text:
Listing a low-level expository work on your CV
I'm a PhD student. Just before starting my PhD I wrote up an expository paper about the basics my domain of study, in a peer-reviewed journal for graduate students, with almost no new results (the only new result is from my master's degree thesis, which is not published anywhere, and it's not groundbreaking by any means). It recently got accepted and published.
Should I list such a paper in my CV? If so, where should I put it: in the "Publications" sections (hoping that the name of the journal makes clear what kind of paper this is), or somewhere else?
If it makes any difference, this is my first and only "publication" so far (I'm in pure math, I have preprints but the review process is insanely long). On the one hand I feel like I should list it because I think I should list everything on my CV and omitting something is akin to lying by omission; but at the same time I don't want to make it seem like I'm "padding" my CV.

Does this mean that you are not listing those preprints on your CV?

@TobiasKildetoft No, I'm listing them of course (they represent almost the entirety of my research output so far...). But I'm wondering if I should list this expository paper alongside them.

Not being in your field, I will not answer conclusively, but if you still find it to be of sufficient quality, I would definitely list it (just not in the same section as the preprints). For comparison, I have a section listing teaching materials developed (this would not quite make sense under such a heading, but it might be close depending on the precise nature of the work).

@TobiasKildetoft You actually are in my field... :)

Then I disagree with the statement that only journal publications count. Preprints count as well (I do not even separate them from those papers that have already been published in journals on my CV). Sure, being published in a journal will give the publication more weight (and mean that even someone who has not read it will be able to get an idea of the strength of it), but hiring committees are aware that most papers will be preprints for applicants fresh out of their PhD.

Ah yes of course, that's not what I meant. I meant to contrast that with other fields where conferences can count as much / more than journal publications. Maybe I should just have said I'm in pure math from the start (I want to remain anonymous).

I would definitely edit to add that you are in pure math. That will allow for much more definitive answers from those members here who have served on such hiring committees (there are several such very active users).

At this stage of your academic career, I would go ahead and include the article on your CV.  You are a student, and publication in a student journal is a meaningful accomplishment, even if publication in a research journal would be a significantly greater one.  I see CVs from students with masters degrees in applied math that sometimes have these kinds of things listed, and I don't think anyone has a problem with their appearance.  And you can always get feedback from the faculty in your current program, as to whether they would like to see something like that on a student's CV.
If you think the name of the journal will make its nature clear to anyone viewing your CV, then that will probably be fine; however, if you have any doubts (and you definitely do not want to give anyone the impression that you are attempting to be misleading on your CV), you may want to include a bracketed note "[student journal]" just to be clear.
Later, you may want to drop this item from your CV.  When you have a doctorate and have published multiple articles in research-level journals, people may wonder why you have included something so minor among your accomplishments.  But you are not to that stage yet, so including it at present is probably fine.

I'm in pure math like you. I suggest listing your preprints under the heading "Preprints", and the "low-level expository work", if you really feel it's important to mention it, under a heading such as "Expository writing" or "Expository". I wouldn't use words such as "publication" or "peer-reviewed" (even if they are technically correct) in connection with such a work, since I do feel that it may create an unpleasant impression of CV-padding. Your preprints, even though they are not yet publications, sound like real research articles that add substantially more value to your CV regardless of their acceptance status, so bragging about a publication in a student journal (I've never had a favorable view of such journals myself, but maybe that's just me) sounds incongruous to me.
Another option you may want to consider is to not mention the expository work at all. I disagree with your view that omitting it is akin to lying.


text:
Under what circumstances would a University revoke a student's degree?
Under what circumstances would a University revoke a student's undergraduate bachelor's degree if something was discovered after the degree was awarded, but actually happened when the student was still enrolled in the University?

Is there any examples of degrees being revoked? If so, what types of academic misconduct would justify this?
What types of alleged offences would be able to be proven after the fact?
Would the blame be placed on the University since it would have been beneficial for the student to remediate their situation to plan and still graduate at his/her desired date if it were addressed at the proper time?
Would a student be able to sue the University for something like this?

Question is kind of vague but any general insight is helpful.
This is asked in regards to a typical person doing an undergrad, not unique stories regarding celebrities and/or high-end people getting doctorate degrees revoked for non-academic reasons. Only purely academic and the steps/reasoning for why it happened, not just what the allegation was.
Thanks.

You've been asking a lot of questions along these lines lately. I think you're overly concerned about something that is relatively unlikely to happen.

Voting to close as duplicate. You really have asked this question numerous times in the past. Maybe you should talk to someone at your school if you're concerned about this.

The duplicate question is specifying actions taken after the degree has been awarded. I asked the same question except I'm specifying the actions would have happened before the degree was awarded but was discovered after the degree was awarded.

I agree that this isn't a duplicate; the edits have made it clear that this question refers to actions taken prior to degree being awarded, not after, as the other question states. That said, I think the question is a no-brainer; of course you can lose your degree if it was obtained through misconduct.

Like, what are examples of academic misconduct situations in which they could prove it happened after the fact? I'd say that for certain things you have no circumstantial evidence unless it's addressed at the actual time the course was going on so that there's no confusion as to what circumstances were undergone at the time

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are examples of penalties for "self-plagiarism"?
I graduated from university in June of 2015. I submitted an essay to a philosophy professor in my second year that was substantially the same as an essay I submitted to a TA the year before for one of the the same professor's first year classes.
I wanted to use my research and essay content for the second year course because I was enthusiastic about that topic and wanted to use it again. I asked the professor if I could use textbooks and information/material studied from his first year course (which also wasn't a prerequisite for the second year course) and he said that was fine. I wasn't really aware of this "self-plagiarism" rule back then and I figured he was saying it would be fine to use the content of my old work from the previous year as well. I do remember changing some parts of the essay but the two had substantially the same gist and body.
I just realized recently that I need written permission from the professor in those situations.
Theoretically, if they could prove now that I committed some sort of academic misconduct for that back in my second year, (2013-2014, I've had my four year honours degree since June 2015 and am now working in my field) what would the penalties be? Would my degree be revoked and would I be required to take another course? Would they just adjust my course or assignment mark?
I know it depends on the circumstances so I broke it down and let me know if there are any more details you need to know.

The same as for any form of academic dishonesty.  It probably ranges from 0 credit for the assignment all that way up to separation, depending upon the nature of the infraction and how many times one has been caught.

I assume that you are not just asking this because you are curious. Can you please [edit] your question to elaborate why you want to know this? This way, we can better answer your question in a way that helps you. As it stands I consider it too broad.

I edited the description for you thanks for letting me know.

It depends on many factors. Examples of those factors: Was it a first offense, was it an undergraduate or graduate student, was it faculty member, was it for an assignment or a publication? The list of penalties can range from using the incident as an "object-lesson", a failing grade for the paper or course, a formal sanction, expulsion, loss of funding and/or termination. Each university usually has an Academic Integrity Office, so you could always consult yours to see what the penalties are based on the seriousness of the charge.

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


text:
Should I expect to be paid for post-graduation research?
I graduated with my Master's degree in Computer Science a couple of years ago. For a graduate requirement, I had to take on a project of significant scope and write a paper about the project. I had continued my project after graduation in order to attempt to publish a paper. This unfortunately did not happen, as I entered the workforce and focused my time on my new employment.
I received an email from my professor a couple of days ago asking if I had a copy of the source code to my project, because he has a new student who he wants to take over the project. He noted that if he was able to publish a paper with the new student, that my name would be added to the paper.
The professor had asked if I wanted to participate in the project, I replied that I would be able to help work on it in hopes of upping the chances that we get the paper published.
Since I am putting in hours post-graduation: should I expect to be compensated for my further work on the project, should I expect that this work is strictly voluntary in order to get my name on a paper, or is compensation up to the professor in charge of the project?

If you have a contribution to the final-product, regardless of whether you want to help at this point or not, you name has to be in that paper; of course, depending on your contribution, you might not get an co-authorship.

You should ask the professor. However, in my experience, the default assumption is that you will be not paid (if not said otherwise). It is often hard (again, in my experience) for professors to obtain funds for short-term-positions.
Note, however, that you are under no obligation to finish the project without getting paid. So before working on this for free, think about if you have time for it and would profit from it in some way (e.g. if you like thinking about it or if a publication is good for your life/career).
So to make clear the answer to the question: Ask, but do not expect.

The answer was edited just to remove the "hello"?!

Hi Guest3, and welcome to the site. On SE it is advised to avoid "hello", "thanks in advance", and other phrases that are in the realm of correspondence or pleasantries. The reason for this is that the site provides a record of questions and answers that (hopefully) are useful for others in the future rather than simply documenting the communication between people as on a web forum.

Wow. That's really sad..

It's not to remove civility, just to present the content in the best format possible. People coming across a relevant answer in the future don't need to be bogged down with "hello" "thanks in advance" and "I hope this helps" kind of comments. The pleasantries are only relevant to the original people involved, but the value of the information persists much longer. Have you ever looked up a recipe online and had to scroll through several paragraphs of "I wanted to make something special for my spouse's birthday, so I went to the local market..." etc, when you're just looking for the cook time?

@guest3 Ask, but do not expect. that was my plan, but wanted to make sure this was the norm.

If I understand correctly the situation is that you're working elsewhere and doing research in your free time. In this case you will normally not get paid. The hypothetical way for you to get paid would be getting hired part-time as an intern or research assistant. You can ask your professor about this possibility (which would be better than asking to get paid for helping with the paper) but I don't think universities offer these positions part-time, and this may not be compatible with the contract at your main workplace. I saw some universities hire part-time teaching assistants though, so that may be an option for you if you want to use your university connection to get some extra income.

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


text:
How does one go about starting a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)?
Currently my university does not offer any MOOCs. I am interested in creating one. How should I go about it? Does my university need to sign an agreement with one of the providers such as Coursera or can I approach them independently?

For fun? I guess I don't know anyone who has actually taught a MOOC (my institution does not offer them either) but my impression is they're a fair amount of work and sponsorship from your university probably brings compensation of some form (monetary, administrative assistance, or otherwise).

MOOCS are platform independent and can be implemented on almost any LMS (learning management system)
A first step is to take a MOOC by yourself. It will give you a pretty good idea about the pros and cons.
Platforms providing MOOCS are constantly looking for new contents. New platforms emerge almost on a monthly basis.

Be warned: Building a good MOOC requires at least as much work as writing a good textbook!

As far as I know, you don't need to have a signed deal with e.g, Coursera. You can do it independently. For example, the University of Helsinki has started offering some MOOCs, but they are not listed in the aforementioned provider.
One good approach would be to follow the line of Khan Academy, maybe it seems rather simplistic, but it can bring good results. One piece of general advice that I can give is to focus on quality instead of quantity. Just a couple of well-made online courses, with lecturers that have experience in the topics, is enough. Also pay attention to the evaluation tools that your site will have, that is crucial for its success and interaction with the prospective students.
Good luck in your idea!

Thank you Layla. Coursera does offer many tools though such as forums and more importantly a huge audience.

Just to add another data point, one of my alma maters just started offering independent MOOCs (though only for alumni, which I think is a super cool way to keep alumni engaged)


text:
Why are some research groups not so ethnically diverse?
Some research groups, especially the ones at lower tier schools in the United States, contains an excessive amount of students who have the same nationality as the professor. Some Chinese professors' groups solely consists of Chinese students.
Does this go against diversity, considering the fact that Ph.D admissions are not centralized and is not done by adcom members? Is there a constraint on this implied by school to faculty?

I'm not sure there's an answerable question here.

Is there a constraint on this implied by school to faculty ?

I'm a PhD student based in Sweden, working in a group where everybody except the PhD students are German. Another group in the same building has several Russians, and a recent Russian PhD student had a Russian supervisor. So the tendency to mono-culturalism is not unique.
Probably, many institutes have statements  promoting diversity. In practice, these don't mean much, because recruitment depends on academic networks, skills of applicants, etc. There can be different reasons for a group to tend to mono-culturalism. Some reasons I can think of:

A professor heading a research group in a foreign country probably has an extensive academic network from his/her originating country. Academic networks are powerful sources of recruitment of new staff, either senior staff or PhD students (e.g. via a Master thesis supervisor recommending them). So applicants might simply be more likely to be from the same country as the head of the group, even if the head of the group is 100% honest in his/her selections.
PhD students may appreciate if they can work with a supervisor that speaks their language, particularly if they are not so comfortable speaking English.
It's culturally easier to work in a group with several people from ones own country.

All these factors can contribute to groups in country X with group members primarily from country Y != X.
Probably there are other reasons that I didn't think of.

+1 especially for the networking issue. @sincenali, perhaps you can ask students how they learned about their current advisor; very likely the answer will be networking-like. (BTW: For me it's the case - I have advisor of the same nationality and we met each other due to a recommendation by a professor both of us knew.)

As a faculty member, one of the most challenging things to do is find high-quality people to work in your lab.  Faculty generally will use every trick they can to find good people, including asking friends, colleagues, talking to people at conferences, and so on.
If the faculty member is more comfortable in a certain language (e.g. if they find it easier to evaluate a candidate who speaks Hungarian than English), or does not have an ethnically diverse set of colleagues/friends in their field, then you quickly get a non-diverse lab.
There usually isn't any bias or prejudice going on here; it's just terribly important to get your students right, so many people will not feel like they can go out of their way to promote diversity.

I think the fundamental issue is not that the groups go against the principle of diversity, but that they're just too small to speak meaningfully about diversity. A population of three to six graduate students is not large enough to make claims that they are or are not diverse enough. Even if they all come from the same country, there may be other forces at work. For instance, those students might be the ones who get "matched" into the group—they list that group as their highest priority, and others don't.
However, in general, there are no constraints placed by a university or a department on which students a faculty member can or cannot take. There may be limits and restrictions that determine if a faculty member can take students, or how many, but never have I heard a restriction about which ones.

On the topic of sample size: (1) I've seen similar effects in groups/labs with 20+ students.  (2) I've also seen similar effects lasting through several "generations" of students.  For example, almost half of my current and former PhD students were born in the US!


text:
What is a reliable accreditation to look for in British business schools?
When selecting an American business school, we look for certain accreditations specific to business schools, like ACBSP, AACSB, CHEA, , etc.
For European universities, we look for Equis, AMBA, etc.
What about British universities? (For pursuing a PhD in a UK business school.)

The UK is part of the EU. I know next to nothing about business schools, but AMBA at least is based in London. I would expect that many accreditation schemes used in Continental Europe are also used in the UK.

Presumably, "when selecting an American university..." means "When selecting an American business school...".

@Moriarty “The UK is part of the EU” — I suppose, technically, it is :)

Who looks for these accreditations? My suggestion would be to look for schools with good reputations and not good accreditations.

@DanielE.Shub how to know about reputation without accreditation?

@JeffE yes, I mean business school to pursue PhD degree

@Moriarty what about the myriad UK universities which has no such accreditation. How to know if they had good reputation or global recognition?

How can I know if the degree will be recognized by other schools if I want to teach or further research?

You are asking very specific questions that most here will be unable to answer. Your best bet of getting a rough idea of an institution's credibility is looking at its world rankings (ie QS or Times Higher Education rankings).

I am not sure how valuable accreditations are. I would suggest going by reputation rather than a binary is/isn't accredited. I think it would be rare for a school to have a "good" reputation, but lack critical accreditations. There likely is variability in the accreditations that schools with questionable reputations have. I would still base my decision on reputation and then only when deciding between a few schools with very similar reputations give any weight to accreditation. As for finding out about reputation word of mouth, league tables (e.g., the Guradian tables), and the RAE are reasonable starting points.

Same as EU: UK has 16 schools with triple AACSB-AMBA-EQUIS accreditation, which is a good sign that it follows the same agencies as the rest of the world (or at least, as the rest of EU).


text:
Short reference on writing numbers and units
What's a quick and useful reference, either in print or online, for writing numbers and reporting measurements in scientific texts? Something I could distribute to all new students, which would cover things they should be taught but do not always know, like:

how to write big/small numbers in scientific form (1.78 10–12), including proper spacing?
how to write units of measurement, in text and in abbreviated form? includes: when do you capitalize units, when do you pluralize them, etc.
how to properly report significant figures, etc.
when do you write variables in italics/roman/bold/underline?

"use http://ctan.org/pkg/siunitx" is a good starting point.

I guess these recommendations by the American Physical Society might be just what you are looking for. In particular, Style and Notation Guide for Physical Review/Physical Review Letters deals with scientific numbers, units, figures/tables, and use of roman/italic fonts. (For some strange reasons, it requires a secured connection to see the file; in case you couldn't see it, there is an excerpt here).

The American Chemical Society offers an online version of its ACS Style Guide. While this used to be available only in print, it is now apparently being distributed free of charge—or at least is available at any university with a subscription to ACS Journals. However, since it's intended to be a resource for anyone planning to submit to an ACS journal, I suspect it's generally available. The link above will take you to the specific chapter on math and units of measure.

The SI unit brochure (BIPM) is actually quite clear and well-written, and backs up many of its points with logical/physical justification. I would say the style guides (should) build on this.


text:
What is the criterion to include an institution as “affiliation” in an author list?
While looking at this Science paper, I noticed that a few of the authors have a lot of affiliations: the first author has five affiliations, including four different departments or programs at Harvard University, and the last author has seven, all of them at Harvard University:

I consider it immoderate, as I cannot imagine that each author has such strong links to so many workplaces (imagine what their typical week looks like, changing desk every two hours!). However, it was published in a highly-respected (and highly-watched) journal, meaning it probably is an accepted practice.
So, what is the criterion for affiliations? How can one end up with 7 different departments at the same university?

PhD students who are not employed at a university may never visit the university they are attached to, but still report it as a secondary affiliation for bureaucratic reasons.

The general criterion is that you must list your primary affiliation or any institution that is providing essential funding/resources, and you may list any institution that has given you a relevant appointment (which could be called many things if it's not a real job: affiliate faculty, courtesy appointment, visiting position, consulting faculty, etc.).
In practice, the way it works is that some people collect enormous numbers of affiliations through great popularity: every department wants these people to come and interact, so they all offer appointments.  (When this happens, it's hard for the popular people to turn down the invitations, out of fear of causing offense, so they end up with a lot of affiliations.)  Other people deliberately try to accumulate as many appointments as possible, to show off how popular or interdisciplinary they are, and they achieve this by going around asking for appointments.  (And they often get them, since even if you aren't excited about someone, it's easier to give them a meaningless affiliation than to turn down their request.)
The net result is that there's no way of knowing what it means in any given case, without more information.

A department is paying something? If YES then the name is on the paper, it's that simple. I think that, one day, I will have to put the name of the coffee shop close to my home since it participated a lot in enhancing the quality of my research.

Well, I don't know… first, would paying and contributing in kind be so different? If a department lends desk space, computational resources, whatever, the list would become very long… and somewhat meaninless. If my field (computational chemistry), sources of funding and other in-kind contributions are only acknowledged at the end of the paper.

Of course my answer was a kind of caricature. Here, another reason is clearly the fact that this is a science paper. Most lab or department heads are eager to have science (and nature) papers in their annual report ;)

I would go further — If the author has an official appointment in a department/center/institute, even if it is a courtesy appointment that does not generate income or research funding, they should include that department/center/institute in their affiliation.  Lots of faculty in my department have courtesy appointments in other departments; five appointments is really not that extreme.


text:
What are the consequences of a recommendation from someone in the distant past?
I am in the not completely unusual position of having an eight year period between my Master's and PhD degrees. During this time I was gainfully employed in a completely unrelated and non-academic field.
I have now graduated from a PhD and am looking for work.  Many good post-doc and academic jobs require three referees to speak on one's behalf, and to be competitive these references must surely be academics.
I had a great relationship with my Master's supervisor, including co-authoring papers together, and I believe that despite the 12 years since I was her student she could still speak credibly, confidently, and highly favorably on my behalf.
In the non-academic world it would stretch credibility to call upon a reference from such a distant point in the past.  But for an academic position, I think things could be different.
What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of using her as personal reference?  Are potential post-doctoral supervisors or hiring committees likely to discount her reference as stale and irrelevant?

If research is a substantive part of the jobs you are applying for, then you should be wary of asking your Master's supervisor for a letter.  It could work out OK, but there's a serious risk.
The issue is that hiring committees want information about your current research, rather than what you did for your Master's degree.  If your Master's supervisor has read some of your recent work and is capable of discussing and evaluating it in detail, then it will be a useful recommendation.  However, you don't want a letter that focuses on the past and just includes a brief paragraph saying "And the Ph.D. research seems to have gone well, but I don't really know anything about it."  That could actually hurt your case by suggesting that you couldn't find three people who understand and think highly of your more recent work.
A strong letter that focuses on the past is certainly better than a weak letter, so it could be your best option.  You might also talk about this issue with your Master's supervisor, and see how compelling and up to date a letter she thinks she can provide.  If she has read or wants to read your recent work, then that's great; if she is hesitant about the idea of writing a letter, then I would ask someone else.

I like this answer and it makes sense.  But just to interrogate this further: even if research is a substantive part of the job, why shouldn't the committee also be interested in the candidate's approach and commitment to research and scholarship, in addition to an evaluation of the merit of the research itself?  This is something even a stale-dated referee could give..no?

It's difficult to judge approach and commitment in the abstract.  Ideally the Ph.D. thesis should be deeper, broader, and more mature than the Master's thesis.  The Master's thesis gives important evidence of promise, but people sometimes don't go on to achieve at the level predicted.  If one of your three letters deals only with the Master's work, then it might suggest you couldn't find a third letter writer who thought you had lived up to your early promise.  Instead, it would be best if the Master's supervisor can address how your promise was in fact realized later in your Ph.D. thesis.

(So you're right that the letter would still say something valuable and important, but it could look awkward in context despite this.)


text:
How to address in-group bullying without compromising PhD/career?
I've been bullied by my supervisor and other members of my research group for the past couple of years.
Some of the things which have indicated bullying include snide remarks being made during group meetings, exclusion from the group inside and outside of the research environment, not being kept in the loop for group projects and even my own project, having key work on my project assigned to someone else, being given unreasonable loads of work to complete in an unrealistic time frame, being called upon and humiliated during meetings in front of colleagues, being immediately blamed for any issues in the group without allowing for an explanation, having rules change on me last minute and not being informed of these, and being subjected to massive double standards overall.
There are also a few more serious issues, involving threats to remove me from the program, use of my content without referencing me, removing me from projects I had planned on publishing from and giving them to others without informing me until they have conducted 'my' work and published it, and having them ignore university policies in favor of their own rules.
I have spoken to PhD advisers, advocacy reps, and other staff members about this, but have not wished to pursue any formal complaints procedures out of fear my supervisor will compromise my PhD (by reassigning all the novel aspects of my project to someone else, or not providing feedback on my thesis), and ruin my ability to work in research (by preventing me from publishing during my PhD, providing negative references, ruining my reputation in the field).
Long story short, does anyone have any advice on how to approach this situation without compromising my PhD or future career in the field, something my well-respected and rather manipulative supervisor could easily do without getting caught?

Is what you describe due to sexism, racism or other -ism? It seems to have the earmarks.

And is the in the US or elsewhere? There may be different options available in different places.

Can you identify when this started or what may have triggered this? Was this so from the beginning? Has your superviser at some point expressed dissatisfaction with your work or has a colleague tried to push you out of your topic?

I moved the discussion about asking the asker for ’isms to chat.

I have spoken to … but have not wished to pursue any formal complaints procedures out of fear my supervisor will compromise my PhD … and ruin my ability to work in research …

Okay, so I am going to be the bad-guy here.  What you say you fear will happen here has already happened.  What you describe ---if accurate--- is already massively compromising your PhD and your ability to research.  The university has formal mechanisms in place to deal with this kind of issue.  If you are not willing to avail yourself of the mechanisms in place to deal with these problems then there is nothing that anyone can do.  (And frankly, it is quite difficult to muster sympathy for complainants who refuse to make a proper complaint when avenues are available for this.)  You should have complained formally or got out years ago, but since you are still there you have a choice: use the mechanisms available to you for complaints of this kind, or not.  Do not become a victim of the sunk cost fallacy.
If you decide to avail yourself of the complaint mechanisms at your university, the main thing you should do is this: document, document, document.  Document everything well, and collect and keep all relevant evidence of treatment that is unfair to you.  Make a chronological list of incidents, since the start of your candidature, detailing dates (or rough dates if you can't remember exact dates), what happened in each incident, and any documentation (emails, etc.) that constitutes evidence of the incident.  Write this in a neutral factual way, but make sure you briefly explain how each incident negatively affected your candidature.  Seek written statements from other sympathetic students that can back up your assertions.  You have said that the university has breached its policies when dealing with you.  Make sure you document instances of this as well.  If that is correct, then the university will be in a weak position in respect to the conflict, and you have a greater prospect of extracting some reasonable concessions in a complaint process.

I agree completely with Ben. Use the formal mechanisms in place at your university, and document everything in the process. I would also add that your university probably has some sort of anti-retaliation policy (but do ask), which means that none of the people you complain against can punish you in any way as a response. Should they do so, your university is required to take disciplinary actions against them (but again, this is assuming your university has an anti-retaliation policy).

Main points are 100% correct but I don't think it is relevant what OP should have done, or who can muster sympathy for who. What is relevant is what OP should do now.

@Designerpot I am curious, why people often resist an idea of reflecting a little bit on the past and trying to identify what could've been done to avoid issues in present. Surely, it won't help to solve the current problem, but it can help to avoid/prevent similar problems in future?

it is quite difficult to muster sympathy for complainants who refuse to make a proper complaint — Speak for yourself.  Abuse is remarkably effective at disempowering its victims.

What you say you fear will happen here has already happened.  This says it all.

@JeffE: Alleged victims, of alleged abuse - determining the facts is what a complaint process is for.

I don't like this answer at all. Sentences like "The university has formal mechanisms in place to deal with this kind of issue" and "it is quite difficult to muster sympathy for complainants who refuse to make a proper complain" will give readers the wrong impression that everything will turn well as long as you stick to the rules and that the whole situation is somehow OP's fault. In fact, I find it very careless of Ben to give this sort of answer without knowing more about OP's status, the country, the supervisor, and the research field. I have full sympathy for OP.

@trunklop: I have certainly not suggested that the situation is the OP’s fault; that is dishonest attribution to me of something I have not said.  The reason I make this critique is that there seems to be a mentality that pervades academia where it is expected that the university should take action on complaints about the conduct of others, without affording any due process to them.  If there is an allegation of bullying, it is reasonable that the persons accused have some chance to give a response.  That kind of fact-finding process is what is afforded by a complaint system.

I am with @trunklop -- try that administrative stunt out in China or Argentina and feel the aftertaste.

@Scientist: I saw it happen in the US, too. University had to decide between (a) the well-being of a senior professor who brought millions of dollars to the university through projects and (b) the career of some unknown PhD student from some poor country. Guess what they did... As I said: Without knowing more about OP, all advices are equally wrong. Things might be different if, for example, the supervisor is not yet tenured and has to fear a formal review.

My advice is very simple: get out of this place, away from these people.
You already have compromised your PhD by joining the wrong group. As soon as the issues surfaced you should have moved on. I do not know whether there was anything in particular which triggered their treatment, and whether this is "special treatment" for you, but maybe this is the first valuable lesson you can try to learn from this mess.
But I do not think you should continue doing this to yourself, and I do not think you can succeed in anything substantial while you're surrounded by such low class of parasitic individuals. You will not finish this PhD, accept this as a fact. Even if you did, what would you take from it?
Look in other directions, reconsider whether you really want a PhD, think about the acquired skills and experience transferrable to business, industry. Whatever. But first step: walk out and never come back again.
From a distance you will be able to see things clearer. Start now.
Good luck.

While I might want to look at that option, it seems extreme - a last resort. I would hope something less disruptive could be found. You are correct that no-one should have to live with such abuse, of course.

People nowadays overestimate the value of titles, and academics are typically locked in the illusion that the ivory tower is all there is for them. Quitting a PhD is not the end of the world, in fact for so many students it can be a career-saver. I do not think OP will be even allowed to graduate here. Outside such a place on a sane mind there might be more professional opportunities, towards higher salaries. First step in this case is surely the great outdoors, in my view.

@Stefan I do not think Buffy fully disagrees; I believe Buffy works in a region/place where such a situation could be mended internally... (=a place where it isn't likely to happen as such, anyway).

@Stefan Who said US academia is anywhere fair? I have heard such horror stories from colleagues. But still law enforcement may be an option (for big pockets), depending on region and circumstances.

@Stefan I miss a point where the institution was said to be a top one? It surely doesn't sound like one with this mode of mistreatment. (Again, I heard of horrible treatment dispensed to a friend at a top lab in Harvard, but still way more professional and less petty than this mess.) Still, proving racism plays a role and even that any mistreatment is taking place (it is mostly passive-aggression) would be quite tricky even in the best of academic societies (e.g. Switzerland, Sweden), and in the US legal disputes apparently rely a lot on money.

Bullying in academia is currently getting higher exposure as a problem. See the recent cases of Nazeen Rahman at ICR in the UK, or Guinevere Kauffmann at the Max Planck. In this climate it is less likely that complaints will be ignored. If faculties don't want the bad press that dealing with an abuser brings, they want the bad press of being found not to have done so even less.
As far as I see it, you have three choices (depending on the time constraints of the system you are working with, they may be more or less tenable):
1) You could walk away. Maybe start again somewhere else. Maybe don't.
2) You could start an official complaint against your supervisor.  As others have already pointed out, you are now in a place where all of backlash you fear from this course of action may happen even if you don't start a complaint. Do you really believe this person will spend time on your thesis, or treat you fairly when it comes to authorship? Only you can answer that question.
3) You can try to change supervisors without a formal complaint: it might be that the supervisor would be willing to not stand in the way of you finding a new supervisor either within the department or, probably better, in a different, but related department if this meant that they could avoid a formal complaint. I've seen several people do this, and it has worked out well for them, even though some might see it as an affront to justice. If you decide to take this route, it should be someone from the department's hierarchy that approaches your supervisor, and not you.
What I would say is doing nothing is not an option, don't allow your self to believe that it is.
In the ideal world the perpetrator would be made to change their ways, or leave. But only you know if you have the emotional energy for that fight.
One thing you should note is that this will probably result is you not finishing your PhD with the same project you have now. While it might seem soul destroying to loose 2 years worth of work that you've already done, you will have picked up many skills which will make any new project easier and quicker to get off the ground.

"soul destroying to loose 2 years worth of work" -- two years of actual PhD training are nothing sort of a loss, considering the student was really investing in himself, learning methods, producing data and written material, and getting paid for it. For most reality outside of the academia, the degree itself is but a wall decoration.

I said "might seem" soul destroying, but then went on to make exactly the same point as you.

Sure, point taken. I used to think in terms of degrees that as a PhD student and nowadays I see so many people who could benefit enormously from just quitting!.. If at least they'd listen.

Not knowing the real situation here but I hope the following can be helpful. The other two answers here currently have a downside as well as any upside.
If you leave you will give up two years of progress toward your degree. That may be a worthwhile sacrifice if it is possible for you to take it. If you go to a different university you will have the experience needed, I hope, to get yourself into a better situation. I agree, that you are working with monsters. I once left one university for another and wound up in a better situation, but mine was very different.
If file formal complaints internally, you may, and only you can judge, face pushback from the administration who may rise up to protect "their own" as has been seen too often. If that happens, you will pay the price as you fear. I hope that you are overly pessimistic here, but not knowing more, I can't say. But the university may itself have an office that can effectively handle such issues, but you will need to vigorously defend yourself from attacks of those cornered by the accusations. If the Ombudsman office is strong enough you may be fine and you may be able to learn of their reputation before complaining.
The third option is to attack the problem with allies from outside the university. This is the reason I asked about sexism and racism, etc. There are organizations and individuals who have pledged to try to work with people being discriminated against and some of them can be quite effective. Universities don't like dirty laundry shown in public and so will sometimes make accommodations for people to avoid both/either of publicity or lawsuits. These organizations may have lawyers that can be brought to bear. They may even have external funding to provide services.
However, one hesitates to recommend such a course of action, since the results can be messy and may result in the individual (you) paying most of the costs (and I'm not speaking of money, here).
Deans don't like to be told that their faculty are unethical. They don't like to respond to groups of complainants especially. They don't want to lose face in public and among their peers.
But going this route calls for a carefully planned program of increasing pressure that requires allies, as I said above. If this is the real situation, search out those allies and discuss their options.
It is even possible that you will find allies among the faculty. Most of us don't like to be associated with abusers and other unethical faculty members.

I recognize that none of this may apply to you, but it is possible that it applies to others who face similar issues.

+1 because this is the officially-correct path to seek. But I highly doubt the OP comes from a place & society where moderation and administration work as they should. Otherwise such a mess as described wouldn't have developed. Most departments I have been in contact with in the 3rd world follow a clan culture where staff are bound to support each other, and abusers and their minions thrive. I believe fighting back will cost OP more (returned funds, further abuse, sanity) plus a title which is unlikely to come anyway.

@Scientist, sadly, I have to agree. But such things happen in the US as well. We like to think of ourselves as more "enlightened". Would that it were so. But the OP is in a bad spot wherever it has occurred.

Yes, I am sure such things happen in the US, Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. I have heard of many instances. Yet there is the resource of law enforcement if one knows how to manage it. Elsewhere (e.g. China) political anarchy prevails over official procedures. I fear OP is in "the real world".

On the surface the solution looks simple: get out of there. However you need a plan!
One thing is certain, universities do have liberal views, and all the "-isms" can be stopped, and the people responsible for it could be fired, doesn't matter how high rank they maybe. However, here is the catch: you need the right person to talk to.
Start with the head of research group and beyond: start discussing your issue with the head of group. Most of the time, this will stop the issue. If that does not stop the issue, go right to the human resources department.
Meanwhile...: During this stressful time, you should start looking for a new position somewhere else, you might get a position right away, and therefore you can leave. It might be the case that, your issue is resolved by going to another research group at the same university. Take your time and follow these two paths, because you don't want to leave, don't get paid, and then start looking for a position.

+1 Actively seeking for a new position from inside is the master move here. However it is quite difficult for the typical individual under psychological distress (e.g. leading to bad exposure to peers via a number of faux-paux and awkward behaviour in networking). Plus surely as soon as the bad colleagues sniff OP's intentions they'll work against it and increase the monkey-business load.

You're obviously in a complicated and emotionally difficult situation. I'm sure there's far more to it than you could cram into even a long StackExchange post. What you'd really benefit from is a conversation with a confidential professional skilled at handling these types of situations. Luckily, such professionals exist and many universities have them. They're called ombuds (or ombudsmen or ombudspeople) and can be brilliant at what they do. They'll listen and help you think through the situation and your options -- everything from what you might say to a problematic person to how to pursue a formal complaint, and much in between. They can also help with mediation if you choose to pursue that route. See if your campus has an ombuds office and if they do, go there.

If you can transfer to another university and start a new Ph.D program, you may "lose two years of progress" -- but you'll be able to make progress more effectively if no one is targeting you.
Life is too short to deal with bullies.

Like no one there wont figure out what fell him in the last place

Maybe his new place will somehow find out what happened at his old place. They might get in touch with his team and find out that way. But if not, he doesn't have to reveal everything. People transfer for all sorts of reasons -- sometimes a combination of multiple reasons. It's often possible to give reasons that are true (for example "I felt this university would be a better fit for my research topic") without going into specifics about other factors. And he doesn't have to answer questions that they don't ask.

Also, which is more likely -- (1) information will travel to another workplace, or (2) information will travel to another team or department within the same workplace? I think (1) is less likely, and therefore safer.

Seriously though, I still think the option of "transferring to another university" is worth a try. And let's say the new place does find out --  they still may accept him, especially if they believe that he is not at fault in the way he was treated.

No, it's not worth a swift. Go or no go. Never expose your weakness like that. It will always be capitalised upon.

If you meet a problematic person in the morning, you ran into an problematic person. If you meet nothing but problematic people for years, you're probably the problematic person. If it's been this sustained for this long from many different people, maybe you need to actually examine your attitude and behavior and spend more time considering your own actions instead of everyone else's. Most people don't wake up thinking "man, how can I screw that person over today", and if they're actually well respected in their field they probably didn't get there by making stuff up and plotting someone's downfall for no reason. Not knowing the situation any better than hearing just your side, those are my thoughts. This isn't the advice anyone wants to hear, but do some honest self-reflection.

I thought we were starting to get past this sort of victim blaming culture.

Suggesting self-reflection on why numerous people over several years don't like you isn't the same as blaming a rape victim because they wore a short skirt. If someone just wants to be coddled in a hug box and not hear something that might be the real reason because it's uncomfortable then they shouldn't solicit advice on the internet.

"Examine your attitude and behavior" Or ask a close friend or family member --  make sure you get an honest answer and find out what you can improve. But... if you are not the problem, then don't blame yourself, and if the people around you are the problem, then don't let them off the hook.

'If you only meet [x] people, maybe you're [x]' is an expression that has its place, but in an isolated situation it doesn't really have the same weight. Institutions, and many of the people part of them, can become toxic like this.

providing negative references, ruining my reputation in the field

It seems to me that this will happen anyway.
My advice would be fight back at the right time with sufficient resources. You are a PhD candidate, think about solid ways to document and validate your claims. Chose the right time; for instance get the supervisor to proofread your thesis and have everything ready then start the procedure.
My second advice is either fight back very hard or don't do anything at all.
I don't think using your right of defending yourself would completely ruin your chances to work in research. People have eyes and minds and can read. There will be some recruiters that will probably understand your situation the same way many people did here.
Best of luck.

If it's too late to pretend you don't understand what they are trying to do with you then you can't just sit around and keep cashing in any longer.
But that is clearly one thing you could do if you haven't told anyone of how you perceive things yet. Just slow down, stop taking things personally, deliver bare minimum of what you are supposed to, but always keep the best to yourself.
Always remember your boss always has bosses higher up. And (s)he will look bad in front of those bosses if he loses you somehow.

"Cashing in"?  Really?

That doesn't seem like an effective way to a degree. Nor to mental health. "Go along to get along" leaves the trolls with their power, usually. First, take care of yourself. Second, crush the bugs.

@JeffE would you say it's smarter to just quit with probably no income to fall back on?

@Buffy Maybe the person already has stopped wanting a degree when they see how this works in practice.

@mathreadler, perhaps, but we don't know that and I hope he or she finds a better solution. After all we aren't all evil to the core.

@mathreader Yes, actually, I would.

@Buffy I think they totally deserve to lose him and for him to not even want to get to bosses bosses and work for them.

@JeffE how exactly do you mean? You know he will be marked as bosses bosses property-in-progress and no one else will touch him.

@mathreadler No, I don't know that!  I have actually seen cases of abuse handled sanely.

@JeffE claiming abuse can be an own-goal anyway. Will be tougher finding jobs if people know you can yell abuse if you are not happy.

@mathreadler It is possible, even advisable, to change advisors/departments/jobs without accusing your old boss of abuse, and believe it or not, some people are actually (gasp) supportive of abuse victims.  But this is veering into a discussion, which isn't appropriate here.  My main objection is that the language "cashing in" suggests that the victim is taking unfair advantage of their abuser.

@JeffE in some situations in life you may want to try looking like the strong one once in a while and not like the weak one. Portraying it the way I showed could help you do that.

Objecting to mistreatment is not evidence of weakness.

@JeffE of course it is. It means the mistreatment worked to make you feel bad.

@JeffE Having worked in very different places (South America, Asia, Central Europe) I can say that fundamentally this discussion here is culturally-biased. In some cultures (e.g. china) you're supposed to "accept" abuse without affecting your face (literally) while hoping for the right opportunity to get payback. This is because of a strong local pressure against conflict and also because nobody would support a complainer or whistleblower. This is quite different from 1st world "model" democracy standards.

From this perspective I totally understand the answer provided by @mathreadler here and perhaps this is exactly the cultural setting of the OP. I think this is a good answer.

@Scientist lol. You are funny. Wests success is because of extremely manipulative mum funds. Id rather take a dictator and some tanks any day of the week thank you very much...

@mathreadler Depends on what you perceive as "success". I find it hard to find anywhere, up or down, left or right. But this is drifting away from the point here... But see: I get your cultural paradox here! Academia SE is still full of US-centred tenure-track-biased respondents. Hopefully this will change with more users, bringing in new light.

@Scientist that definition... that's the one having something with the mum fund to do. If you are anywhere near "normal" your mom will have the mental information required to get you where we want you to be.

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


text:
What is a magazine paper and how it is different from a journal paper
I have seen many long papers published in magazines, such as IEEE signal processing magazine, and usually they are about a detailed overview of many papers combined together of the same author.
So I am wondering if a magazine paper is as I have described or it has to satisfy other criteria such as a novelty is required compared to the previous work.
I am also wondering, can a PhD student be a first author in a manuscript submitted to a magazine or the first author has to be famous in the field in order to be trusted by the reviewers.
Last question is if a PhD student graduates with one magazine paper will that help to get a faculty position or it is counted as a journal paper.

Can you give an example of such a paper, and also say what field you are working in?  I've never heard of such a thing in my field.

IEEE magazine articles are aimed at a more general audience than conference or journal papers, which are usually aimed at a small group of specialists in a narrow subfield.
They can be a way to expose the author's technical work to a broader audience, give an overview of an area, or present something that is of interest to researchers in the area but isn't appropriate for a technical journal article (for example, to explain the legal, economic, or political issues behind a particular research area).
Because they serve a different purpose from "regular" journal articles, manuscripts submitted to magazines are judged according to some additional magazine-specific criteria. For example, the peer review form for one IEEE magazine I reviewed for included the following specific questions:

Is the paper understandable to a general ComSoc audience with minimum mathematical content?
Does the paper format conform to magazine guidelines (max. 4500 words, 6 figures/tables, 15 references)?

in addition to more "usual" ones:

Is the paper topic important and interesting to the magazine's readership?
Is the paper technically sound?
Does the paper discuss novel and original work?
How is the presentation and organization of the paper?

A note on those "magazine guidelines": Because IEEE magazines do not publish specialized and detailed technical papers, they often have limits on the number of equations, figures, and references that authors may include. For example, from the guidelines for IEEE Communications Magazine:

Articles should be tutorial in nature and should be written in a style comprehensible to readers outside the specialty of the article.
Mathematical equations should not be used. In justified cases up to three simple equations could be allowed, provided you have the consent of the Guest Editor. The inclusion of more than three equations requires permission from the Editor-in-Chief.
References should be included only to guide readers to more information on the topic; the reference list should not include every available source. A limit of 15 references is recommended. The inclusion of more than 15 references requires permission from the Editor-in-Chief. References to Web pages should be checked immediately for accessibility before submitting material to the Production Staff.
Figures and tables should be limited to a combined total of six.

If the paper you want to write needs more equations, references, figures, or tables than the magazine guidelines allow, this may be an indication that it's too technical for a magazine article, and is more suitable for publication in a regular journal.
Regarding your other questions:

I am also wondering, can a PhD student be a first author in a manuscript submitted to a magazine or the first author has to be famous in the field in order to be trusted by the reviewers.

Yes, a PhD student can be a first author on a magazine paper. I have a first-author magazine paper; I am a PhD student, and I am not famous :)

Last question is if a PhD student graduates with one magazine paper will that help to get a faculty position or it is counted as a journal paper.

Magazine papers are nice because a good magazine article can rack up a lot of citations. For example, in my field of computer networks and wireless communications, IEEE Communications Magazine has the highest h-index. Similarly, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, IEEE Communications Magazine, and IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine are included among the top IEEE journals in terms of impact factor.
But a magazine paper won't be considered the same as a journal paper, because it lacks the technical depth of a journal paper.

So you mean a hiring committee for a faculty opening would just appreciate the magazine article (which is undoubtedly better than any well reputed conference paper) but would be impressed more with a journal article consisting of more technical depth right?


text:
After my employment ends, can I keep working without pay at my current research center, on independent research?
I have a bachelor degree in Computer Engineering. I worked as a Research Engineer in a Research Center. It was a fully paid Engineering position funded by European projects.
However, my contract ended, and because there are not any more projects available at the moment, I can't be re-contracted.
My question:
Is it possible for someone to work as a freelance researcher? I have an idea of a platform I would like to work on. The idea, I think, could easily even become a paper. Is it possible that I could continue to work in the research center without being paid, and try to perform some research of my own? Of course I could ask my supervisors about it, but the thing is, I don't know how to ask it.
What I was thinking was they could provide me tools like the computer, mobile devices and a working desk to develop my idea (things that I was provided while working there). In the end it would be something that the university could present, but I would get credit for it for my CV, and it could be especially helpful in getting a good candidate position next year, in a Masters program I am aiming for.
How could I present an idea like this to my supervisor? Is it something that actually happens?

Some notes in response to comments to clear things a bit: The problem is not that I need any kind of equipment to make my idea reality. At work I was provided a simple laptop and some mobile devices, that I can easily have access on my own, so nothing special there.
The reason why I would like to continue work there is as simple as that:
I want to propose an idea of a platform that I would like to create and according to my estimates would be 9-12 months of work. I could do that from my house or by going to work at the research center. However, I need my supervisor to draw public/scientific attention, make a paper with him out of it etc. I want to be able to write in my CV that the last 9-12 months I was working on a project at "that" research center in cooperation with "that" researcher and not that it was a "home" project that I developed.
I haven't made the proposition to my supervisor yet for the following reasons :

I am afraid that my supervisor could simply use my idea with the engineers that still have a contract there.
What I would like is to be the only one working on the project. Like a PhD thesis. I want to get credits of it. Not the research center. I want to get the credit as the main developer/author of this thing, and of course my supervisor be the one that would present it and his name next to mine. Is this even possible? I mean I don't want any other engineers sniffing their nose on it, I don't want my supervisor to demand things on the project. I am thinking of proposing  a complete solution of exactly what I have in mind, let me work on it with my time, without any funding, but the supervisor be the one to present it and draw attention on it.

In the end all I am saying is to have this project on my CV to open some doors on the future and my supervisor being the mentor of this thing.

Possible duplicate: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9611/applying-for-research-funding-as-an-independent-researcher

How did your supervisor answer when you asked him?  You did ask him, right?

@ChrisGregg: though I see a difference between someone who doesn't want to enter a PhD program for which funding could be gotten and someone who needs to bridge the time before entering the master's program and wonders whether there is any possibility at all.

I wouldn't call it "freelancing". None of freelancers I know works for free.

@PiotrMigdal: Free as in freedom.

@DaveClarke Sure, I know what does word mean. My point was that in the case of this question "freelancing" is not the right word (on the contrary, that question is about freelancing). This question is more like "how can I persuade a univ. to let me some resources even if I am not longer employed there".

Edit 3 should be a separate question.

What kind of university in which region is this? There are tremendous differences how universities operate in different countries and on the spectrum from degree mills to flagship research universities.

Of course anyone can be an independent researcher.  Just do it.  But that's not what you're really asking.  The question you're really asking is this:

How can I convince my former supervisor to let me continue using their equipment and resources after my current contract ends?

And the only reasonable answer that question is to turn in on its head.  What's in it for them?  How would they benefit from giving you an office and access to their equipment?  Is the payoff for them worth more to them than the resources that you would expend?  The fact that the project is good for you isn't enough.
There's an even more basic question: Do they have resources that they can give you access to?  The equipment that you want access to may be tied to the specific project.  They may not be able to give you access.  But the only person that can answer that question is your former supervisor.

Some updates in response to the updated question:

However , i need my supervisor to draw public/scientific attention , make a paper with him out of it etc.

No, you don't.  You can write and submit a paper yourself.  You can publicize it yourself.  You can ask your former supervisor to help you publicize it; if your supervisor was your advisor and not just your boss, they'll be happy to help you, because your success makes them look good.

I am afraid that he could simply use my idea with the engineers that still have a contract there.

You don't trust your supervisor.  So don't work with him.  Your mistrust is probably misplaced, but that's your call. To quote Howard Aiken: "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."

of course my supervisor be the one that would present it and his name next to mine

Why "of course"?  Just do it yourself.

i dont want my supervisor to demand things on the project.

No, that's not how it works. If you want your advisor to put his name on something, you must give him partial responsibility for that something.  That's what coauthorship means.

I am thinking of proposing to him a complete solution of exactly what i have in mind , let me work on it with my time , without any fundings , but he ll be the one to present it and draw attention on it.

In other words, you want to do all the fun stuff, using your supervisor's resources, and leave the hard work of writing and presenting to your supervisor, but not allow them any actual input, and then claim credit for yourself.
That's just not going to happen.  If you want something from someone else — working space, laptops, Internet connection, help with writing and presentation, anything — you have to offer them something in return.  Either offer to make your supervisor a full partner, including veto power, or you do the work yourself, including all the writing and presentation, with your own equipment, on your own time.
Having the project on your CV will open more doors if you do it without your supervisor.

JeffE's answer is absolutely correct and excellent. I want to say more about what you can do.
In your question,

i dont want my supervisor to demand things on the project.

and

my supervisor being the mentor of this thing.

contradict to each other.
You want a mentor and you don't want him demand things. Why would somebody spend time and resources for you without knowing what you're doing? How would he know your platform idea is really good and workable without you presenting the idea to him first?
You need to make a choice between the two options.
Either

If you want him to be the mentor, present your platform idea to him. He and you can work together to decide what to do next. You want to do something like a PhD thesis. Do you realize that every PhD student have to go through admission procedure (you need to be admitted) and most PhD students have to pass qualified exams  (you need to be qualified)
  before doing thesis?

Or

If you don't want him demand things on the project, you work on your platform idea on your own. Go all the way by yourself. All you need are tools like the computer, mobile devices and a working desk. You should be able to afford to them. At the end, write a paper, put it on arXiv. Once you have the arXiv version, go to your former supervisor. You two can work out how to present it.

I cannot see any reason why you could not be a freelancer as such. Since researchers are usually employed by an academic institution or a (even one person) company and you could have your own company if you will, there obviously is no problem from that perspective.
There is obviously a big question regarding how you sustain your life. Are you planning on doing this in your spare time? In any case, supposing financing for living is not a problem I would turn the focus on affiliation. If you want to publish the material/product at some point, having an affiliation would greatly help. You mention talking to your former advisor and that is probably a good idea if you think you have a good connection there.
Before contacting a person/organization to which you would like to be affiliated, you should try to work up a good plan for your project so that there is a clear path for what you will do, where you want to arrive and also provide an analysis of how your work fits in with other work. This is essentially a project plan as you would expect from a doctoral or masters candidate. Having such a text and preliminary work/results would make the project easy (easier?) to assess and hence provide your target person/organization with a good foundation to build your project.
I have to add that I have not heard of anyone doing this but if someone came to me with an well-founded idea and told me they needed an affiliation, I would seriously consider it. If that person needed office space and resources it may be a little trickier since in my case, no office space comes free, and so there would be a financing problem. This would vary hugely between organizations and persons so I cannot say what could be expected. You do of course need to provide any requests for support in the form of office space, computer/computing facility etc clearly. How such "demands" would affect your success would have to be evaluated against how interesting the project is to the organization/person. In the case of an academic advisor, I think how closely the idea ties in with existing work affects your chances. If it is completely off the beaten track of the person, I deem chances smaller.

About doing Research (without being payed)

Whereever I have worked so far, we'd have gladly let an office table for a good student who wanted to stay. (Computer may be more difficult, in many places students prefer to bring their laptops which are better than the university computers).
Actually, where I'm now we try to keep the good students with small paid jobs between their research practica / theses, because it is a lot of effort to train a student. Of course, noone wants to keep a bad student. But wanting to go on with research has a strong positive correlation with being a good student.
=> talk with your supervisor about possibilities.
Just BTW: I was lucky enough to experience workplaces where the supervisors considered it unethical to let people work without payment.
Another issue is insurance. As long as you sit just somewhere with a computer, things are usually fine. However, without a proper contract (work or research practicum), you usually cannot work in any kind of lab.
Depending on the kind of work you propose, there may be possibilities to get some funding (if it is programming rather than scientific, maybe GSoC would be worth trying). Talk to your supervisor. Search the internet.

About Freelancing
You need to check the freelancing rules in your country. You mentioned only that you were previously "funded by european projects". Maybe someone can tell you more if we know your country.

A first step towards successful freelancing could be attending start-up business lectures/courses at your university/local vocational school/IHK (though as a freelancer you'd want to avoid joining them). My university offered such lecture series in the evening, so people could attend regardless of their studies/job.
Find out whether/how much jobbing/business your university allows (you don't want to loose the possibility to enter the master courses)
Find out what formal rules you have to follow: e.g.

do you need to get a particular tax number?
what information needs to be written on your business communication/invoices (e.g. said tax number)?
tons of other things to be aware of

E.g. in Germany unless you have private health insurance you want to be careful that your health insurance doesn't put you into the full-time freelancer category: this comes with a minimum fee that corresponds to a gross wage of about 1900 €/month!
As student, you want either to stay in the student (lowest & fixed fee) or in the PhD student category (lower minimum fee).
In Germany, if you want to be a freelancer and work exclusively for your university, you'd better learn about Scheinselbständigkeit and how to convince the social insurance that this is not the case with you. Best way to do that is being able to point to another customer.
This is another point why your supervisor may not want to enter such a business relation with you: if that suspicion comes up, not only you but also he'll have a lot of trouble.
Many German universities have a very bad reputation wrt. paying late.
I can attest to that from experience, and I also know some closeby resaurant who'd not allow university to pay by bill - normal companies could, but university had to pay in cash for exactly this reason.

Your research contract ended, and there is no option for renewal. You want to work on a project which is your idea, but you need some technical and human resources from your position to realize the idea. You want to self-motivate your work, which is not related to an idea of the institution or your advisor, but you then want him to author a paper with you?
What you really need to do, I think, is nail down exactly what this is that you are building, and decide what you want to get out of it. In academia, the standard deliverable is a paper or conference discussion, but in freelance, you are typically trying to build a specific working product for a customer.
If you want to build this product, and think it has value for other customers or users, then go right ahead. It sounds like, though the institution would be helpful, you can do it on your own. If that's the case, and you believe you have a novel, valuable product, then you have no time to waste: pack up your desk, open your home office, and get coding. Maybe you start an open source project, maybe you sell a proprietary application. By being out of the institution, you make sure that you have complete control of your invention, in case it takes off.
I guess what I'm asking is, if you have a great idea, is an academic paper really the best place you can put it? Of course, academic researchers have to publish their work: it attracts funding and attention to their work, and allows their ideas to spread. If you're not an academic researcher, though, why publish (in a journal)? Microsoft doesn't publish their findings, they publish software on disks. CocaCola doesn't publish their secret formula, they bottle it and sell it.
Coming out of undergraduate, I can see why you feel pressure to publish. Published papers seems to be a litmus test for a researcher's efficacy. Do you think, however, that your having started an open source project or software company will look bad on your future job or grad school applications? Of course it won't.
The other thing that you'll get from being straight from undergrad, is the idea that you will be able to write a publication quality paper, one that your advisor will be comfortable with his name on, without any external support. Mentoring a paper is not simply a side job or friendly favor from your advisor. Even if your advisor did agree to mentor you on your paper, do you think his supervisor would want the institution's time, name, and resources going to something which does not have the institution's approval or funding?
If you are still feeling that you'd like to go for an academic publication, then by all means, do so. Many, many students decide they'd like to work on full-time research after undergraduate. What do they do? They go to grad school, where a research mentor advises them on a publication, which sounds exactly like what you're looking for. If you already have an area of research and a project in mind, you can set yourself apart from many other applicants. Look for schools or institutions with closely related research, contact the researchers and see if they have spots!

Consider applying to do a research master's degree at that university! Many universities will accept any master student if they don't require funding or secure their own. And they'll provide a desk. 9-12 months is the effort typically required for a master's thesis (assuming you meant full-time). As a master student you can usually do your work at a university research center. And you'll have to take a few courses that you basically choose yourself.
So, just apply for a master's, and start working on your platform (and your thesis book) right away. I'm sure while you develop, you'll soon figure out that there are things you want to learn more about. So you take courses or directed studies on these topics along the way (your supervisory committee needs to approve these). And bang 20 months later you might defend and walk out with a degree. Being in a formal master's program also gives you lots of handy support such as: having a supervisory committee that gives feedback on your project every couple weeks, your supervisor that is regularly available for questions, fellow students you can co-operate with, access to university counsel for help with writing your platform's terms of use, the journal access provided by the university library, access to presentation and writing training, and many more.
And if you end up disliking the process or the courses or whatever, finish your platform, publish it, and quit the program.
If that option is financially viable depends a lot on the circumstances. Like are you studying in your home state? Does the university charge tuition? 1k or 50k? Do you qualify for financial aid? Are you willing to TA? Can you secure your own funding? Seriously, figure out if there is a software foundation that might give you a grant! Who knows, you might find a fund that will pay your student living expenses.


text:
What is the perception of students who take a gap year between their graduation and starting graduate school?
I am an undergraduate mathematics major, entering my fourth year. I plan on applying to graduate school, but I have not yet taken the GRE exams, and there a few key courses (Topology and Algebra in particular) that I have not taken yet, so I am hesitant to take the Advanced Math GRE too soon. (If you're wondering why I haven't taken Topology and Algebra yet, it's because I was trying to secure a CS degree, which sidetracked my mathematical studies last year. It was a healthy branching out experience, and one that helped me realize my true academic passion.)
My main question: what is the perception of students who take a gap year between their graduation and starting graduate school?
I think I will take the GRE tests this fall, a) for practice and b) if I score high, then I might as well apply sooner rather than later. However, I ask this question to gauge how much energy I should put into preparing for the tests this fall. If I hear, "You should really do your best to avoid any gap in your education," then I will work my butt off in preparation for the tests. But if I hear, "It's totally okay take a gap year before going into graduate school," then I would give myself more freedom in terms of my non-standardized-exam studies, extracurriculars, and in general social activities. I figure the answer to this question won't be as cut-and-dry as I hope, but any advice would be appreciated!
Just to clarify, my gap year would not consist of me sitting at my desk taking practice GRE exams all day... That would be a pitiful use of my time. I definitely plan working either as an intern or a research assistant at a successful organization. It seems like the general consensus is that taking time off is okay, and potentially beneficial, assuming you actually do something in that gap.

My answer is based on my opinion, not from experience in deciding on student acceptance. I took a 6 month break (traveling) after BSc, and it allowed me to replenish my energies and take a step back to decide if I want to pursue research. I would personally recommend it and see it as a positive thing.

It's totally okay to take a gap year before going into graduate school.  Or two.

I did work a year at a startup company before starting my PhD. It was great experience, I met great people and I learned a lot of soft skills which turned out to be incredibly useful. All in all, it was great, and everybody hearing about it saw it as positive so far. It's not a gap in your education. It is a time where you learn different things. Even if you go travel the world for a year. It is experience.

When I was looking into this for a former student of mine I spoke with the head of the graduate program at the US Top 20 program I was working in at the time. He actually viewed a gap year as a good thing. His rationale was that students who had held jobs and managed to live for the gap year were more likely to have the work habits useful in graduate school.
When it comes time to write your applications you just have to remember to explain how that year has made you a better candidate for their program. It might not be more math that you've learned by it may be maturity and a renewed sense of purpose. If you chose to take a year off do something worthwhile and don't just study for exams.

It is entirely fine to take a year off before starting grad school. Many graduate students do this (I include myself among those who did it and were accepted in top university in the UK (no arrogance intended)).
Professors or Admission committees do not focus too much on the gap between the time when you finished your undergraduate studies and when you applied to a graduate program. However, some care must be taken as I explain in the following list:

It also depends on the combination of gap-years and what-you-did on those years. For example, it is fine if you take a year off to explore the Amazon rainforest and learn T'ai chi ch'uan. However, if you rest for many years and you did nothing to improve your CV during this time, that may look suspicious to an Admission committee. This is because many people apply to a graduate program in order to get funding while they find "something else".
If you take more than 2 "sabbatical" years but you did something to improve your CV, that may even be appealing. For example: working for the private sector, teaching, attending some special courses, doing (provable) research on the area of interest ...
I have come across 60+ y.o. graduate students.
TOEFL and GRE tests are typically valid for 2--3 years, then you can take them as soon as you feel capable of getting the required score. This would also put some pressure on you in order to avoid the common procrastination.

In conclusion, it is fine if you take a year in order to clarify your ideas, gather all the requirements, and improve your CV. An advice from my personal experience: be careful with these "gap-years", they are a double-edged sword. They could either increase or decrease your chances of getting accepted in a graduate program, depending on what you do during these years.

+1 for "doing something useful" during the "sabbatical". What you have done is actually more important than when you graduated.

I had a gap of 1.5 years between finishing my (second) Master's and applying for a Ph.D. in statistics... a total gap of two years between my latest graduation and starting the Ph.D. In these two years I was working as an economist (my second degree) in a government think-tank, so it wasn't a totally irrelevant experience. If you sustain an income through say tutoring math (which appears to have an infinite demand, although may be poorly paid), and take advanced classes in the mean time, this only showcases you as a person dedicated to the selected field who wants to do it despite the real life challenges. +1 brownie point!
I did not have a chance to evaluate an application with such gaps when I was a prof, but I can tell from my teaching experience that the older the student is, the more responsible they are. So if anything, I would view "out of the box" students jumping straight from BSc to PhD as less qualified than somebody who's been out there for a little longer, and knows what they want from their lives. But that's just my personal take.
When I was applying around (1999-2000), there was no point in pushing it at all unless you'd get the perfect GRE math score, which was not that difficult to get (probably 50% or so of applicants did). I heard though that the test was made more demanding and better discriminating.


text:
what to do when someone has same name as yours and in IEEE search they show both peoples paper?
I recently published a paper on IEEE transactions journal. in my paper link, when I click on authors tab and then my name,  another pages is opened and shows many papers but they are not mine. it seems, someone else has same name as me. Is this case common? what should I do?

Related: Is a researcher with the same name in a different field likely to cause confusion?

Also related: What are some practices for getting a name change so that people can find me more easily?

Here's from the horse's mouth: **IEEE authors may request an update to their display name by submitting a request to onlinesupport@ieee.org ** http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplorehelp/#/searchingIeeeXplore/AuthorSearch/understandingAuthorSearch If it's due to how your name is displayed on IEEE Xplore, this should help. If not, I'm guessing that you can also ask them to correct their data if there is an error in their author identification.

Anyway, IEEE Xplore is notoriously poor when it comes to author identification. As you publish more papers, you'll start to see some papers missing when you click on your name in one paper, and another set of papers missing in another list you arrive at from a different paper of yours. And both of them probably have tons of papers by others. It's disastrous if your name is a common Chinese one. (And by common, I mean you've got lots of namesakes when transliterated in the Latin alphabet, regardless of whether they're spelled differently in Chinese.)

Yes, this is a very common problem.

You should publish with the most complete version of your name possible (e.g. use your middle name.)  Think very carefully before changing your name (e.g. if you get married.)
You should establish profiles with services that keep track of publications by author (including Google Scholar, Thompson's MyResearcherID, and ORCID)  and then "claim" your publications using these ID's.

I made an account based on your second suggestion. But it was my complete name. There are a lot of people with my name in this country. Now my scholar account doesn't appear in the search results when I Google it. Is it because they have more citation than me? , We both have same name .@brian-borchers


text:
How to explain why I want to go to a summer school?
I want to go to a summer school in biomathematics for undergraduate level, and they ask to give some sort of explanatory of why do I want to attend. I've never done this before, so I have no idea what to write, first I wanted to write that the relationship between biology and mathematics is very interesting, and that stimulates my curiosity, however I feel this sounds extremely immature. How do you write this things?
Also, I've seen that in general for other events that usually involve (short) courses, they ask the applicant to write their reasons to attend, why is that?

I think this question is more appropriate for Mathematics StackExchange.

May I humbly ask the question "Why do you want to go the summer school?" Honestly, if you want to go there, you should have some reasons to want so, and you should be able to express them in written form. If you can't, don't go.

To answer both questions of "what to write" and "why they ask for this," I will quote an answer from @badroit to a related question (which deals with writing a research statement):

You're trying to demonstrate why you and your background are a good fit for a summer school and that you will benefit greatly from that school.

The general idea is the same for writing a "why I want to attend" statement: you want to show the organizers of the summer school that they won't be wasting their time and other resources on you.
So, the two things you'll want to make sure your answer conveys are:

That you are genuinely enthusiastic about the topic. Explaining (as you suggest) that the relationship between biology and mathematics is something you are very curious about/interested in is a perfectly reasonable thing to write. You could also mention related coursework or projects you have undertaken, to further demonstrate your interest in this area.
That you will benefit from the summer school. Discuss relevant goals that you think this school will help you achieve; for example, your intent to take graduate-level courses in the subject as a senior, to pursue independent study/research in this area, to go on to graduate studies in biomathematics, etc.

Finally, if there is a professor in a related area with whom you have some relationship (e.g., you took his/her class), you can ask them to review your summer school application before you send it in. This has the double benefit of (1) getting expert help with your application, and (2) cultivating a relationship with faculty in your field of interest.

Thank so much for this clear answer!