't work" is not the end -- the end is knowing why it didn't work. There are at least two possible answers:

There is some fundamental, obvious mistake at the core of the model that should have been caught a long time ago. In this case, it may be a matter of starting over. It's difficult to produce a paper/thesis if the story is "I made a stupid model and it didn't work."
There is some previously-unknown reason why the model didn't work despite smart people thinking it would. This is likely an interesting, publishable result. In fact, it could be even more interesting than a paper that just says "we used a model and it worked as expected."

It sounds like the data is valuable as well. Even if it is a matter of starting over again, this dataset sounds like it could lead to a publication or be an ingredient in the new thesis.

The practical problem, in my experience, is that almost all problems look obvious in hindsight :) that's a rarely discussed reason to be able to point to previous literature about your theory, or makes it harder for a reviewer to say "well, every expert knew this wouldn't work".

It's the difference between watching someone doing surgery vs doing one yourself.

Research isn't about taking a statement and proving that it is true. That would assume that it is, in fact, true without the research being done. Research is about determining if something is true or not.
But there are two possibilities here. One, which occurs in statistical studies, is a result that shows insufficient evidence that the theory is true. Another, that can occur there or in, say mathematics, is a result that shows that the theory is clearly wrong.
The first of those is a failed experiment. It may say little about the model. But the latter is a definite result. "We thought this might be true and learned that it isn't".
Note that in statistical testing, some fraction of the samples used will give false results. If the study is well designed, then you can predict what that fraction is, say .01.
But showing that a model or a theory is clearly wrong results in a good thesis and yes, you say "This theory is wrong!!!"
A failed statistical theory may, however, require more work, or the advisor and committee may accept it, provided that the design was good and everything else done carefully and in good faith.
Knowledge is knowledge and it is good, whether positive or negative.
In fact, many published studies are later proved false because the investigators started out with a preconceived notion of the truth and did what they could to "make it so." That isn't research. Research is stepping into the unknown to try to make it known.

"You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right." - Randall Munroe

A lot of research is definitely taking a statement - call it "a conjecture" if you will - and proving that it is true. Perhaps not in the more applied fields, but in theoretical ones - definitely.

@einpoklum-reinstateMonica, but the conjecture isn't known to be true at the start. It may even be false. Research is gathering evidence for one or the other. Definitive evidence is best. But the attitude should be "Is this true?", not "This is true." at the beginning. Too many researchers get committed to the truth of their hypothesis and wind up getting into various errors. Even in math and theoretical physics, the statement comes first, but you need the proof.

In math a counterexample to some conjecture is important, there are dozens of examples out there. And "impossibility" proofs are of great value after identifying why something is not working, a famous example would be the negative solution to the Entscheidungsproblem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

In theoretical fields, "Known to be true" = "Proven" (essentially).

This answer is wrong and dangerously wrong! Studies which show an effect which is not statistically significant are still valid. If studies are excluded from publication on that basis alone then it screws up the possibility of meta-analysis.

You have interpreted my answer wrongly, @Ben. Such studies are valid, they just give no evidence for the hypothesis. That was the point, actually.

As I understand you have split the possible results of a scientific experiment into three categories, 1. data confirms hypothesis 2. data disproves hypothesis 3. there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the hypothesis. I agree with the categories. I also agree that if the data disproves the hypothesis then it is still a valid result. What I disagree with is the assertion that category 3 is a failed experiment. Such studies still provide important context to future research, especially if data in the field is difficult to collect.

You talk to your advisor about it, then write a paper explaining your methodology and results.
Obviously, the first step is to talk to your supervisor about it, to make sure that everyone is on the same page, and to ascertain the requirements for a PhD thesis in your particular department. In some cases, you might have several peer-reviewed papers already published that you can use to compile together to create your PhD thesis; in other cases, this might not be allowed, or it might not be possible if you've yet to publish anything. Regardless of the situation, though, they should understand the requirements your department places on you to successfully complete your PhD.
However you go about structuring your thesis paper, though, you'd probably wind up explaining the methodologies you've used to produce the model, gather the data, and then analyze the results of the model using the data to make the conclusion that there's insufficient support to conclude that your hypothesis was true. Depending on the norms of your department, you might or might not publish the code you used to produce your model open-source.

I wouldn’t say “obviously...”, otherwise the OP wouldn’t have asked the question.

Your question illustrates that publication bias starts in graduate school (or even earlier). To quote the Wikipedia article:

Publication bias is a type of bias that occurs in published academic
  research. It occurs when the outcome of an experiment or research
  study influences the decision whether to publish or otherwise
  distribute it. Publishing only results that show a significant finding
  disturbs the balance of findings, and inserts bias in favor of
  positive results.

If this research is based upon a famous preexisting model, perhaps that model has only survived for as long as it has because publication bias has shielded it from refutation. Not only is research which goes against a model adequate for a Ph.D., it could be subtly harmful to the wider research community to bury it. I obviously don't know the particulars of the case, but based on what you have said, this sounds like a good dissertation to be proud of, rather than something to be apologetic for.

IMHO.  First thing to do is advise the thesis advisor immediately.  There is an integrity question that must always be in the forefront -- the advisor must never have an excuse to question your friend's veracity.  This is important for the 2nd step.  If the advisor personally supports the discovery of something that is not true, he will talk to his peers and feel out support for a formal defense.  If he has support from his peers, he'll let the defense go ahead (with a rewrite, of course).  After all, isn't this the purpose of a thesis -- to discover something that wasn't known before?  Remember, the advisor also has "skin in the game".  If he let's a defense proceed and it's shot down -- he loses "face".  If he believes in your friend, he/she have a good shot.
The people, their relationships and the organizational aspects of the process are usually more important than the final output, but there is no fundamental reason why a negative result isn't still discovering something worth reporting.  After all, the drug Sildenafil failed its clinical trials until somebody read a interdepartmental memo and looked at the negative-results differently.
OBTW.  I spent 20 years at a Fortune 500 company, a chunk of that time as a manager.  I don't have a PhD, but I do know people and processes.  Your friend's problem is no different.  Tell your friend that he has this and congratulations are in order for finishing the research!  Encourage him not to be a ABD -- your friend is so close!!!

If you knew the answer before beginning, it wouldn't really be research.
There've been plenty of theories that turned out to be wrong. A recent example is supersymmetry. This particle physics idea was really attractive for many reasons, and many physicists spent their careers working on the theory. Still, the LHC hasn't detected supersymmetric particles, which is proving to be a major problem.
Your friend should talk to their advisor about the issue, but should not be too concerned about turning in a thesis that says "well four years of research shows that this theory is wrong". He'd be in good company.

Really, the fact that you may not get a PhD (or may write an extremely weak thesis and be in a shitty position to move your academic career forward) is not something to lose sleep over? Can you clarify what you mean exactly? These vague metaphors about losing sleep and being in good company aren’t really answering the question.

The supersymmetry part may be controversial :-) It's true that most SUSY models predicted sparticles that would have been discovered by now. But that just encourages more creative models (e.g., "stringy naturalness")

@Dan Romik: In many fields/institutions/cultures the quality of the thesis is not measured by whether the investigated theory comes out positive. So the problem explained here will not result in not getting a PhD or having a very weak thesis (although the thesis of course can be weak for other reasons, so it's always good advice to worry and lose sleep;-). This however depends on field/institution/culture, so discussing this with the supervisor is mandatory.

Personally as supervisor I had PhD students who wouldn't for the life of them admit that the idea that they have been investigating doesn't work that well. Sometimes it was my idea and they even thought they owe it to me to show that the idea is good, but occasionally it wasn't. Surely I am fine with a well written well founded and understood thesis with a (largely) negative result. Of course one needs to elaborate what the field can learn from this. But it can drive me to dispair that students just can't get themselves to admitting that something doesn't work well.

Working with what you have:

Hard to obtain data
A theory that you now know for sure is wrong

Wrong in what way? "Can't show statistical significance" or "can show the opposite is true"? If you can say something definite such as that the opposite is true, then you can formulate a new model that's better than your old one (because it agrees with the evidence).
If all you have is "no significance" then that's less juicy, but you may still be able to write a paper on "model X fails in circumstance Y, and here are my arguments why I think Z is the cause".
The hard to obtain data are an interesting prospect. If it took years to get this data, then publishing it so that someone else doesn't also need years to collect those data can be scientifically valuable. If it took years to get this data, presumably other people haven't had much chance to study and analyze the data, and you can also write about that.
Altogether, you have stuff to write about that took a smart person three years of serious work to gather. And you've learned about the ups and downs of research. Work with your supervisor to figure out a new direction for the thesis. But you should be able to write a strong thesis that demonstrates that you've learned how to do research, and presents outcomes of research that weren't already available to the scientific community (this hard to obtain data and knowledge about which modeling approach surprisingly doesn't work).

I was looking for this answer, +1. The hard-to-obtain data is hard to obtain! It can certainly be analyzed in depth to draw some conclusions, or at least confirm known ones. It will not be a thesis as strong as the one the student anticipated, but if gathering the data was hard maybe that can be the focus, instead of the result he was hoping to get from the complex model.

I would structure a document entitled "On the non sustainability of the hypothesis that ...".
This document could be a research report, a journal article, a thesis chapter, anything. While writing, the logic of the thoughts will unfold itself; perhaps you can even find that it is not true that all is wrong. All other reactions given in this thread contribute to providing motivation and sensible ways forward.
In terms of self-reflection, beside a bunch of frequently occurring biases of judgement, please mind the impostor's bias as well: there is even a playlist of TED talks to choose the more suited variant from.
Finally, for inspiration, it could be interesting to look at the editorial lines of journals that publish 'studies of failures' as different from 'failed studies'. One in the medical community that I heard of is the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine. I imagine it is important to gather up the vocabulary appropriate to explaining 'studies of failures', and borrowing from any reputable source can be useful.