text:
Thank you note was never answered
I recently sent a thank you note to one of my college professors via email and never got a reply from her. I have not heard from her in a week and being that she is retired I would have thought that as a courtesy, she could have replied to my email (i.e. thank you for your kind words). Is it normal for retired professors to not reply to these sorts of emails?

Perhaps, since she is retired, she does not check email very often, or is on travel, or who knows what...

Yes, thank you, Jon. I have also emailed to Office Assistant at this Department asking him how I can contact Professor. I don't know what is going on there, I got no reply, either. Maybe  they are all on vocation, Very strange

Many codes of etiquette say that people should not reply to thank you notes.  Just let it go.

Did you plan to reply to her thank you note for your thank you note?

maybe. It would depend on what she replied back. If she replies just "Thank you", then thanking her back would create a loop.

Is your note special, for example very long and poetic or refers to a something a long time ago like "thank you for your help during my freshman course, I now graduated with a PhD and would never have passed my Bachelor's without you"? Did you have a special (academic) relationship with her (she being your supervisor)?

Moreover, you write you have a question - what exactly is your question?

She helped me in her class.So, it does refer to something she did for me a long time ago.   Saw an article about her on the internet,  just wanted to say, "thank you."   Told her how much I enjoyed her lectures on certain topics. My question was -would it be an appropriate gesture, on her part, to reply back?

Are you sure she remembers you? Moreover, I don't know if you do - but you should definitely not get hung up on such things. There are more and less polite people in the world and you need to just forget about some impolite things.

that I don't know, but, I reminded her what class I took and my name. I think that just replying back something like  "thank you for your kind words." Would be enough as a gesture of politeness.

I don't know where you are in the world but it was Easter last weekend and here in the UK that meant a 4 day weekend. A lot of people take some extra days off too so they have a week of holiday-- maybe she is just away at the moment.

It would seem to be overly high of an expectation to always have a reply to your thank you note.  Forget it and move on.

I wouldn't say that. Professors really appreciate the "thank you" messages but replying to them makes some of us a little uncomfortable at times. Sometimes we don't know what to say also.
One thing for sure: it makes us quite happy and sometimes a little embarrassed.

There are 3 main reasons why she may not have responded.
1. The email you sent was to an address she no longer has access to, or does not check, because she is now retired.
2. As Elkady says above, some professors don't know how to reply or potentially does not see a reason to reply.
3. She did ignore you.
1 and 2 are the most likely reasons here. It isn't uncommon for professors to not reply all the time. In your case, don't do anything. Sending a follow up email asking why she didn't reply will be considered rude.

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


text:
Greeting potential supervisor in email
A potential supervisor is greeting me with "Hi" followed by my first name. How should I greet him in return? If I say "Hi" followed by "Dr." and his last name, this will look awkward. If I say "Hello" followed by "Dr." and his last name, this will look more formal than his original greeting, and might look like a sign of my trying to distance myself. So how can I keep being formal yet not look awkward or "cold"?

Reply with "Hi" and his first name. If he's using this format to address you, that's a sign that you don't need to be so formal anymore.

The answer would depend on how well you know said potential supervisor.
If I have worked with somebody before, either through directly working for them or doing some sort of collaboration I will use their first names in an email.
If it is my first correspondence with them I will always use their proper title and their surname, at least for the first little while until I get to know them better.
Typically, supervisors are not against being referred to by their first names but there is nothing wrong with being formal in a professional environment.

We've had a conversation with several emails so far. In his signature he only uses his first name or just the first letter of his first name. So I'm not sure what way would be more appropriate to refer to him.

Then just go with a first name then.

The answer to this question almost certainly varies with culture - by nation, region, institution, department, or even research group.
However, thankfully there's an easy and non-awkward way to indicate how you would prefer to be addressed in an email: The signature.
A typical academic email will look like

Hi John,
Some interesting and important body text.
Cheers,
Jane

in which case "Hi Jane" is fine, or

Hi John,
Some interesting and important body text.
Best wishes,
Jane Smith

in which case I'd err towards "Dr Smith".
In my experience, it is uncommon - or even vaguely inappropriate - to refer to a student as Mr/Ms Doe. This isn't the case everywhere, but the greeting isn't the best indication of the preferred level of formality.
Of course, it may be the case that they haven't bothered to type a sign-off themselves, instead relying on their automatic email signature (although there's usually at least an awkardly-placed lowercase initial for some reason). That's typically a sign of informality, but you can usually infer from context.
Ultimately, there are no hard and fast rules, and most academics are busy and relatively laid-back people who won't particularly care (if they even notice). And if they do care, you may have an interesting experience with them as your supervisor. If you're really not sure, err on the side of formality - they'll likely respond in a style that gives a clearer clue.

What would you say about referring to a potential supervisor who only uses the first letter of his first name in the email?

@sequence That's about as informal as academic emails get. The first name is almost certainly fine in that case.

I'm a wuss and avoid this question by starting my emails with just

Hello,
about that thing...

I trust they will remember their name even if I don't use it every time.

I have the following experience with two different supervisors, one is my PhD supervisor and another was my Masters supervisor.
I used to write to my Masters supervisor like this from the beginning.
Dear Professor Jones

The topic that I am planning to discuss tomorrow is ...

Sincerely
Myself

I used the same approach with my PhD supervisor after my first meeting with him. But, he asked me to call him by his first name. So, now I write
Hi Jones

The method does not work with this problem...

Thanks.
Myself

So, if your professor is allowing you to be informal, that is okay. But I would recommend, stay formal from the beginning until (s)he asks you to be informal.

What would you say about referring to a potential supervisor who only uses the first letter of his first name in the email?

@sequence Does it matter. It is assumed that you know your supervisor's name. No? Even if he uses J for Jones. You should call Hi Jones.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Getting stuck with grunt work in first year undergraduate research internships
I am a 1st year undergraduate student in a life sciences program in Canada. I have recently joined a lab and I feel very out of place. The lab does biochemistry and I am more interested in physiology. I am supposed to be helping out in research this summer but no-one in the lab helps me do anything. I only refill pipettes tips and occasionally make mixtures.
I was considering doing research for a living but this is killing most of my passion. I feel like my brain power is so underutilized and I hate it. I am starting to email other professors right now but I don't really know how to proceed.
I really don't  want to lose research, as I began renting a place in my area for the summer for the sole purpose of working on research. Can someone give me any advice please?

What you're doing sounds more like grunt work than real research. Try not to let one negative experience affect your passion for research. I hope you can find something better.

Have you talked to your adviser and asked for more interesting roles than filling pipettes tips? You are a first year student and sometimes you will start fairly low down on the totem pole, but you should talk to the adviser first to see if anything else is available.

You need to talk to your advisers/supervisors/group leader about whether or not you can actually be involved in some research. The work you're describing is more aligned with a technician or lab assistant, which if you're not being paid for could be seen as a waste of your time depending on how you view it.
Be realistic though. You are a first year undergraduate and highly inexperienced working in a lab. They may have assumed that you've never held a pipette before in your life so trusting you to doing research may come with some hesitancy, especially since there will be an inevitable cost to you working there.
You essentially have three options.
1. Talk to the people you're working with to see if you can do more than you're currently doing.
2. Look elsewhere to find a position that more closely aligns with what you're looking to get out of research experience.
3. Wait until you're further down your undergraduate to find a more suitable role.
You're not a full time employee or even a part-time employee. You have no obligation to stay with them if it's not what you're looking for. Communicate with them in a polite manner and say that if they cannot provide what you're looking for then you don't want to continue.


text:
Why pursue a PhD in pure Mathematics?
Except from the goal of finding some new truths, proving some theorems, or new ideas. What is the career path for someone pursuing a PhD in pure mathematics?
Continuing in research and trying to land a professor's position somewhere ? Then a PhD student should also worry about landing a post-doc before finishing his PhD ?
Why do I keep hearing that : "the competitiveness in pure math is rather bad these days" and "an academic position in pure math nowadays is a tough choice" ?

Related question, why to attend grad school as becoming a professor is unlikely: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/103645/78796

You're thinking backwards.  Determine what you want to do with your life, then figure out what you need to do to do it.  Don't be a degree looking for a job.

Because you're stuck with a calling in a subject you love, even if getting one of the few permanent academic positions in that subject also requires the political skills of running for public office and the sheer luck of winning millions of dollars in the lottery. It's nice while it lasts.

@ScottSeidman Respectfully, must disagree.  If you really know what you want, then of course, pursue that. But determining what to do with your life is pretty hard. Sometimes it's better to learn some things you are interested in first, just because you really like it, then figure out what to do with it later. Worked for me, anyway.  There are many things you can do with a math degree.

I think the main prerequisite is that you must really, really like math. (and of course, have good enough grades etc. to get in.)

All I can say is my math teachers, instructors, and profs thought I should go in Engineering.  Frankly, one can make more money in engineering.  If you have talent in engineering, you should consider it.

@JairTaylor. It may be difficult, true, but even so, I suggest  PhD enrollment is a pretty cruddy way to spend time if you're not sure what you want to do.  There are better options.

For most of us who followed that path, if you have to ask the question then it may not be right for you and you should explore all your options before you jump.
There is a saying that "You don't choose mathematics. Mathematics chooses you."
For myself and many others we never thought of any other options.
Yes, at the moment the academic job market is terrible. Most pure math doctorates will need to deal with it, though there are a few other options, though mostly in applications.
Yes, post docs seem to be a necessary step. Not entirely pleasant but not entirely unpleasant if you meet new people with new ideas.
But a lot of academics in other fields are also "idea driven". It is a great life if you can manage to get in the door. People pay you to think. Not much could be better than that.
And, It is hard to predict what your career path might be several years in the future. Things change. When I started grad study the future looked extremely bright for PhD mathematicians. But the successful moon landing ended all of that and universities discovered they had already hired too many people and the faucet immediately closed. Overnight, essentially.
But the opposite can also happen. Some new challenge can open doors that nobody saw before. In CS, AI and data science has had something of that effect recently.
If you really love something, try to do that and try to avoid substitutes even if you need to compromise for a while as you build a reputation.

Let me add that I'm not implying that some people are "fit" for math and others are not. That isn't true, at least in my experience. It is a matter of desire and training as well as hard work. To repeat a comment made to another answer here (and elsewhere on this site): My teachers wanted to hold me back a year, primarily for poor performance in math at about age 10 (My mom saved me from that one). My first truly positive educational experience in any area was a high school geometry class. I really liked solving those problems and bought problem books to have more to solve. I finally learned my multiplication tables after earning a doctorate in math. There were other struggles along the way, but each defeat caused a renewed effort to succeed. Luckily I had good mentors.

I appreciate your feedback, I like pure math but not only pure math, I like physics and CS, then are you saying I can do whatever from that if I do pure math? I do appreciate if we have this superiority reflected on the real world also, then my choice is definitely pure math

"You don't choose mathematics. Mathematics chooses you.", very aptly said!

"at the moment the academic job market is terrible" I do not see how it can be any better. If every professor has at least two grad students, and we assume that we wanted each of them to get academic jobs, then the number of professors would have to double! If the purpose of PhDs were to get academic jobs, then it would be a pyramid scheme

@AgnishomChattopadhyay, you need to consider the educational system (along with the larger economic system) as a whole. Sometimes there are huge increases in demand for undergraduate education that universities work to fill. In the US, at least, most undergraduates are not at R1 doctoral granting institutions. Liberal arts colleges need math faculty also.

@NotaChoice "are you saying I can do whatever from [physics, CS] if I do pure math?" - that's not what Buffy is saying at all (Buffy, please correct me if I'm wrong)

@FilipMilovanović, actually the comment question confuses me. So I haven't responded.

I think NotaChoice misinterpreted your remark that "a lot of academics in other fields are also 'idea driven'" to mean something like "don't worry, if you do pure math, you can just switch careers at your leisure, cause you're the abstract idea expert, you know it all [or something]"

+100 for your last paragraph. While I'm not pursuing pure math, I am working on getting into a math-based research field at the age of 41, having discovered a love of math within the last year, and for the last 40 years not having considered myself good at math (I took advanced math classes including in grad school and did well, but there were always others who did much better than me at math problems, so I figured I wasn't a "math person". But I've since discovered I love the creative challenge of synthesizing math concepts to solve problems). So this is a very helpful perspective.

@Agnishom Chattopadhyay because it is a pyramid scheme, we need to be honest on that.

@NotaChoice it is not superiority, although you may think so, by speaking with the median math student (and, statistically consequently, the median math practitioner). Pure math is the ability of describing and expressing the reality with a very powerful formal language. Unfortunately for you, there is a lot whole to do if your goal is to manipulate reality:and that's what humans do.
If someone is extremely skilled in writing and in grammar of a language (let's say English) it doesn't make them superior in writing tehcnical instructions to repair a car or in writing Nobel acceptance speeches.

@AgnishomChattopadhyay I just want to point out a mathematical glitch in your argument. Professors can have more than one grad student, in different years of study. If they do not graduate together, they do not necessarily compete for the same position, do they? That said, of course, the essence of what you're saying is clear.

@FilipMilovanović I asked this expecting the answer to be negative, since I know even when pure mathematicians claim this, they never did anything to reflect it in the real world in some concrete terms, which is kind of annoying/ frustrating!

@bob I would like to know more please on how are you getting into a math-based research field ? I am 35 so I guess I am in the same position.

@NotaChoice I work at a company (so not academia) that does research, and I'm just starting out in machine learning research. I haven't published yet but hope to within the next 2-5 years (hopefully 2 but I'm trying to be realistic with myself). It's math based in particular because I'm focusing on the theoretical underpinnings of parts of ML.

I think if you find a company that does research and can get into a research or research adjacent role, that's probably going to be a good way to get a foot in the door as it'll give you access to journals.

I realize now that you are the OP—in any case though a research organization (industry or government) is an option, and you don’t necessarily need a PhD—I just have a Masters. That said I’m just starting at this so I can’t claim success yet but it seems like a viable path. I’m not sure I’m up for a PhD at my age and life situation, and work life balance outside of academia can be a lot better at least based on what I’ve heard about the latter.

Is you question WHY or SHOULD?
from the content of your question, it sounds like "should", but the title is too obvious. If you're not really asking, I will provide a lemma at the end.
Anyhow, welcome to the club of:

"I had bad grades at school... but look at me now!",
"You don't choose mathematics. Mathematics chooses you!",
"It's a fact that physicists and mathematicians have on average a higher IQ than the average STEM or humanities academic.".
...

Actually, since STEM includes Mathematics, it reminded me of the joke that "everybody thinks he's better than average." Oh wait... it's not even a joke!
But here are some good parts too:
Every mathematician here decries the statement: "Mathematics chooses you". Even the ones who wrote it!! :)
But some people do believe it: otherwise it didn't exist! Assume you're gullible enough to believe this stereotype: "Mathematics chooses you".
Then, following the logic of it, you will not pursue Math in the first place. What does that tell you about the "average IQ" of Math vs NOT Math set of students? Therefore: it's a self reinforcing idea! QED.
Corollary, the proof I leave for the reader as it's too trivial:
Lemma: If you're a mathematician then you think that if someone doesn't choose to pursue a PhD in math then he/she has a low IQ.
Jokes aside, if you have no better alternatives, doing a degree in Applied Math or just Math is worth it! (Example: being from Moldova and no money). Later, you can easily switch from Math to any other field: Banking, Insurance, Telecom, Bio-Chemistry, Software Engineering etc.. Mobility: It provided many people I know a legal ticket to US/EU/other and an exit from abject poverty to a rather decent life.

well, you phrased the point of my question to question the need/motivation of a pure math PhD if you won't and can't become a math professor in a much funnier perspective, so +1 :-)

concerning the IQ. I don't google studies here for others I remember to have read, the IQ is higher on average, one can only question if IQ tests test more for mathematical and abstrac thinking capabiliites than e.g. language or emotional or social cognitive abilities which play in academic career also no minor role and many prodigies probably fail of a lack of such (see savant-syndrome, or asperger or autism-syndrome which is also more pronounced among phys/math)

The last paragraph provides a different perspective.

While you could be born to have a mathematical mind and work as a mathematician as Buffy writes, or like someone with synesthesia has cognitive advantages in arts/music, remember a PhD in math from starting your studies to graduating with a PhD does often take 10 years alone. As a postdoc there will be maybe another 10 productive years, but at some point your job will become routine and even hinder you from inventive progress climbing up the ladder of responsibility. (It's really interesting from that perspective to read the Perelman case, who apparently had to leave Harvard to be able to focus on mathematical research or Einstein and when and where he made his biggest discoveries).
My strong advise to all my students is to try out as much and different opportunities   as possible during their study/PhD career. If your primal goal is to get a PhD in mathematics and a follow-up academic position, then you wouldn't have asked this question here.
One would think in studies like pure math or astrophysics, why don't end mainly Perelman, Einstein, Wolfram like prodigies on professor positions, and nowadays maybe even less than a century ago? Partly and funnily because a PhD in such scientific branches is pretty much needless if you have theoretically groundbreaking ideas and can realize them (without a need of big funding sources). PhD and professort titles are side-effects in the careers of such researchers, they rather think in scientific projects before earning any degree while on academia.se one can read hundreds of questions on the ideal PhD and how to get it. (For me the best sign, academica offers to many PhD positions, but that is a side note)
If you are already reasoning before starting this path how much financial or job security it guarantees you, your path is already doomed. I had a similar decision during my physics studies to make, either pursuing astrophysics for PhD/professorship as the latter is the only way to work in astrophysics apart from becoming a ESA/NASA engineer or joining a branch of physics that gives more financial security, life planning but still offers many options to do fundamental and intellectually challenging research as a physicist.
And there are many and it's actually the majority of physicists that started physics for particle or astrophysics, graduated with a PhD in such, but ended doing in job life completely different things due to becoming bored by the necessary strong focusing after 10 years of studying or not hitting a job in academia.

"born to have a mathematical mind" reinforces the harmful negative stereotype of mathematics as something one either has or doesn't have; this fixed mindset pervades our culture and causes people to give up on math when it gets nontrivially hard. I prefer language that emphasizes a more accurate and helpful growth mindset.

@GregMartin well, it's a fact that physicists and mathematicians have on average a higher IQ than the average STEM or humanities academian. In many other scientific branches ambition and hard work are enough for an academic career. I doubt this in phys/math. Waiting till "math chooses you" is not an option for every student and my answer describes that there are maybe much more important decision factors. Funnily, my impression is that Buffy's answer much more pronounces the mathematical mind, math surely doesn't choose candidates that lack the ability to success in it well vs. other branches

@GregMartin, indeed. I wasn't "born to it" in any sense. My teachers wanted to hold me back a year, primarily for poor performance in math at about age 10. But my first truly positive educational experience was a high school geometry class. I really liked solving those problems and bought problem books to have more to solve. I finally learned my multiplication tables after earning a doctorate in math. There were other struggles along the way, but each defeat caused a renewed effort to succeed. Luckily I had good mentors.

@user48953094 "In many other scientific branches ambition and hard work are enough for an academic career. I doubt this in phys/math." Is there evidence for the claim that ambition and hard work are enough for an academic career in scientific branches that are not phys/math? Is there evidence for the claim that in phys/math ambition and hard work are not enough for an academic career?

"it's a fact that physicists and mathematicians have on average a higher IQ than the average STEM or humanities academian." Please remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far you have not provided any evidence for your claim at all.

@GregMartin How is the average IQ-test score of physicists/mathematicians relevant here? There are many IQ-test prodigies who failed in academia and vice versa. Even if your claim is true, and I tend to agree it is, it doesn't show that having innate cognitive abilities is a necessary or sufficient condition for academic success. Well, it simply isn't.

Ofcourse pursuing PhD in pure mathematics and applying all the innovative, creative and analytical power solving unsolved problems is very difficult task. One should not choose mathematics just for profesionality but one should choose mathematics with both affection towards it plus targetting a job. But then looking at the competitiveness  market in academia might demotivate one morally. However competition is everywhere and most of all succesful researchers (PhD+Post docs) get academia job in time. The world need mathematicians more and more in every academic institutions because the language of pure mathematics as well as applied mathematics enlarge the idea of advanced world and natural sciencies are devloping continuously based on mathematical language developped by pure mathematicians. I am myself final year PhD in number theory and I am optimistic because I can see most of the seniors got academia job. So don't lose hope if you really love pure mathematics with heart not in terms of professionalism only.

" most of all succesful researchers (PhD+Post docs) get academia job in time."
This is survivorship bias. Without an academia job, you cannot be a succesful researcher. Good luck!

@EarlGrey, here succesful means they completes PhD and post-docs succesfully. I never meant all have to be outstanding performer in research.

What do you mean with "completing a Post-doc succesfully"?

@EarlGrey, I don't know the definition of "successful" but one can feel it only.

all the succesful researchers get academia job in time;
the succesful researcher definition is not clear and one can feel it only.
To me it follows logically that you define succesful Phds and Postdoc the ones that get academia job in time.
This is either delusional (you aspire you will be one of them) or tautological. Well, at least your degree is in number theory, not in formal logic :D (I am just kidding, but beware of the gap between your feelings and reality)

@EarlGrey, it is not delusional, it is my experience. I mentioned in the post that most of the seniors with successful PhD and post-doc got job in academia, in fact permanent position in govt institutes. I am not talking about industrial placement here, which would give extra scope to math phd holders.  That motivated me to answer this question. One should not be so skeptical I think.

then define "successful PhD and post-doc". If success is "they got permanent position" or "they got a position in the industry", that is not helpful!

@EarlGrey, see my 2nd comment. I am interested in real solution of the OP rather than digressing the topic. I believe the word "successful" can be felt successfully.  I am not here to claim my mastery here but I  wrote whatever I have experienced so far in my surroundings.

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


text:
"Under Editor Evaluation" to "Under Review"
I have submitted a paper in an Elsevier journal. The paper has gone through the "Under Review" stage and was subsequently given the status "Under Editor Evaluation".
The paper is now back to "Under Review". What does this mean in practice?
This is not a duplicate question. I am aware of the journal workflow. This is a specific question about a particular scenario.

Please also read What does the status "under editor evaluation" entail after a 4-month review phase?

mino, the duplicate question covers also this case. In particular it says: "Based on the reviews, the editors decide whether:
[...] A decision requires further reviews."

My guess is that the editor felt the review(s) received were not sufficient to make a decision on. You can get some extra insight if you know how long the paper was in each stage. If the paper was under review for a long time (depending on how long it typically takes to review a paper in your field) and then went to under editor evaluation for a few weeks before reverting back to under review, that would be indirect evidence for this guess.
If this guess is wrong, then the next most likely thing is probably a more serious breakdown in the review process, e.g. the journal swapped editors responsible for the article. Either way, unless you want to withdraw the paper, there's nothing to do except wait.


text:
Citing a document without year information
I have to cite a product manual in a journal paper, but the product manual do not have a year mentioned on it. The content of product manual has not changes over the years. Could this type of documents be cited in a paper or thesis?
If you have not seen a manual like this, then this is an example: https://www.specmeters.com/assets/1/22/6460_SM1002.pdf

The last page says "3/14" which matches the file properties as @Roland says.

First, if this is a student paper, ask your supervisor; if it's a journal article or similar publication, consult the style-sheet.
I've seen 'n.d.' for 'no date'. For online sources, it's a good idea to include the last access date, like so:

Brown, Alice (n.d.), On the Flubbication of Foobars, Report, Institute for the Study of Things, Boulder, Co., http://thingsistitute/pub/flubbication.pdf (accessed 6 June 2018).

I'm quite surprised that the manual does not provide a date - but indeed, it does not (checked your link, what was the manufacturer thinking?).
In terms of a practical solution, you could accompany your reference with the date you accessed the manual (like a webpage) if you use the online link or maybe the purchase/production year/revision number if you refer to the printed copy that came with the device.
And there is always the option of omitting the year, if it truly cannot be determined. But giving the reader an idea of when it was obtained may nevertheless prove beneficial. (The paper date would not be a good indication as in some cases, laboratory equipment can be decades old. So there is no obvious way to infer the age of equipment for the reader.)

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


text:
Is it a good idea to provide course detail in teaching statement?
I am applying for Assistant Professor position at a technical university which requires teaching and research statements as a part of application.
In my teaching statement, I have suggested two courses which I would like to offer in due course of time. I have significant clarity over the content of the courses. The courses would be general purpose (advanced level) but would  be in accordance with my future research plans. The idea for these courses have emerged from my research experience and based on my learning during PhD.
I am wondering if it is a good idea to give the course content in the teaching statement.
PS: I have also mentioned a few courses in my statement which are currently offered by the University and lies in my expertise. These two courses I am talking about are my proposed ones.

Are you sure the readers will understand your writings about the courses?

Yes the readers will surely understand, I am applying in my specialization. Is there a specific reason you asked this question?

Based on your wording, I am not sure you understand everything that should be in a teaching statement.

Yes the reason is that sometimes the readers of a teaching statement are not familiar or interested in specific courses.

@mkennedy:  the suggested courses are components of my teaching statement, I have written a elaborated statement. Thank you for the link.

Probably a matter of opinion, but I would suggest focusing on more general things overall, though you could say that you have well developed ideas for a course in X and in Y. But I think that the teaching statement needs to focus on your teaching philosophy and expertise, rather than details.
I say this because what you suggest seems to make you too narrowly focused. The chances are that you will need to teach other courses, including elementary courses as part of your job.
If you mention the courses and are prepared to talk more deeply when asked, I think it would be better than to give the detail at the expense of other things.
The exception would be if the position itself is focused on the areas of those courses. But still, don't neglect the general/philosophical  part of the statement.

Thank you. I have also mentioned a few courses in my statement which are currently offered by the University and lies in my expertise. These two courses I am talking about are my proposed ones.


text:
Proper citation of scooped or defective articles
I'm curious about the correct way to cite a paper which is flawed when I publish in academic journals.  In the past I've added annotations to the bibliography (or included text in the main article) stating what the problem was.  But now I wonder if instead if such annotations should sometimes start with "The authors have been notified that...."
The reason is that I have encountered a professor who shamelessly fails to issue errata for mathematical errors and (worse) also fails to issue errata when overlooked prior work (not mine) completely scoops her weaker results by 25+ years.  (The weaker result has eclipsed the older one, drawing on the order of 100 citations.)   More recently, I found that she has another article failing to cite a similar article proving a similar result, and she failed to issue errata for mathematical errors in 3 of her papers.
Her lack of citation case wasted a month of my time.  (I wrote an article improving upon her paper, only to find my manuscript was still weaker than the original she failed to cite.)

Is it standard in your field to issue errata when one accidentally overlooks prior work?

I personally have published errata in such instances, since it seems dishonest not to.  Worse, in her case she was a hazard for other researchers, since somebody was going to come along and improve upon her paper without realizing the improvement had already occurred before she even published.

This seems like more of a rant than a real question (one hint is that there is not a single "?" character). You're also misusing the term "scoop"

She was "scooped" because she published a result which was a special case of a stronger result in the first instance, and the second case she published a result which was already published.  I'm not sure why you consider this to be a nonstandard definition.  Maybe a question mark would be required to indicate that I'm asking what your definition of "scooped" is.

The term "scooped" is usually used to describe the situation where two researchers are simultaneously working on the same thing, and one publishes before the other.  In this case the other researcher normally finds out as soon the first researcher publishes.  The term is not usually used for the case at hand, where the earlier work was published long before, and the later researcher was simply unaware of its existence.

Can you please rephrase into a specific technical question by making this less of a rant&accusation post? I know sometimes we just need to air out, but the tone will lead to the question being closed and a feeling of disappointment towards SE.

If the paper duplicates or rediscovers earlier results, you can simply cite the earlier work together with the new one.

All splines are reticulated [Smith 1963; Jones 2008].

Or if only the earlier paper is really relevant, you can cite it alone. But if the Jones paper is commonly cited in this context, and you don't cite it, a reviewer may wonder why.  You can of course explain why you don't want to, but it may cause more friction between you and the reviewer than you want.  Or, your apparent unfamiliarity with the famous literature in your field may, in a borderline case, cause your paper to be rejected before you have a chance to explain.
If you feel strongly, you can say something like "The work of Smith is often overlooked, but is particularly significant because blah blah blah...".  In other words, you can promote the work of Smith if you don't think it is as widely known as it deserves, but don't explicitly put down Jones.
If a paper has an error that is relevant to what you are discussing in your paper, then describe it in the text.

It was shown by Jones that every snark is a boojum [Jones 2008]; note that Equation 4.16 in that paper contains an error, where X should be replaced by Y.

I do not see any reason to mention that the authors have been notified.  The reader will presume that you did so, because that's what any sensible academic would do.  If the authors didn't do anything about it, you can take it up with the journal if you feel it's really important; but I think it's unprofessional to use your paper to passive-aggressively shame them.

Or more pointedly: "Smith proved that every snark is a boojum [Smith 1963]." and then in a footnote: "Jones has claimed an independent proof of the same result [Jones 2008]; however, his proof appears to be flawed."

"a reviewer may ask why it was omitted" isn't a reason on it's own.  Actual reasons (which indeed a reviewer might give) would be that Jones' paper is easier for modern readers to understand or that it is useful to point out the relationship between Smith's and Jones' work.

@JohnPardon: I edited to explain why I think this is a concern.

The reason is that I have encountered a professor who shamelessly fails to issue errata for mathematical errors and (worse) also fails to issue errata when overlooked prior work (not mine) completely scoops her weaker results by 25+ years. (The weaker result has eclipsed the older one, drawing on the order of 100 citations.)

In this case, you don't need to cite the new (weak) work at all, unless it has other advantages.

More recently, I found that she has another article failing to cite a similar article proving a similar result,

That's a fairly benign case of not having read enough. Just cite her paper and write "(see also [similar article] for a similar result)".

and she failed to issue errata for mathematical errors in 3 of her papers.

This is trickier. If you depend on any results of hers that have incorrect proofs, you can point out the errors and how to correct them in a footnote after you cite them, or you can even include complete proofs in your paper if the error is sufficiently deep (the standard language to use is along the lines of "In Appendix A, we shall give a [streamlined / more accessible / corrected] proof of Theorem [number]", but make sure you still credit the original author with the rough ideas of the proof; e.g., "The proof follows an outline given in [original paper]"). An alternative way, avoiding the airing of dirty laundry in the refereeing process, is to post errata on your personal website (just make sure the website is going to stay up). This has the advantage that not only the readers of your paper find it; but it has the disadvantage that the readers of your paper will probably not find it unless you cite your errata. Finally, another alternative is to ever-so-slightly generalize the result if possible, which gives you a legit reason to include the proof without side eyes from the referees. None of these ways is guaranteed to completely avoid any bad blood, but this isn't something you can avoid when working in a field with a "publish first, think later" tradition.

I think one should always cite the original proof of a result, if you can:

This result is due to [Author1 1950].

Older papers are often difficult to read though, and if there is a more recent source which your readers may be more familiar with or find easier to understand, I would say that can and should be mentioned as well:

For a modern treatment of this result, see [Author2 2018].

If this more recent source does not seem to be aware of the earlier proof, it may be reasonable to write something like

(A weaker version of) this result was rediscovered by [Author2 2018].

But before you write this, be absolutely sure that you are correct that Author2's result is a special case of Author1's, and absolutely ask someone more senior in the field (who knows the history and the personalities involved) whether what you are writing is indeed correct and appropriate.  On the other hand, don't let anyone convince you to write in such a way that gives Author2 credit for Author1's theorem (if it is indeed Author1's theorem).
There is no need to include remarks such as "The authors have been notified that . . .".  However you still should notify the author (for one, they may convince you that their paper does not in fact have an error---there is no short supply of badly written papers which seem to have mistakes but in fact are easily correctable).

Not sure you got the question right. In OP's situation, [Author2 2018] is a worse paper than [Author1 1950] and proves a weaker result. Why cite it at all, let alone claim it to be a modern treatment? Also, in mathematics at least, there is no urge to cite original papers from the 1950s; that sort of stuff has often found its ways into textbooks already and few of the authors are even alive.

Just cite things based on your best knowledge.  I wouldn't try to run some campaign to fight bad papers, though.  You will get too distracted from your main topic, to show your work.


text:
What happens if a professor is unable to get a PhD student for a part of their grant?
Suppose a professor has received a grant from which they have to hire three PhD students, two for experimental studies and one for computational. The grant started from January 2020 and will end in 2023. Now, the professor is able to hire 2 positions for experimental research. However, they are not being able to fill the computational research spot.
What will happen to the grant money if they are unable to find anyone for that position? Will they have to hire just anyone to fill the position out of desperation?
This is a question about Canadian academia.

Funding questions seem entirely up to the funding organization. Ask them. For "desperation" ask the prof. What do you expect to learn here?

@Buffy I want to know how fundings work. If the funding was for three candidates, is it necessary to fill all the positions?

Again, ask the agency. Their rules. It isn't a universal.

The exact rules may differ for each funder. However, typically, the PI writes a brief explanation why the PhD student could not be found. Then they either return a part of the budget to the funder and possibly adjust the project duration / scope accordingly, or as to redirect these funds to support the project in alternative way (e.g. hiring a postdoc instead of PhD).


text:
Telling my supervisor about my medical condition
I am a graduate student and I am more than half way through with my thesis. I was diagnosed with epilepsy 3 years ago, and in order to control my seizures I take Depakote. Now my seizures are under control, but the medicine has side effects, which hinders my productivity at times. This hindrance causes delay in my work, hence I have a feeling that my thesis will take longer to complete but he does not fund my thesis.
Should I share my medical condition directly with my supervisor or should I first contact the disability center in my college first and let them tell him that?
UPDATE
So I spoke both with the disability center and my supervisor, and things worked out according to my expectations. Both the disability center and my supervisor were very understanding.
Thank you all for your support and suggestions!!!

Taking DEPAKOTE in conjunction with LAMICTAL impeded my ability to function so drastically that I had to withdraw from that semester retroactively and discontinue all my medications. I am sorry you’re struggling with this.

Yeah just today I have been put on Zoloft just to suppress the side effects of depakote. I hope they work well together, fingers crossed! But I can't discontinue, as it keeps my seizures under control.

Be wary that ZOLOFT, like all SSRIs, caries its own nasty side effect profile, especially extreme sexual dysfunction and hypomania.

I know, but it's like I am out of options; I went to two different doctors, and both of them suggested Zoloft. If I don't take Zoloft or something else to take care of my symptoms, then it can also trigger another seizure. So, it's like I am out of options!!

Dude, I get that. I have taken every drug there is, multiple drugs from every relevant class—SSRIs, SNRIs, NDRIs, antipsychotics, α₂-agonists, benzodiazepines, GABA analogues, serotonin modulators, anaesthesia. My psychiatrist flat-out told me there’s nothing left for me to take. I get esketamine treatments twice a week just to get by. So I get it bro. Good luck to you.

Contact the disability center first.
You haven't listed a location, but most developed nations have laws prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and mandating reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. The university disability office will likely have a better understanding of the university's policies and procedures as well as what reasonable accommodations you're entitled to than a random professor will (unless that's their research area or something). Additionally, helping you is literally their job, so you might as well take advantage of their services; it's not going to cost you or your lab/work group anything to do so, after all, and they should keep the contents of your communications with them private.

The best course of action is, as this answer correctly states, to contact the disability center (that's what they are for), but unless your professor is a particularly evil scientist I would certainly inform him/her after that: you would not want him to think you are lazy or slow: he is the one who will provide you with references, recommendation letters, or a job after your graduation.

I don't know if the equivalent exists in the US, but in the UK I'd recommend contacting the disability officer of the (graduate) student union even more than the disability centre. Whereas the university disability centre's role is to protect the university from legal action, the student union's role is to actually advocate for student welfare. The disability centre is likely to ensure that you get the minimum legally required provisions, but the student union is more likely to advocate for whatever provisions you actually need

in general though, advice for declaring disabilities to employers is that you are usually best served by not declaring a disability except when you are requesting a specific accommodation. For these purposes, a doctoral supervisor is probably analogous to an employer and so probably unwise to declare to unless you have a specific accommodation to request. A student union would absolutely be ideal to talk to, and the university disability centre likely also suitable though

@Tristan makes some good points, as does the answer.  Most (UK) supervisors I've dealt with say something similar if you approached them first - i.e. they'd want you to get support from the experts, while being supportive themselves. It's in case your dealing with the other sort that you need the students union and/or disability office behind you first.  There may also be a point of contact in the department, either a postgraduate support officer or a disability officer.  They should be seen similarly to a central university disability office, but can be very useful

@Tristan "best served by not declaring a disability except when you are requesting a specific accommodation." Waiting to declare is terrible advice for something that might be very sudden, very obvious, and prevent communication, like certain kinds of seizures.

@AnonymousPhysicist I think you're interpreting "specific accommodation" overly narrowly. Also the question appears to be asking primarily about the side effects of the medication, rather than seizures

I will go against the other answers which unanimously suggest to talk to the disability centre first, and say that it depends.
It strongly depends on where you are, and on your relationship with your supervisor. I don't think anyone here can give you a definitive answer without a good understanding of your unique situation.
Your supervisor could be your best ally in navigating the bureaucracy at your institution, and finding a way to extend your funding if necessary. In a well-functioning research group, your supervisor would be your best ally, and could tell you what to do exactly to reach the best outcome. Of course, this is not always the case, which is why I said that it depends. I will just say that if you can expect the disability centre to give you more support than your supervisor, or even support you against your supervisor, that is a very sad state of affairs. It does happen though, which is why you need to make this call yourself.

With the risk of taking some downvotes, I'll point out that answers given on this site tend to come from a hyper-individualistic point of view that is prevalent in many English-speaking countries. Not every place is like that and not everyone is like that.

Agreed.  Unless OP has a dificult relationship with their supervisor, it's always best to start there rather than to go over their head - this does nothing but demonstrate a lack of trust in the supervisor and they may take it as an offence that you didn't talk to them first before going to the bureaucracy.  The latter may yet be OP's best option, but only if they already, as you say, have a fragile or poor relationship with their supervisor.

It sounds like you have already decided to tell him one way or another, and the question is if you should speak to the disability office first.  The disability office might have something helpful to add, so it should not hurt to speak to them first.
If there is any chance you might have seizures in the future, you should probably tell people you work with how they should react.  Many faculty will call emergency services if they notice someone is having a seizure; if you don't want that to happen, say so.

Good point.  As the postdoc in the lab and (outside work) a first aider I'd rather not be caught by surprise if for some reason you miss a dose, for example.

Does being told not to call an ambulance protect you? While I would trust an individual who says it's not necessary, I would hate even more to not call one when it was actually needed.

@AzorAhai-him- If emergency services are not needed, calling them could endanger a third party who does need those services.  In some cases seizures are very frequent.

@Anon That's not what I asked.

@AzorAhai-him- That's correct.  My point is that calling emergency services "just in case" might provide "protection," but that does not mean it is the right thing to do.  The asker and their doctor should know.

I would send an email to the disability center with a copy to the supervisor. That way your supervisor knows what is going on but doesn't have to take any action.
After the initial email, you don't have to keep the supervisor updated unless (a) they ask, or (b) the disability center reaches a decision that needs action from the supervisor.
Your email doesn't have to be complicated. It could be as simple as:

To: Disability Center
Copy: John Supervisor
Dear Disability Center
I currently have to take a prescribed medicine for a medical
condition. This is making my studies difficult and I would
appreciate meeting with you to discuss this.
Arthur_Mogan

If you don't mind your supervisor knowing,  you could name the medical condition in the email and say, "I currently have to take a prescribed medicine for epilepsy ..."


text:
Double major or specialization?
I am a freshman at a university and so I am a little confused on to what type of courses should I be taking since there is a limit on the number of courses I can take.
I have three options

Double Major in physics and maths and take 3,4 extra physics or maths electives
Major in Physics, minor in maths and take extra 5,6 physics electives
Major in maths, minor in physics and take extra 5,6 maths electives

Which option is better in terms of career and applying to a good graduate school?
Let me know if more clarification is required in this question.
Edit: Reading the comments I have altered my options a little

Double Major in physics and maths and take 1 extra physics, 2 maths electives and 5 Programming/ Computer science electives
Major in Physics, minor in maths and take extra 10 physics/ CS/ Programming/ Maths electives
Major in maths, minor in physics and 10 physics/ CS/ Programming/ Maths electives

Since all of the options are good, do what you most want to do. You could think about taking some computer science courses rather than loading up on extra math courses. A mathematician who can program has more career options than a mathematician who can't.

@JohnColeman : I second expecially your last remark. Even as a liberal arts major my programming and computer science knowledge has way more often than not tipped the scale in my favour. You literally always have use for it.

Worked with physicists and they all write code. If you want to pursue physics, do yourself a favor and take some CS classes.

I think you are missing an important part of your ambitions for graduate school and industry careers. The most important asset you have during school is your time. Whether or not this is dedicated to classes, work, or leisure. The idea here is that time spent in one thing cannot be spent on another.
If your goal is to have employment lined up, then industry internships, externships, experiences would be important things to consider.
If your goal is to go to graduate school immediately after undergrad, research experience and friendly relationships with your current faculty is important.
My anecdotal experience is that double, or even triple majoring, has very little impact on your ability to garner a full time position after graduation. It is all about who you know and how well you know them.
Focus on the major that gets the door open for you, if you decide that you want to widen your breadth of experience, then double. Just don't triple unless you really want to. My decision to double major was based on whether or not I wanted to graduate my 2nd year (I wasn't ready), my decision to triple major was whether or not I my resume was good for industry my 3rd year (it wasn't). Hence 4 years of undergrad with three majors and a minor by the time I graduated.
As for CS, I would assert that it would be an excellent addition to any major. But be mindful that the skills you need and will use can all be found online and learned at your own pace, majoring (or minoring) in it is nice, but not required.


text:
How to explain a change in research interests for an application for a doctoral position?
At the moment I'm writing a statement of research interest for a doctoral position in physics, more precisely theoretical quantum technology. The problem I have is that my master's thesis was mostly about numerical astrophysics. The work of the group I'm applying for is pretty mathematics-oriented with only some parts of numerical work and the two topics of astrophysics and quantum technology are quite different. Now I don't know how to discuss this shift of interest in a good manner. During my master studies I mostly chose lectures with a high amount of mathematics (General relativity, quantum information technology, nonlinear dynamics etc.), but my master thesis only had a small analytic part. Thanks in advance for some general advises and tips on how to build a bridge between these topics!

Is this for doctoral study in US, or elsewhere?

I dunno, why did you change interests?

It's for a doctoral study in germany


text:
Preparing a presentation for interview regarding a PhD position
I've got invited to a PhD interview in the field of computational physics at a german university. I was asked in the email to prepare a presentation (5min skills, 15min research achievements, 5-10min ideas about the project I would like to work on). I'm struggling with presentations and I'm very unsure what to tell especially in the last part.
I was sent the research approval that was approved by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). So I know the motivation, aims and the basic about the methods that should be used, but I don't know what the Professor wants to hear in this part. Should this part of the presentation be more about my motivation regarding the topic or does he expect me to already give more detailed ideas how to realize the project?
Thank you for any help and suggestions in advance!

Welcome to Academia.SE! This is a Q&A forum rather than discussion/suggestion forum. Please rewrite your post with focus on the single question you want to ask.

I would focus on the research "questions" that you will attempt to answer. What hypotheses you have about the subject in question. Something about how you will begin to attack the questions (methodology), even if not too detailed. If time permits, something about where you think the research would lead you in the future.
If you already have approval for the research, then I suspect that all of this is readily available to you.


text:
help with courses and planning
I am senior in hs about to go to an r1 public (not top or anything) uni next year. I planned on majoring in math and econ, with the goal of getting a PhD in applied math (hopefully stochastic processes or pdes). I have some questions to be able to improve my cv:

Is it better to graduate earlier or wait and pass some more related courses to my major?

Is it necessary I have proven skills about research in my CV (I am a bachelor student)? If so, How can I get to that?

How can I improve my chance of getting a good internship?

If I want to select between to: 1. continue my major or 2. change it to a more applied one, which critria I should consider to have an appropriate selection?

What country do you want to study in?

Welcome to Academia.SE. I recommend that you [edit] your post to make it clearer what it is you want to know. We can't really offer individual career counseling (so we don't need your list of classes), but we can maybe help if you boil it down to a well-defined question. Perhaps something like: "will my PhD application in economics in the US be competitive if I do many internships and graduate-level classes as an undergraduate, or would it be better to graduate early and do a master's degree?" Please see our [help] to learn more

I think this is an important question. I would vote for reopening if I knew how to do it. If we don't go into the details of the question, but have a look at it from a general perspective, it reveals that sharmbe117 is trying to plan his life and can't do it due to lack of knowledge of the possible paths. This is a very common situation among young students and very rarely addressed. sharmbe117 is doing the right thing asking it here. We are doing the wrong thing not helping him out.

I approved your edit, but now you have multiple questions. SE guidelines enforce users to ask one question at time. Please edit your post again or it's unlikely to be reopened.


text:
Should you mention previous rejections when resubmitting a paper? What is common practice?
You submit a manuscript to journal A. The paper is rejected, either with a short dismissal ("not good enough for this journal") or with a longer rebuttal from the referees. You wish to resubmit it to a different journal B.
Should you inform the editor at B of the previous rejection?
What is ethically correct? What do people do in the real world?
Possible arguments in favor:

It is important information regarding the manuscript, you shouldn't withhold it.
In this way the editor at B can contact the editor at journal A to solicit an opinion from the same referees, who already know the paper and are in a better position to give a report.
It is not honest to submit and resubmit the same paper at different venues until you are lucky enough to get better-inclined reviewers; mentioning all previous history is needed to expose this practice.

Possible arguments against:

The editor at B will perceive what has happened as an indication that you consider journal B to be lower-tier than A, and possibly get offended (and biased against publication).
If the information gets to the referees, they might be negatively influenced, too.
Ultimately, is it fair that the previous referees are brought into the picture again, or should you start with a clean slate and new reviewers?
It feels silly to write "we got a negative report with no suggestions for changes, so we are sending the exact same manuscript at you with minor modifications".

The arguments against look weaker in my view, because they all imply a bias that "perfect" editors and reviewers should not have.

I'm not aware of any precedent for this, and it seems to me to be similar to noting your rejection to University A on your application for University B.

If you don't reveal the previous rejection, the previous referees may be brought into the picture again anyway. (I have written at least one referee report that said, in toto, "I previously refereed this paper for journal X. Since the authors have not addressed any of the issues raised in my earlier referee report (attached), I cannot recommend acceptance.")

Right @JeffE, revealing a previous rejection won't change the outcome you described.  I think what you've given is one of the many arguments for not ignoring reviewers!  :)

Right, but not revealing a previous rejection is no guarantee of a clean slate, and editors might be annoyed to learn of the previous rejection from the referee.

No doubt, not revealing is not a guaranteed clean slate.  But wouldn't you agree that there is no question of whether it is ethical to resubmit a revised article?  As a reviewer, I should be happy to see my advice heeded, whether it be in the form of a submission to journal B, or re-submission to journal A.

Regarding your arguments for: 1. and 3. seem to be more like "axioms" than arguments.  1. in particular seems almost to be begging the question.  As for 3., journals have (increasingly!) long lists of requirements for authors, some of them serious but also others that those "in the know" know that they may safely ignore: e.g. many journals ask that you submit papers in their own template, but there's no good reason for that, most papers that I've written or refereed do not do that, and no one cares.  So the negation of 3. seems more reasonable to me: if journals wanted you to provide this information, they would ask for it.  (Maybe you are trying to argue that they should ask for it.  Interesting, but a different question, I think.)
Argument 2. is much more pertinent: if the referee's careful opinion is that your paper is valuable and deserves to be published in a research journal but just not in the journal that you have submitted to, one can indeed save a lot of people's time by carrying over the same referee to a different journal.  If you want to do this, it seems best to ask the editor of journal A to get in touch with journal B.  I've done this both as an author and as the carry-over referee.
But this is an option that the author gets to choose to exercise or not.  In terms of the current practices, this is certainly true and I don't think anyone expects otherwise.  Again, it is interesting to argue about whether it should be true....and yes, I think it should.  The refereeing system is not strong on incorporating "responses to referees": when authors write back to the editors pointing out factual mistakes in a referee report, they are often told something like "I am inclined to believe you and that is most regrettable.  You should definitely resubmit your paper to another journal of similar stature.  Best of luck."  Very often the referee acts not only as the jury but also the judge and the executioner in the current system.  But for a paper whose work is agreed to be correct and novel -- or for which this evaluation was not even made -- then fundamentally, "not good enough for a journal like X" is nothing but an informed opinion.  If that opinion is a sound one, a different referee will probably come to it independently.  If it isn't, then I think the author has every right to start out fresh.
Let me also say that as a frequent referee, I do not feel the desire to know the provenance of the paper, and I don't think that would help me with my decision.  I already have what I think is probably too much information at my disposal: namely the author's identity and thus their professional reputation, my personal view of them, and so forth.  Being a good referee doesn't mean taking all possible information into account; it means taking exactly the right information into account to evaluate the paper on its own merits.
In the course of arguing against the "arguments for", it seems that I have espoused some of the arguments against: 2. and 3.  I hope these arguments have been shown to be more convincing.  (Arguments against 1. and 4. do not seem very compelling to me.)

"I already have what I think is probably too much information at my disposal: namely the author's identity and thus their professional reputation, my personal view of them, and so forth."
That's an interesting observation. Knowing who the author is definitely brings in some bias. Do you think that peer review sistem would be improved if the paper authors (and other metadata) were anonymised before passing them to the referees like yourself?

@Davor What you suggest is called "double blind peer review" and is already done in many fields; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Different_styles_of_review. A frequent objection is that there are many details that give away the author's identity anyway (writing style, topic, talks at conferences).

@Davor: I agree entirely with Federico: in principle it seems like it would be a good idea.  In practice, in my field (especially with the prevalence of preprint servers like the arxiv!) it seems like it would be hard to pull off.

I agree with @PeteL.Clark who agrees Federico.  Given just the handful of blind reviews I've done, I knew who the authors were before I finished reading the abstract (sometimes even the title).  Although I'm sure it varies across fields, it's more and more difficult to achieve anonymity since researchers and communities are so specialized now-a-days.

You should not mention previous rejections.  You should definitely revise and take into consideration the comments from the reviewers in Journal A.
I think it would be silly to simply resubmit the identical article at a different journal (unless it is the case mentioned below by @user11192 that you received a rejection with NO feedback), and if you are submitting a revised article then the critiques of the previous reviewer are no longer relevant!
Of course, if you are resubmitting, then you believe that your work is an original contribution.  If the journal A reviewer simply didn't like your writing style or you didn't effectively communicate your work, then resubmitting is quite common.  If the journal A reviewer pointed out that your work was unoriginal and had been published previously by someone else, then it is simply unethical to attempt to re-submit.  In the more subtle case that the first reviewer felt that your contribution was not "substantial" enough, then you still want to revise, and may just end up changing your introduction/motivation more than your core work.

Why not mention it? I don't think this is necessarily wrong, but you should try to support your answer.

Many, many people resubmit the identical article at a different journal: sometimes I find this out by refereeing an article, recommending it for rejection, and then seeing the same version published elsewhere.  Also I have done it myself. Your list of reasons for rejection does not include what is probably the most common reason for rejection among career academics: the referee found nothing specifically wrong with the paper but simply felt that it was not good enough for the journal it was submitted to.  In that case it is certainly not "silly" to resubmit an identical article.

@PeteL.Clark, of course resubmitting an identical article happens!  I still think it is silly, and speaks to laziness.  The question is not about reasons for rejection... when you resubmitted your un-revised articles, did you also include a note saying where it had been previously rejected from?

Reasons for rejection are clearly relevant to the question: e.g. if you learn in the referee report that your work is fatally flawed, then resubmitting without taking this into account is one of the most serious ethical violations I can think of.  Other than that: your accusation of laziness makes me less interested in replying to your questions.  If you would like to publicly identify yourself and explain your own superior professional practices, please go ahead.

Wow, that escalated quickly.  I am by no means addressing you personally, good sir.  Do you disagree that it is lazy to ignore reviewer feedback and simply resubmit an identical draft to a different journal?

@Jedediyah When reviewer/associate editor/editor-in-chief feedback is nothing other than "not a good fit for this journal," I will happily (and "lazily") resubmit elsewhere without modification.

Ha @user11192, of course I cannot argue with that!  However, disregarding your clearly special case, it is plainly unwise to ignore reviewer feedback.  If one is to Google "resubmit unrevised article to different journal," they will be overloaded with advice against it.

Many journals ask for information on previous submissions their electronic submission systems along with asking if the manuscript is under consideration elsewhere. The fact that some journals have rejection rates way in excess of 50% means that rejections are not necessarily terrible and down-grading your work. Part of rejections are also because the material may not be suitable for the journal in question, which involves no judgement of the quality of your science.
So, if your paper has been rejected as not suitable for the intended journal or some other technical reason, I see no reason to mention this at a resubmission. You made a mistake, full stop.
If the paper has been rejected for some scientific reason, particularly if it has been through review I think mentioning the history is worthwhile. There is of course no law that states you must.
The importance of mentioning the history of a paper is not so much to convey its rejection but to provide the editor with information on why it was rejected and what you took away from this to improve your manuscript. I very much doubt editors will contact other editors to check on previous submissions, none of the parties typically have the time to spare. Instead it is your description of why you think the manuscript should be published, the value of your science, and how you have improved it which is of use to an editor.
I have found out by accidentally assigning the same reviewers to manuscripts, submitted as new, that they have been considered elsewhere. As an editor, this raises a warning flag for me: "is the manuscript so poor/controversial/other that the author wants to hide its past"? The fact that people prefer to send material to certain journals before others is known to most of us. Editors are usually scientists that make the same choices, except perhaps to send it to their own journal.
I therefore think that being open about the problems can help. Of course,if your manuscript is poor, it just is; but if it can and has been improved, rejection by another journal should not stand in your way to get it published elsewhere.
Regarding reviewers, there are two form of replies I usually get when accidentally assigning the same reviewer as for a previous submission: (1) don't want to touch it again, or (2) want to see how it has been improved. The fact that a manuscript was rejected does not mean reviewers were dead against its content. Or, perhaps, some where but for reasons disguised as scientific. I therefore think it is also useful to know something about the previous process when a paper is resubmitted. the place for this is in the accompanying submission letter. Just make it brief but clear.


text:
ieee membership discount on overlength manuscripts
Does IEEE journals of signal processing society (like IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security) consider a discount on overlength page charges for IEEE members?
If so, what is the rate of the discount? Should the corresponding author be an IEEE member or is it possible to receive discount by membership of co-authors?
I have heard that if the charges paid by the institution, it would be reduced from 220$ to 110$ per page. Does the membership discount considered for the overlength paid by institution?(I mean a membership discount on 110$, not 220$).
As far as I know, institutions can pay by the grant of the authors who are professors not students, is it possible to reduce the fee to 110$ by ieee rule explained above (if any!) rule by institutional paying (possibly by the grant of professors), then receive a membership discount from ieee by the student as a member?(I am not asking about institutional rules, I am asking that if there is a kind of double discount in ieee rules)
If more than one author be an ieee member, is it possible to receive the added rate of discount?

Ask IEEE. Their rules apply, of course.

I believe there is confusion about what the charges mean. Generally, IEEE has two types of page charges:

Voluntary Page Charges
Overlength Page Charges

In 2020, for IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, the voluntary page charge rate is $110, while the overlength page charge is $220 — which correspond to the numbers in your question.
However, the meaning of these charges is very different.
Voluntary charges – are actually voluntary. They are not obligatory, usually paid by the institution, and help IEEE to offset some of the expenses incurred in publication.
Overlength charges – are different. They have to be paid for all submissions exceeding X number of pages (X=6 and X=10 for short and regular papers in IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, respectively). This small note from 2004 might explain things a bit more elaborate; I simply was not able to find the relevant page on the IEEE site directly.
I have never heard of a discount on overlength charges. Often, these charges are paid by the advisor from a grant. I once paid the charges myself as a student when I was in transition between affiliations.
With all that information, it is highly unlikely that you can get the charge lower than $220 pay page over the limit. However, in some circumstances (the reasons have to be very serious), I believe IEEE can waive the charge altogether.

Disclaimer: I serve as a Vice-Chair of Membership and Benefits Committee for IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society; however, this answer is not within my direct area of expertise — thus, posted solely as my opinion as an individual familiar with IEEE practices.


text:
A paper with two ADMs
Is it normal for ACM journals to assign two ADMs? What does it mean? In what situation this can happen?
Does it mean that the journal accepted to review the paper? Does it means that the journal is in trouble finding the reviewer? Or even can its meaning be that the first ADM didn't accept to handle the paper?
(The paper has a multidisciplinary subject in computer science)

Edit: The abbreviation I used for ADM is exactly the label that ScholarOne website uses. It stands for Administrator.
I am not worried about the paper and I am not stressful for it. I just use every situation to learn and get more familiar with the situation. Maybe in the future someone asks me about it because of my experience. Something like what I have done now and asked the people with the same experience.
I actually believe that when the journal shows this information, so it is for us and that's not inherently wrong to try to understand its meaning.

It doesn't mean anything. Just sit back, relax, and wait for the reviews to come in due course.

What is ACM and ADM?

Possible related: What does "ADM" stand for on an article submission information page?

I assume that "ADM" is the administrator role. It would simply mean that there may be two people who can do the administrator checklist. One of them will take care of your paper.
In general: You worry far too much. You submitted the paper, now let it go through the motions that papers have to go through, and eventually an email will be in your inbox that describes what people have decided. There is no point in checking frequently what the system may be telling you because there is absolutely nothing you can infer from what the system is saying until you get that email.
Rather, spend the time productively working on your next publication.

Do you mean that those two names written for ADM are options before their agreement? And one of them can accept to handle the paper process? Did I understand you correctly? Is it common in ACM journals? I know that this is not a common general rule for ScholarOne wesite to show the name of all possible options, since IEEE also uses ScholarOne and only show the name of assigned and agreed ADM. So, this must be journal specific, not website specific.

You're trying to read tea leaves. For many publishers, multiple admins are responsible for multiple journals. Someone will handle the paper administratively, and it could be any of the ones listed. It has nothing to do with who the publisher (ACM) is, or what online system (ScholarOne) they use. I really do think that you're spending far too much energy on this question, in particular because even if you knew the answer, there is absolutely nothing actionable for you. It's just a waste of your energy.


text:
A journal with higher IF but general scope, or a journal with less IF but specialized scope?
Which one is more valuable to send a paper (in computer science?

A journal with a general scope of computer science from Elsevier, with impact factor of around 8. H index around 140.
A journal with a specific scope, which is the scope of the paper. And is famous in that field and amoung the journals with that specific field. It is from ACM, with the impact factor of 2. H index around 30.

Both are Q1. And both have the same history in quartiles. I mean, both have been Q1 for many years, and before that they have been Q2, Q3 or so.
The time of review process and publication is not important for me.
Is there any other criteria that I should consider?

I found my answer some how in this link y the help of @"Nobody" in the comments. So I close my question.

More valuable to whom based on what criteria? Seems opinion-based.

For example, if I want to apply for a PHD position, which is more valuable to be in cv? For example, that's a common knowledge that most of the IEEE journals are valuable. Could you please compare them based on different critera?

Again, different folks will have different opinions. There is no universal ranking cheat sheet for PhD admissions in any field.

PHD admission was just an example. I think it is clear that if ones ask that whether "IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence" is more valuable or X (I don't name to not to insult any journal) nobody selects X. I want a same comparison if exist. Could you please tell me the criteria you consider?

Perhaps irrelevant to you, but, for me, in math in the U.S., for grad admissions, postdocs, and tenure-track stuff, I don't care too much about the specific journals (except possibly as vague, general indicators), nor even whether something has been peer-reviewed, but, rather, primarily, about the CONTENT of the paper(s). Worry about gaming the system is really a very marginal approach...

@paul garrett: That's right. but don't you think that the value of the publisher helps to encourage/select to see the content or not? Doesn't it help to transfer the value of the paper easier?

@m123, in my world (which some might say is a bit contrarian), the status of the journal in which something appears has a very, very minor effect on my perception of its interest/value. It more indicates what some people may think about it, but I'm more interested in my own assessment than in the opinions of people far away whom I might barely know. Extreme case (perhaps more special to math or theoretical physics): preprints on arXiv !!!  This is what I look at every day! :)

Also, not responding directly to the question, but, I think, a very important reframing: especially when I cannot really personally understand the significance of a line of work, I am interested in the letters of recommendation from senior people, whose names (and reputations) I know, giving their appraisals. This is is more accurate than names-of-journals, in my experience. Maybe this is something peculiar to math in the U.S., I don't know.

@paul garrett: It is a nice sight to check the content, I hope many get the same as you. unfortunatelly, I have seen several people and several situations with opposite attitude.
About your last comment: sometimes we just want to check someone's profile who didn't applied for any position. I understand and thanks your excellent point of view, and it was helpful for me. But I am still trying to solely decide about the journal, independent of other factors.

I understand. But, then, still, I'd recommend not spending toooo much time on that decision, which could be better spent on doing actual work. :)

@Sursula: No, the link you sent, asks for the harms of publishing many papers in one specific journal. And in the answers there is only one sentence which can indirectly relate to my question. It says : "However, it's not clear to me that the excellent but not top generalist journals (eg Math Zeitschrift) are clearly better than the best subject-specific journals." And based on its examples for top generalist journals (e.g. Acta), my option with general subject is not considered to be in the top list based on his view.

Strongly related: How to decide between sending paper to a specialized journal or to a journal with broader audience?

@Nobody: Yes, it answers my question, I edited and add it to my question. Thanks.

I am glad it helped.

Depends on who is looking at your papers or CV.  I for example do not go by journal name as I know that's not 100% guarantee of quality.  Hence, I will read your papers and judge them myself.  Another researcher, say one that cannot produce high quality work, may go with the fact that the paper is in a Q1 journal.  Some researchers will only look at citations, and do not really care too much about where a paper appears.  Researchers outside the community or management may only count number of papers.  Yet some people will only care whether a paper has any practicality, i.e., led to a start up.
The 'successful' researchers will have all of the above; i.e., high number of papers, a subset of high quality and cited papers and maybe a start-up.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
Is PhD considered as working experience in USA?
I want to apply for an industrial job in my field where needs 5 years of experience and having MS/PhD. The website to apply has specific predetermined options to choose. So, I can't write a note on any field. I finished my Ph.D. in 4 years, can I select "4 years" option for the question about my working experience at my current role? Since this job accepts MS too.
(Unfortunately and interestingly, no contact email is mentioned on this job advertisement that I be able to ask themselves.)

What's your research field and what's the industry job?

@Nobody: Both are Computer Science, AI. It is written for the job that they need someone to be able to write codes and does required developments.

I would say "work experience" means outside of academia.

Doubtful in general (in US), but possible in an individual case. You need to find a way to get information from them. Organizational websites often have a "contact" link.

May be company specific. My lab has standards to convert degrees to years of experience to determine what level to hire people into.

Technically, research assistant as PhD is a part-time job.

@Part-timeEngineer: So, if I have been paid RA for 24 month, I can mention that I have 24 month experience (or it is less that that since you said it is considered as part time)?

Yes, of course you can mention that you have 24 months RA experience, and list your job duties and acheivements.

As noted in the comments, there is no universal rule. Some institutions may count every year in which you are employed or a student, while others may not count the student years, but will give you credit separately for having a degree.
To the extent that there is ambiguity, however, it is reasonable to interpret the ambiguity in the way that is most favorable to you. If/when your resume gets in front of a human, they can recalculate things as they see fit.


text:
Relative representation of scientists and engineers on major experiments (especially particle physics)
I am interested in other academics' experiences with large experiments (especially something like the LHC). To what extent do the "engineers" who design and build the machine (solder electronics, assemble quadrupole magnets, etc) interact with "scientists" who determine the program (who might want to test their 11-dimensional model etc)? Do the two sides take an active interest in each other's work and give constructive suggestions to one another? Are the technicians all hired locally? How many in the "engineering" camp have PhDs?
(It's also possible to label the two groups "experimentalists" vs "theorists", though for the former I really mean people involved in the construction and day-to-day operations - I'm not interested in semantics here)
While the Higgs was at a sigma of ~4, I heard that postdocs and PhD students at CERN could volunteer for maintenance and similar tasks, and that those who did would have their names on the "Higgs paper" (hence the notoriously large author lists). Was this true and is it still the case?

Why "scientists"?

@TheDoctor Pushing the science program. What would you suggest?

I don't understand the use of quotation marks there.

Related:  "Experimental Physics & Engineering" on SE.Physics.Meta.  tl;dr on it's that experimental physicists were a tad frustrated that Engineering questions were off-topic at SE.Physics since such a large part of what they do in the pursuit of Physics would have to be posted on SE.Engineering.

@TheDoctor - I think OP is using quotation marks to make a clearer distinction.  Just pretend he used italics instead.

You might want to ask this on the physics stack exchange instead, since the chances of reaching a particle physicist there are better.

I heard that postdocs and PhD students at CERN could volunteer for maintenance and similar tasks, and that those who did would have their names on the "Higgs paper" (hence the notoriously large author lists). Was this true and is it still the case?

There are a lot of maintenance and monitoring work performed by Ph.D candidates and postdocs at CERN and they may be entitled to have their names in a paper if they comply with the minimum requirements.
There are a minimum of night shifts and work hours in one of the experiments to be completed in order to participate as co-author in the papers produced due to work performed during the internship. If I am not in mistake, you need at least 6 months working in one of the experiments to comply with the minimum work hours demanded for co-authoring.
Usually the ones attending internships at CERN are from experimental particles groups with collaboration to one of the experiments (CMS, ATLAS,etc). They are not purely experimentalists, but I am sure that they can not be purely theorists.

To answer the first part of my question, could you please suggest whether or not those who fulfill the criteria are purely experimentalists, or do a lot of the more theory-oriented PhD/postdocs also take part?


text:
My professor uploaded an unsigned recommendation
My question is about letters of recommendation for University of Pittsburgh , graduate studies. My professor uploaded a plain PDF document of the letter over electronic recommendation. Will this create any issues? The document was not signed, but it was not mentioned anywhere to sign the letter of recommendation (which was done in the case if students themselves uploaded the letter)
I am worried.

I wouldn't worry too much about it.
We're currently in a transitional state between a world of paper documents and a world of electronic documents, and the conventions for digital signatures haven't really converged yet. As such, some people sign on paper and scan, some sign digitally, and some don't sign at all.  If you're dealing with a large institution, they've probably seen it all, and are unlikely to hold it against you.  After all, even if it was signed, what's the likelihood they would actually know what your professor's signature looks like?

very true jakebeal, I was really worried as i have uploaded both the LORs for university of pittsbugh without the sign or letterhead and it was an electronic recommendation.

The committee will be interested in what the letter tells them about you, not whether it has a signature in ink.
People submit LORs without signatures all the time.  A PDF with an original signature requires a printer, a pen and a scanner, which not everyone has or has time for.  (Yes, you can also paste in a scanned image of your signature, but where do you get that without a pen and a scanner?)
I suppose the lack of a signature might affect some people's overall impressions of a letter, including how much effort the author seems to have put into it, but we've been living in an electronic age for quite a while now.  Unless they have some reason to doubt the authenticity or perhaps an unusual policy requirement at that institution, I think most committees will ignore the lack of an actual signature and focus on the content.  It won't affect their decision.
The reason universities want signatures from students but not so much on LORs is to create some enforceable contractual conditions and because of the conflict of interest that exists when students are asked to self-report that doesn't exist with references.  Asking for a signature reminds the students of the seriousness of the situation, that they are on their honor to submit only correct information, only their own personal essays, etc.  When you ask for a signature, you get better behavior.

A PDF with an original signature requires a printer, a pen and a scanner — Or it requires a PDF version of the author’s signature. Or it requires software to add a digital signature. “Wet” signatures are increasingly rare.

@JeffE An original signature is defined as one done with a pen, not by pasting in a scanned image.

@NicoleHamilton Not necessarily --- this is in fact now a point of controversy: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/confusion-court-what-original-signature-tom-gonser/

@jakebeal Sorry, Jake.  You're confused.  There is no controversy about what an original signature is or how it's defined:  They're done by hand with a pen.  The controversy is over whether to accept signatures that are not original in various contexts.  I used the term "original" in my answer explaining why people don't sign LORs because that's what I meant.  I stand by my answer and my use of the term.


text:
How do I tell thesis advisor I want to withdraw from research? (mental health)
Context: Back in May I had asked a prominent professor whom I really admire for research opportunity. He gave me some study material to do over the summer and said he'd decide in the Fall. So in August, he "accepts me", but he also decided to let me work together with another undergraduate (who asked in August) on this project. This was two weeks ago. Today the other undergrad and I met with the Professor to discuss things. Working in a "group" basically ruined it for me. It's childish of me I know.
For these two weeks, I've been an absolute wreck. I've been so stressed about working with this other student. I've met with her, talked with her, and it is certainly possible for us to get along but I am just so so stressed and anxious. I feel competition exists now and it's simply a lot of pressure. I "dealt" with depression, (social) anxiety, self harm, and an eating disorder for 7-8 years now, and these past two weeks my eating disorder has gone completely out of control, since I use it for coping, I'm sleeping 5 hours max and I feel like I'm going out of my mind.
I've decided I really can't stay like this and want to withdraw from doing research with this Professor. I considered asking for an independent undergraduate level project but he did say he does not usually take undergraduate students and since beggars can't be choosers, I'm really afraid to ask. I have another professor in mind I can ask for research for my thesis (whom I'm more familiar with).
Sorry, I don't have anyone in real life I can talk to about this so I'm writing a lot on here. My point is, how can I tell this Professor I want to withdraw because of this social-anxiety-induced stress that I cannot handle? I don't want him to think I'm slacking/lazy/not interested because I am but I can't stay here (but maybe I shouldn't care about this). Is it "proper"/ok to give him the true reasons (group work) (better worded of course)? I dislike lying.
Thanks

Give yourself all the time you need to get better, but also keep in mind that you might be offered other opportunities later. For example, if you are really interested in working with this professor, you might want to tell them that you need to take care of yourself right now, but ask them if you can contact them again in the future when you feel better. You do not have to withdraw from anything forever.

First, I hope you are working with a mental health expert; I always hate to see people lose good opportunities due to issues like this. As Buffy says, you should definitely see if there is anyway you can make this work (though, a clean break is better than performing so poorly he has to fire you. A mental health expert can help you weigh these decisions).
At any rate, to your actual question:

how can I tell this Professor I want to withdraw?

Clearly and concisely. In person if possible, but if you cannot face that, an e-mail will do the trick:

Dear Professor,
Unfortunately, I am going to have to withdraw from research. I really enjoy working with you, the research has been very interesting, but due to some mental health issues, working in a group is not really feasible for me. It's nothing against [the other student], and I understand that research is often done in groups, but I'm not currently at a place where I can support group work. I am sorry to have to withdraw; thank you again for your efforts.
Name

Thank you, it’s a good thing we are only two weeks in, so there is not much to mess up. I’m going to use your email flow. This is the first time I’m going along with my emotions/using this as an excuse. I’ve always pushed through in the past but after each time I’m mentally worse. But thank you very much.

I think that your interpretation of it as competition is probably misplaced. Can you reframe the situation as cooperation? There is no reason for either of you to feel like one of you is "in control" or dominant. Sharing research experiences can teach you both a lot. This isn't a zero-sum game where one must lose. But cooperative work (like most things) takes practice. You will be called to work cooperatively in your professional life and it is good to get some practice at it in your student years.
I think, also, that the conversation you want to have with your professor could be much simpler. Let him/her know that you haven't worked on a team in the past and have no experience with it. Let the other woman know as well. If you are extremely introverted it is also good to start to learn that you can act in "public" in a safe way, but that, too, takes practice.
Don't let these kinds of feelings, introversion, inadequacy, etc. control your life.
Know also that many people who are prominent in academia and in the workplace have felt these same things. Some people who are sought after public speakers have trained themselves to act as if they weren't as introverted, shy, whatever, as they really are. In effect, they play a role in public that, over time, becomes completely authentic.
I know that what I'm suggesting is very hard. I have some of those same tendencies myself. They cost me an extra three years of my graduate education, in fact. Had I been more self confident and bolder, my education would have been much simpler and shorter.
If, indeed, the issue is extreme introversion, see here for suggestions on how others have worked through it to a better place.