text:
Sharing my unpublished thesis with other students?
The other day a former classmate asked to read my thesis and I don't know why but I got a little concerned about it and just told him honestly that, "I may do future work based on my thesis submission so I don't feel comfortable sharing it with you at the moment."
Am I right to feel this way?  Is it common to keep your thesis between you and your advisor - and potential researchers who may want to work with you? Or should I really "put my thesis out there" and share it with others who want to read it and that the more people who read my thesis the better?
I somehow viewed him as a competitor, when he asked me that, but he's a close friend.  He doesn't have any thesis / supervised research experience and said he wanted to see what I did.  And now he wants to do research also and try and join a research group, etc.

Note that at many schools, a good thesis goes right into the library specifically so it can be built upon by others.  Also note that depending on the school's rules, they may own the rights to that work, though in those cases there are usually standard policies about licensing it back to the author at a reasonable rate.

To be clear, what stage is your thesis at? Have you submitted it? Have you defended it? Is it in draft stage? Is it being reviewed by your committee?

At least in Germany your PhD thesis has to be public. Everthing else (Bachelor, Master) is up to you. You decide what you wanna publish or not.

If your field of research is highly contested, e.g. not enough funding for everyone, you should probably keep it for yourself. This whole sharing thing is good, yet it's not you who should pay for it by getting behind on a certain research topic and eventually getting no job. In a broken system, you shouldn't pay for being the only one keeping some values up.

@Marcel: The statement about Bachelor and Master theses is not entirely true for all of Germany. At least at the German universities I am acquainted with, Bachelor and Master theses normally go to the university library (and are thus accessible to everyone inside the university at the very least), and even in the exceptional cases that there is an embargo period for the document itself (because of some NDA), there will normally be a presentation about the thesis, its methods and results that is again open to everyone within the university.

@O.R.Mapper: I know that. Most universities include some clause that your thesis is in part property of the university. However, such clauses are unlawfull, e.g. break the author's rights. I've heard of cases where this was decided in favor of the student (in court). This changes when you get paid for your PhD. Then in fact, the university can have access to your thesis.

@Marcel: I am not referring to such clauses, and they are irrelevant for this question. Universities that acknowledge the author as the sole rights holder can still require university-internal publication as an obligatory prerequisite for getting the degree.

@O.R.Mapper: They do. But in fact it's unlawfull. Students usually don't complain since they would eventually just hurt their careers.

@Marcel: "But in fact it's unlawfull." - I'm sorry, but I think that claim is nonsense. By that logic, it would also be unlawful for the university to require a particular content in the thesis, because it's fully up to the author to decide what they write into their thesis. Of course it is. The author is legally entitled to write incoherent gibberish rather than a methodologically sound text related to their task, but the university has no obligation to grant a degree for the former. Likewise, the author is legally fully entitled to keep their document to themselves, but again, the ...

... university is under no obligation to grant a degree under those circumstances.

@O.R.Mapper: There's a difference between a requirement of content and forcing to publish content.

@Marcel: No, there's not. Both are requirements that have to be fulfilled to get a degree (and they're not the only requirements, either), both are known to students from the point before they signed up for studying, and both are independent of the question who owns rights to the thesis (for which there may indeed be an "unlawful" arrangement). If you beg to differ, please provide sources, and, if possible, write an answer based upon these sources.

What kind of thesis?

@Marcel Most universities include some clause that your thesis is in part property of the university. — [citation needed]

One more quick thought: sharing your thesis early gets you free proofreading!

How could someone with "no research experience" be a competitor to you? He might be a spy, possibly.

It's a friend. This should be answer the question.

Of course you should share your thesis: the purpose of doing research is to increase and spread knowledge, not to keep it secret.

Is it common to keep your thesis between you and your advisor - and potential researchers who may want to work with you?

No, it's not, and I suggest you to ask your advisor what he thinks of such an idea.

And now he wants to do research also and try and join a research group, etc.

Well, this is a good thing, isn't it?

I'd add that if the thesis is still a draft in any sense ("unpublieshed" could fit in), it's not a bad practice to put this information on every page. Could also be simply the datestamp. This is to avoid confusion between versions.

By all means put your thesis out there. The whole point of academia is to advance knowledge within your field [and outside it] and that's not going to happen by people keeping their hard work under lock and key. Just a few days ago someone emailed their thesis to everyone in a mailing list I am part of, and very well received it was, too.
I know the temptation is to keep things to ourselves sometimes for fear of plagiarism or retention of originality, but this is not what academia is about. If you share your work you will affect and influence others by it, and you will get much further than if you didn't. The only time you should not share your work with all and sundry is if you are bound under a publishing agreement.

That's true if your field of research has enough funding. If not, sharing ideas might get you behind and out of business. After all, your first interest is still your job. Don't expect people to share if they can be fired.

@Marcel A thesis is essentially similar to a publication. You can try to play close to your chest, but ultimately, the risk is always there that your work will be done by others. It's a balance how much you publish and how much you build up for the future - but once a thesis/paper is submitted, it's done. Also, being too paranoid about getting ideas stolen is not going to get you far. You have to find a balance. Don't forget; any idea worth having has been probably had before you - and if you want an idea to be named after you, make sure it has been already done by others before (j/k ;-)

Attack is the best defense
It looks like you are afraid that he will somehow make your thesis his own, maybe defend or publish it before you do, and then it looks like you plagiarized his work.
If that is your fear, then I can somewhat understand your concern. I assume that, so far, nobody but you and your advisor have seen your work, so it would in theory be possible for that scenario to occur, although your advisor should hopefully remember that you came up with it first...
One way to get out of that conundrum is to make your work as public as you can. Put it on some personal website, or your personal (public) university page if you have one. Send it to a mailing list, if you have one that is fitting for the purpose, say a interest group at your uni or wherever (which has the benefit of having integral timestamps in their archives). Post it to the website of some interest group that is closely related. This will make pretty sure that people know that you were "first".
After that, just send your friend a link, and enjoy discussions about the topic. He will be welcome to do research alongside your topics, if they interest him, and it is pretty certain that a) he will not get any bad ideas since your work is publicly related to you already, even if you have not yet defended or published it through traditional means; and b) if he does turn bad, then it will be easy for you to come up with proof that you were first.
"I may do future work based on my thesis submission"
That's great, and if your friend does end up doing similar work it should not really be a problem, right? If you have the feeling that there is a "gold nugget" there, some secret line of work which is easy for you to do while still getting full credit later on, then that is a fallacy. If the topic is so shallow that one more person working on it would "spoil" it, then that is not a good base to build your future on. Besides, it might just turn out that your nugget does not work out, and what then?

Send it to mailing lists - what? why? no need for spam. Put it up on figshare or something, but no need to send it to people.

Sending it to a mailing list is a good way for me to view your work not as terribly important, but "That oddball who decided to email his thesis to a bunch of strangers".

That paragraph was worded badly, I think I have fixed it now. @Michael

The other day a former classmate asked to read my thesis and I don't
  know why but I got a little concerned about it and just told him
  honestly that, "I may do future work based on my thesis submission so
  I don't feel comfortable sharing it with you at the moment."

A more appropriate response would probably have been to ask "Why?" if you were especially concerned. I've had people ask to read my thesis just because they wanted to see how I had approached a particular formatting requirement to see if they liked it.

Am I right to feel this way?

Honestly, no. The point of research is to spread knowledge, and "I might someday maybe want to have another go at this" isn't justification to refuse to share something, especially with someone you refer to as a friend. It's also an unhealthy approach to take further in your career - there is always some edge risk to your ideas being stolen, but in trying to protect yourself against those risks, you're likely doing more substantial damage to your career.

Is it common to keep your thesis between you and your advisor - and
  potential researchers who may want to work with you?

No, it isn't.

Or should I really "put my thesis out there" and share it with others
  who want to read it and that the more people who read my thesis the
  better?

Yes, the more people who read your thesis the better.

I somehow viewed him as a competitor, when he asked me that, but he's
  a close friend. He doesn't have any thesis / supervised research
  experience and said he wanted to see what I did. And now he wants to
  do research also and try and join a research group, etc.

That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable request, to see what the seminal product of this thing he's interested in looks like, and to gain a better idea of what you do, and if he might be interested in it.

To answer your specific question "Am I Right to feel this way?", in this particular situation, my answer is that you have proper reasons to be concerned with sharing an unfinished thesis with a friend/colleague. Some of the possible negative repercussions which may follow sharing your thesis:

It is very possible that your friend is able to file a patent based upon your work, and first to file (rather than first to invent) is now the rule in regards to patents.
Your friend may be able to accomplish your similar results following your methodology, and if they are faster at publishing than you, can publish your results before you finish your thesis.
Since your thesis is not completed, it is still a 'work in progress'. You may have many errors in your methods/data analysis which would be caught by editing before publishing, but if you share your thesis with someone before it's done, it may still have some of these mistakes. One mistake (for example, lack of a single citation) can cause many problems which would not exist after the editing process.
Your friend may be able to anticipate your future research work and preempt your efforts.

Another way to look at this is: "Would a cake still taste the same if eaten halfway through the baking process?"
Scientific progress should be shared far and wide, however, there is a formal process for this: academic publishing. By sharing a work-in-progress with your friend/colleague/associate can introduce many unanticipated problems which would not normally exist if the normal process is followed of: perform research, write article/thesis, then publish. In this situation I would inform my friend that I am working on an official publication which will then be publicly available to all who would like to learn about your particular subject matter.

While several other answers are great, my - perhaps naive-sounding - advice would be: Share your concern with the person asking to read your thesis. That is, tell him/her you want to be able to benefit, in terms of publication credit, from future research work based on your thesis (or from the work that has gone into the thesis itself), and are worried people who read the thesis will "beat you to the publication". It's quite possible that - regardless of whether your concern is valid or not - that the other student might be able to assuage that concern of yours.
(Of course, it's also possible someone would talk you up, read the work, publish the subsequent low-hanging-fruit result and thus screw you; but if you're really worried that's the case - perhaps @AnoE's answer is the most relevant.)


text:
When and how did journal publications start to have such an important role in evaluating researchers?
Wikipedia says that Newton published the laws in 1687 on Principia Mathematica. And in another page that:

The first recorded editorial pre-publication peer-review occurred in 1665 by the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Henry Oldenburg

However is unclear to me when and how publishing in highly reputable journals has become so important, in particular for judging a researcher's past research success. (For example, for evaluating researchers for purposes of awarding funding.)
I assume that it all started as a way to filter or deprioritize low quality research proposals or researcher, but that would make for other question maybe. When and how did journals start to have such an important role in science for evaluating researchers?

Funding doesn't depend on journal qualification at the moment. It's a crutch for the reviewers of the proposed projects to judge the quality of the researchers. I've never seen any grants where a requirement is ">3 publications with IF >5 in the last 24 months" or something like that. So I wouldn't call it a "system" and it certainly wasn't built like that.

@VonBeche, so If I publish my research on my blog it is as valid as in Nature in the eyes of reviewers of proposed projects? Interesting

Maybe. But most reviewers will just look at your publication list, see a Nature publication and assume that it's good research because it has been positively reviewed before. Or they will see that you published on your blog only, and assume it's there because you got rejected from every single peer-reviewed journal. Reviewers just don't want / cannot spend time to read everything and judge everything themselves, so they'll always use proxies.

And I am asking about how that proxy of where do you publish started :D Maybe I didn't even attempt to publish on a journal because I don't have funding.

I think the premise of this question is off. Getting funding requires a history of research success, and in most fields, publishing in highly regarded journals is evidence of research success (although not the only evidence!) But that is an indirect link; in most cases, there is no explicit publication requirement associated with grant funding.

The proxy probably started when people were actually needing and getting grants, instead of paying for everything out of their own pockets because they were just rich.

I agree that the premise behind this question is off, but when reading it what did spring to mind is that it is quite typical in the UK, at least when applying to one of the Research Councils, to list the journals you expect to target with output from the project. IIRC, one of the assessment criteria is dissemination and impact. It seems plausible that if you were to list bad journals, or just posting on your blog, that could affect the score you receive.

As per comments I corrected the premise, but maybe I should simply ask since when and how did journals start to have such an important role in science.

As I understand your comment @ff524  except in few cases, even without explicit publication requirement it is de facto a requirement see Ian comment.

"maybe I should simply ask since when and how did journals start to have such an important role in science." - that sounds like a much better question to ask.

@Ian If your entire "dissemination and impact" plan was to write a blog post, you would be indicating that you have no idea how research works and how research results are disseminated, which would be a valid reason to reject your proposal! There are other ways to show "dissemination and impact" though: partnerships with industry, technology transfer, integrating research into teaching, presenting at and organizing workshops and seminars related to the research, contributing a research tool (e.g. open research infrastructure, computer software, or source code) back to the research community.

(Of course, for most research it's also important to disseminate the work to other researchers in the usual way for the field, so as to move the field forward. And that means publishing.)

@Llopis I think what you are really interested in is when journal publications became an important part of evaluating researchers, not just when journals began to be important (e.g. for disseminating research and learning of the latest advancements in the field), so I've edited your question accordingly. Let me know if I got it wrong.

Might be a good occasion to remind the world of the existence of History of Science and Mathematics Stack Exchange.

I am interested in how journals gain such momentum, but I do not wish to make this question change every 5 minutes (even if it is wrong, then close and I would ask a new one more on topic hopefully).

@plan I am more interested in the "Requirements and expectations of academicians" of this site, than on the dates, and relevant people from the historically point of view.

Maybe I didn't even attempt to publish on a journal because I don't have funding Good journals are usually free for authors.

Widespread peer review in journals is a relatively recent phenomenon. Famously, Einstein and Rosen wrote an incorrect paper arguing that gravitational waves don't exist, which was rejected by a reviewer for Physical Review. The rejection made Einstein angry, and he wrote:

Dear Sir,
We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed. I see no reason to address the—in any case erroneous—comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere.
Respectfully,
P.S. Mr. Rosen, who has left for the Soviet Union, has authorized me to represent him in this matter.

This was in 1936, and Einstein had already published many papers by that point. It appears from his response that peer review was not yet common at that time.
(Source: "Einstein versus the Physical Review" in Physics Today.)
Googling this I stumbled across a blog post by Michael Nielsen who links to some historical papers on the growth of peer review that may interest you.

Peer review might have been less rigorous, but clearly people were still publishing papers, books, and treatises, and they thought doing so was important. The question is specifically on the relevance of published material on a researcher's career, not on the state of peer reviewing over times.

Although interesting, it doesn't explain when or how did the journals  start to be used to evaluate researchers. But thanks for the link to the blog it is interesting to know the origins of peer review

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Extended scientific abstract: should it include full results?
I'm writing an extended abstract for a conference prize. There are few instructions and it's the first time ever that I write one so I'm a little woried about it. The only restriction regards the length, but other than that no instructions are given.
My question is: am I expected to give my full results? I'd rather not give my analytical results of my analysis since I still have to publish them.

Are extended abstracts from previous years of this conference (or similar conferences) publicly available? Can you read them and see to what extent they include full results?

unfortunately no

If the organisers required an extended abstract to assign a prize, try to make their job easier. :)
I would include a specific section called Results or Preliminary Results in which you gently introduce some of the most significant results you obtained so far: objective/numerical evidences that your work is reliable, has reached a mature stage to deserve a prize.

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


text:
How can I get citations for my self-published ebook?
A couple of colleagues and I were thinking about publishing a book in engineering. I have heard repeatedly that people who go with a traditional publisher don't get any royalties, they transfer the copyrights, and on top of that, the book ends up being sold for a lot of money (which is something we're against as people from developing countries don't have access to them). Thus, after a short discussion we all agreed that going through the traditional means is no longer necessary. We're all skilled in LaTeX so we don't need the services that publishers usually provide for formatting the book. As a matter of fact, we're not planning on making any profit either, so we're very excited about the opportunity to provide the book as an open electronic document.
The main question we have is how do we make sure that  people can cite our book and that we have a way to count the citations?

The main question we have is how do we make sure that people can cite our book — Fill it with useful content that people want to cite.

I want to add that now you have heard repeatedly that some of your impressions on traditional publishing are not true in general.

wouldn't a traditional publisher help with advertising the book and distributing it?  i third (fourth?) those who have suggested you reconsider your views on traditional publishers.

@JeffE that's obvious, but is it the DOI that's important? Or the ISBN?

@BenCrowell people do cite textbooks, at least in engineering. It doesn't happen that often but it happens.

You don't need a DOI nor ISBN to get citations. As @JeffE said: "Fill it with useful content that people want to cite." Nevertheless, perhaps distribute it via https://arxiv.org/ to ensure some form of version control (i.e., people can cite a particular version).

@user2768 that doesn't make sense. If the book has no DOI nor ISBN, how is a computer supposed to increase citation counts? I'm sure the engines don't add citations based on the indexing of the title of a book.

@aaragon, computers don't make citations, people do. Computers merely find citations made by people and list them. Computers don't solely rely on DOIs and ISBNs, because many citations don't include these details. Thus, I believe computers are using titles and other details.

Google crawl the web for .pdf files that include "the title of the paper ... in a large font on top of the first page, the authors of the paper ... below the title ..., and ... a bibliography section ... at the end." Such documents are considered for inclusion in Google Scholar. (Source: https://scholar.google.fr/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html)
Google are also parsing the bibliography to build a list of citations. As a minimum, three pieces of data are required: title, author, and publication date. (Source: https://scholar.google.fr/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html#indexing)

@user2768 that source you refer to states This documentation describes the technology behind indexing of websites with scholarly articles in Google Scholar. It's written for webmasters who would like their papers included in Google Scholar search results. That's not what I'm looking for. Besides, I'm also interested in Scopus and the web of science which I guess are "more conservative" than the Google scholar web crawlers.

This is an example of a book that was published by a commercial publisher (cheap, BTW), and at the same time, feely available online. That gets you the best of both worlds.

Judging from the things you have said in comments, it seems you may believe that

either a DOI and/or ISBN is required in order for services like Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science to list a document and count citations for it, and
that your document only needs to have the "right" identifier for these services to "count" it.

Neither of those is true. Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science each have specific inclusion criteria that determine whether it will index a document. The inclusion criteria do not care what kind of identifier (DOI or ISBN) the document has. Rather,

Google Scholar is not selective: if a PDF document has a title, a list  of authors, and a bibliography section, it may be indexed.
Scopus and Web of Science are selective: they only include documents that have been specifically chosen for inclusion (or, that have been published in a serial, like a journal, conference, or book series, that has been specifically selected for inclusion.)

If a document is indexed by one of these services, citations of that document in other indexed documents will be counted, even if the citations don't include a DOI or ISBN. Each of these services has an internal record identifier for every document it indexes, and counts a citation when it encounters a reference  with the same title, authors, date and other publication information (e.g. journal name and issue, or book publisher.) They do not rely on DOI or ISBN to identify a document for purposes of counting citations; many citation styles don't include DOI or ISBN.
In particular, here is more information about inclusion criteria for each of those three:

A document will be indexed by Google Scholar if you make it available online and make it "look" like a scholarly document following these criteria, and citations of your ebook in other documents indexed by Google Scholar will be counted in Scholar's citation count even if it has no ISBN or DOI. (See e.g. all the arXiv documents that are indexed by Google Scholar, with "citation counting".)
A document will be indexed by Scopus if it is published in one of the journals, conference proceedings, or book series included in Scopus. In particular, here are the criteria by which they select books to include:

Book selection is via a publisher-based approach (no individual book suggestions are considered). As the selection is evaluated on a per book basis, the Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) is not involved in the evaluation of this content type. A dedicated group of highly educated individuals are responsible for the publisher selection process. All books from selected publishers deemed "in scope" will be selected for coverage. Priority and selection of book list from a specific publisher depends on:

Reputation and impact of the publisher
Size and subject area of the books list
Availability and format of the book content
Publication policy and editorial mission
Quality of published book content

A document will be indexed by Web of Science if it is published in a journal that has been selected for inclusion, a conference proceedings that has been selected for inclusion, or if it is a book that is selected for inclusion.  Judging by their book selection criteria, it does not appear as if self-published non-peer-reviewed books will qualify:

As with journals, a peer review process is also associated with scholarly books, and Thomson Reuters relies on the integrity of the publisher to insure that book content is valid and original.

I have heard repeatedly that people who go with a traditional
  publisher don't get any royalties,

this is true if you freely decide to sign a contract renouncing any royalties. Not otherwise.

they transfer the copyrights,

this is true if you freely decide to sign a contract transferring the copyright. Not otherwise.

and on top of that, the book ends up being sold for a lot of money (which is something we're against as people from developing countries don't have access to them).

this is true if you agree to it and if you freely decide to sign a contract giving exclusive worldwide rights to one publisher, as opposed to using different publishers in different territories.

If you choose to give a publisher print rights only, and the publisher chooses to buy the print rights only, then you are free to publish electronically. Moreover, since e-books are such a rotten medium for textbooks, quite a proportion of e-book readers will end up buying the print edition anyway.
If you don't find a publisher who is happy to do what you want, self-publish a printed edition. To do this:

Get an ISBN. There are official agencies for this in most countries.
either find a printer who will print you 100 copies (this is very common nowaday, and cheap: they will digitally print short runs and if it ever gets hugely popular they'll lithographically print long runs even cheaper).
or go for print-on-demand, with Lulu or even Amazon. Do this if the price doesn't matter because you're mostly interested in free e-books.
In the process of getting an ISBN you enter the full bibliographical data into a public database, so everyone will know how to cite you.

So you are saying that only the ISBN is enough to get the citation count? I guess what I don't really understand is how citations work for a book through an ISBN, because AFAIK the ISBN is just a record in a database that contains info about the book, and this has nothing to do with citations.

No, my point was that people who cite things want something to cite, which "e-book downloadable through a URL which will disappear next week" does not provide and "printed book listed in all the bibliographical databases" does. The ISBN is a way of ensuring this.

Do you know how citation works for books? Say I publish an article that cites a book with ISBN XXXXX, when the article is analyzed by citation databases like Scopus or the web of science, they start a counter with the ISBN? What about the DOI? I'm really curious and I want to know for sure our book will be cited.

Nearly all citation styles require ISBN for print books, and a DOI for electronic publications. Because the formats are exclusive, both are used as an effective indexing system for citation databases. Citations from the print and citations from the digital source will therefore usually be tracked seperately.

@WeckarE. you're implying that there would be two citation counts for the book. Now I'm quite confused because if we have both the ISBN and the DOI, a citation that contains both fields would thus count towards both counters, wouldn't it?

@aaragon Depending on the specific algorithms used (they vary a bit from service to service) either citations do count double, or they get added to only one of the counts. In most cases, though, this issue doesn't come up: Properly citing you would only use ISBN if you're using the print source, and only use DOI if you're using the electronic source. There is no logical place for overlap there.

@WeckarE. so then you would recommend that we associate only one identifier to each, correct? Because I believe we add the DOI to the ISBN info (but not the other way around?).

Yes. Any publication should have only at most one DOI and one ISBN. But it can have both, if it meant for both print and electronic distribution.


text:
How can I prove my self-studied knowledge?
In applying to graduate program, what are some ways to prove knowledge gained from self-study?
I've been told of the following:

Independently conduct research / create projects that require the knowledge
Partake in research that requires the knowledge
Contribute to a project that requires the knowledge

But the former seems like an expensive hurdle in many experiment-heavy fields, and the latter two seem like a catch 22. You must collaborate with people to prove your knowledge, but you must prove your knowledge to be considered for collaboration.
Are there other ways to do so?

Adding your field probably helps getting helpful answers (you mention experiment-heavy, but that could still be many fields).

@gnometorule Thanks for the advice. I tried to keep it general to benefit other people in similar positions who might be studying other topics on their own. In my case - mathematics - isn't as experiment-heavy, but someone else's case might be.

(1) if it involves any coding (or can be made to - eg, implement GCD and such in a decent language), create a github showing some of your work; (2) answering questions on MSE at least shows some passion and knowledge in fields you're interested in once you have some rep. Both not traditional/perfect, but to jump start collaborations in math is probably hard.

One may prove their knowledge by these aspects.

They may have a certificate of the courses they have passed.
They may have a publication or patent registration in the field of their personal studies.
They may have worked in the field of their knowledge and their projects and portfolio is a proof of their knowledge.

A website designer may not have any certification of their design knowledge, but the websites they have designed are the proof of their knowledge.

You may have done voluntary/paid teaching at your undergraduate university or in an educational institute, so you have the certification of your teaching activity and that may be counted as a proof of your teaching and your knowledge. (Also teaching/research assistantships to a course which you have never passed but you did assistantship in that area.)
You may have some publications in the area of your knowledge, for instance, a published paper or book; or a contribution to a publication which is so related to your knowledge.
You may have done some jobs related to your knowledge. An engineering design, done some code-developing, etc.
You may have a recommendation letter from a professor in which has written that you have sit in their class for that course, but you have never registered for the course; so it proves that you have the knowledge of the course.

However, as far as you are registering for a graduate program, you must fulfill their requirements not what is generally/logically reasonable or what seems to be acceptable. So it is better to provide all your proofs in your CV or their application process website and let them ask you for more official documents. Also, you can email them and ask for your special issue.
P.S. It seems that your question indicates self-study knowledge, but some people may have done some non-degree programs and certificates of those courses may also prove their knowledge in the course.

How about giving a talk on what you have learned -- e.g. at the scientific student society (or perhaps there is a separate student seminar)?
If for some reasons this is not feasible, consider finding other students interested in the subject and form a (informal) study group to study this subject deeper. If you form such a group, you can also consider asking the professor who is an expert in the subject to (informally) guide/supervise this group in some way.

Thanks for answering. I think trying to convince a group of your worth as a speaker would end up as the same catch-22.

@Kenkis: Why the downvote? I absolutely do not see catch-22 here as the group in question (the audience for your talk) is, in general, not the one you would like to work with on your research subject. Moreover, having to explain what you have learned to a non-expert audience usually has an extra benefit of helping you to improve your own understanding of what you have learned.

@justlearning I did not downvote. That's a good point, but you still have to convince those you're presenting to that your presentation is worthwhile. Without any credentials or experience, I'd have to wonder why anyone would listen to a word from the presenter, let alone allow the presentation in the first place.

I think this is a great option. It doesn't even have to be a very formal talk at all. Ask a professor who likes you if you can give a 15 minute guest lecture. Ask the local chapter of (insert student society here) if they'd be willing to host a discussion section on (insert topic of interest).

@kenkis: sorry for jumping to conclusions on downvoting. Perhaps it's different at your university but I'd say that you would have a chance at talking at a student seminar -- that's what they are for.

@just-learning I'm not familiar with student seminars, but I'll definitely look into them. Thanks for the advice.

@kenkis Most places I am familiar with they will jump for joy if you ask to give a talk in a student seminar. Usually those can be really hard to find speakers for.

One way of proving your knowledge is getting a letter of recommendation from a professor, or someone who can vouch for it.
One of my favorite professors told me, "If you ever come by some knowledge where the source isn't obvious I'll vouch for your knowledge of it if you can demonstrate it to me."

If you have your own professional site (science blog, tasteful web comic, whatever) you can produce some original content that builds on the knowledge gained during your independent study.
If you can manage to propose some minor extensions or future applications of that knowledge, even better, as it shows that you not only learned something but you have thought of where it can be applied in future research.
Then just tactfully reference this content in your application.


text:
How to choose new advisor when advisor suddenly leaves in middle of PhD?
I did research and advanced in the proposal, but suddenly my advisor left the university. They said that I must choose a new adviser. I know some general criteria about selecting an advisor. could you please mention some specific things that I concern in order to reach to best case. for example, his/her scientific background is important yet?
P.S: It differs from the following question, that is about general case, but in our question, assumed that we have a "semi-solved research".
Why would one choose a particular advisor, other than having shared interests?

This question makes it sound like your advisor simply vanished, without helping to set up transition plans for his/her students.  Under ordinary circumstances that would be highly unprofessional, and even unethical.  (It might be excusable in some cases, such as mortal illness.)  Assuming you really aren't getting any help from your former advisor, understanding why could be a good first step.  Leaving abruptly is itself unusual, so something strange is going on here.

@AnonymousMathematician do you have any suggestions that I ask him? He only can't travel and the faculty didn't accept his conditions! He is ready for any help.

That's good to know.  A key question is whether he has any recommendations for new advisors who might be able to supervise your work.  For example, collaborators of his who know the subject well, or people he feels might be helpful/accommodating in this difficult situation.  You could also bounce ideas off him ("X, Y, and Z occur to me as possibilities, with the following advantages and disadvantages.  Do you have any thoughts on the matter or recommendations for how I might choose between them?").

@AnonymousMathematician Thank you for the point.

I feel this is a difficult situation, with a number of variables that should influence your decision:

Is your advisor completely gone (e.g., in complete retirement, gone to industry, or even dead), or has he just left for a different academic post? If he is completely gone, you may need to find somebody to supervise you in your day-to-day research. If he has just moved on to a different university, it is possible that you want somebody to "formally" be your PhD advisor, but practically keep on working remotely with your old advisor. Whether you even want to keep on working remotely with your old advisor depends on how advanced you are and how well you worked with her/him beforehand.
Are you advanced enough that you can finish your thesis more or less on your own? That is, do you need an advisor or an examiner for your thesis? If it is the latter, then pretty much anybody who is sufficiently well-versed in your area could act as your advisor for the finishing sprint. If you actually feel like you still need a lot of input to get your thesis ready, it will be harder to find somebody who can and is willing to take you on midway. If you are advanced and your advisor is only moving to a different university, it should be reasonably easy for you to find a "local proxy" without having to adapt your research plan too much.
How set-in-stone is your research plan? Or, in other words, how ready are you to adapt to the research agenda of another advisor? Generally, if you really don't want to change your research, but you also feel like you still need a lot of input, it is likely that you will have problems finding a suitable new advisor. If you are happy to change research topics, finding an advisor should not be more difficult than the first time.
How does your funding work? That is, do you "only" need a new advisor, or do you need a new advisor and a new funding source (e.g., project, grant)? Clearly, the former case will make it much easier to find a new advisor. In the second case, you will need to be willing to change your research plan somewhat, as few professors will be ready to dish out grant money if the student is not actually working on their projects.
Are you a good student? Ok, this may be somewhat controversial, but clearly if you have been an overperformer so far, it will be substantially easier to convince another professor to take you on. Similarly, if you already have great publications in your research, it will be much easier to convince a professor that you want to continue working on this concrete research idea and not change to whatever other project your new advisor has in mind.
Are you willing to change universities? If so, maybe coming along with your old advisor is an option?

So how does this help you? In a first step, you need to reflect on all of these points to figure out what kind of advisor you actually want/need. Then go over the list of potential faculty that formally could serve as advisor. Think about how your collaboration with each of those potential advisors could work, and what you would need from them. Get in touch with the ones that seem most suitable (as you already study there I am assuming you can just send them a mail, or have your current advisor put you in contact), and discuss the issue with them. Select the one that (a) is willing to take you on, and (b) you feel is most consistent with your answers to the questions above.


text:
Is it considered plagiarism if I use my OWN answers twice
I am re-doing a module that I have failed, My first assignment have some questions that are identical to the ones I answered last year, would I be violating any laws or academic practices by copying my own answers from last year and re-use them?

This is a very interesting question. My guts feeling is "No". You're okay. But, I'll leave it to the professors on this site to give authoritive answers.

Apparently, Turnitin show self plagiarism as plagiarism. Even if I asked the author first!

Well it can't be considered plagiarism.  It's your own work, and plagiarism is by definition, using someone else's work and passing it off as your own.  Whether it's academically permissible is a question for the professor.

How can you give a different answer to the same question without the answer being wrong?

@InfernalRapture There is a form of plagiarism called "self-plagiarism" (sometimes called "multiple submission").  Copying your own work and passing it off as your new work is just as much plagiarism as copying someone else's work and turning it in.

@InfernalRapture I've never seen a plagiarism policy which doesn't count reusing your previous work for new assessment tasks as misconduct.

If it's a proper solution and you know it by heart, ( you do understand your code? ) why not? That was the purpose of you taking that course in the first place! ;) Same question, same answer, if it was right the first time it is right the second time.

I've always made a distinction between assignments and exercises. Assignments are bigger and are graded. These I've always redone completely (unless there was a clear policy on reuse). Exercises tend to be more regular (e.g. weekly), are far from always obligatory and if they are graded, it's often a "sufficient" to "good" rather than a grade. When exercises were (semi)obligatory, I've re-used answers verbatim, though never without rechecking them to see if I still agreed with the answers and if no improvements were necessary. This worked well for me, but that's no guarantee, of course.

@ColeJohnson that is why one should never blindly trust Turnitin, or any other automated software.

@Davidmh Tell that to the hundreds of school districts using Turnitin.

Check with the teacher first, because although there's no objective right and wrong on this issue you don't want to get into a dispute about it after the fact - reworking an assignment up front is much less hassle. Having said that, my feeling is that if you're retaking the same course (as you are) then resubmitting the same assignment is acceptable - after all it was you that did the original work. But if you take a different course then they'll expect original, previously unsubmitted work.

I can tell you that my institution states I must cite my own work if it was used in another class.

@ColeJohnson I meant you should inspect the report.

If you failed the module, it may in fact be advisable not to reuse the old answers (at least in some cases) to avoid failing again

This is a grey area and depends on both the nature of the questions and the specific academic misconduct policy of your university/department/instructor. If you wish to reuse your answers, I would ask the instructor in person if it is okay. If they say yes, I would suggest getting an email confirmation that it is acceptable. That said, while there are many reasons for failing a module, it is probably in your best interest to rework the initial assignments from scratch. If you failed because you were unable to grasp the later material, having a better foundation will help. If you failed because you did not put the effort into the module that it required, this is probably a good test to determine if you are now ready.

@Matka Here you go. An authoritive answer.

I pictured this question being answered in Strongbad's voice :P.

If you reuse any answers verbatim, I'd also recommend including a note of explanation with the assignment (saying what you reused and from where), just in case there was miscommunication when asking for permission.  If you cite your sources like this, then you might not get credit for the assignment if there was miscommunication, but that's not nearly as bad as being accused of academic misconduct if someone thinks you are trying to hide your reuse.

I once ran into this very situation with a course I was looking to upgrade the mark in, I asked the professor if I could just hand in my assignment from the last time around since it was the same as what he'd assigned. He told me that would be plagiarism, and said I should do the assignment again from scratch as it would be a better learning experience anyways.
Some professors also keep an archive of work from the previous semester or two (at least some of them did at my school) for such occasions. They want to see if something a student has handed in is the same as their work from the previous year or the same assignment as one of their friends. It doesn't happen often but if the prof really wanted to look into it they could.

Note that by the definition of self-plagiarism, saying "that would be plagiarism" is the same as saying, "on this course, assignments are required to be original work that has never been submitted before". Which seems a reasonable course requirement, but it's a statement about the course rules and not much of a statement about plagiarism. Repeating yourself is only plagiarism if you claim that you aren't repeating yourself (explicitly or because you're following rules that say not to). Otherwise it's called "consistency" :-)

... and for this reason, the professor isn't committing plagiarism despite asking the same questions two years running. He never claimed the questions are original, just that the answers must be.

Actually it is only plagiarism if you try to hide the fact that it was previously "published" and don't give a "citation". What the professor described was something else he didn't want to see, but not plagiarism necessarily. But as you did, and others have suggested, ask first.

In disciplines where answers are discrete and absolute (e.g., most math), if you were right before, your answer SHOULD be the same -- though you should show your work as usual.  Where answers are subjective or personal, having the same answer is acceptable, though the result of the work should express any difference in opinion that has taken place over the last term.  In cases where there are multiple solutions such as most programming, it may be useful to you (if not necessarily to your instructor) to explore a different method.
Ultimately, there are two routes to go about this:
1)  Ask your instructor for their advice (and follow it).  Your grade ultimately depends on their opinion, so they are the best source for this.
2)  Make your own assumption and stick with it.  While it will almost never reflect poorly on you to provide a different answer to the same question (assuming your answer is equally correct), engaging your instructor in a philosophical debate over the objective of education (whether the objective of the course is to learn, or to simply demonstrate knowledge) may require you to appeal your grade if your opinions are not shared by your instructor.
In real life, this question is unfortunately immaterial -- people (especially programmers) borrow work from themselves regularly, and from the standpoint of productivity metrics, generally come out ahead for doing it.  Because this relates to the academic environment, this question is best answered by the most direct authority, your instructor.

"may require you to appeal your grade if your opinions are not shared by your instructor" - If you think that appealing your grade to someone else (e.g., department chair, college, whatever) is likely to cause someone else to overturn the grade assigned by the instructor, think again.  That's just not how grade appeals work in practice.  It's exceptionally rare to overturn a grade assigned by the instructor, and "a philosophical debate over the objective is education" is not one of the reasons that would cause such an appeal to be successful.

Just to add another reference, here is an excerpt from the Code of Academic Integrity at Cornell University, saying this is forbidden by default.

Work submitted by a student and used by a faculty member in the determination of a grade in a course may not be submitted by that student in a second course, unless such submission is approved in advance by the faculty member in the second course. If a student is submitting all or part of the same work simultaneously for the determination of a grade in two or more different courses, all faculty members in the courses involved must approve such submissions.

My university's guidelines actually describe self-plagiarism, here. I think the point would be to go through the whole thinking process of your assignment again and most likely you will come up with a different answer. Sure, it would be fine if it is not completely different but the point would be to not copy it, but rather understand it fully.

can you (if you are confortable revealing what is your university) link those guidelines?

It actually took me a while to find those guidelines again but I hope the link above would suffice! (page 3).

The more references we get, the better. Putting up a real (real in the sense that it is really an university website) link means a lot in the credibility of the answer.

I understand, no problem!

Just to finish the thread, you need to balance the advantage of posting credible links with the risk of exposing part of your real world identity if someone attempts a social engineering attack on your online persona (for example, I can now link your SE profile to that university).

Yes I realised that and I don't have a problem with this.

I sat on a disciplinary board for a student who was in this exact situation a while ago. The student ended up being subject to disciplinary action; the fact that the plagiarized material was their own did not make a difference.
Of course this is also going to be up to the teacher reporting it, and the school's judicial board to decide to uphold or overturn the decision.
Better safe than sorry, ask the professor first, and get an answer IN WRITING.

I had to retake a module and its main practical. According to the rules for my university, on no account may you resubmit previously submitted work, as this constitutes self-plagiarism. As I wasn't keen on taking the same bloody practical twice, especially not if I'd have to rewrite, I asked my module organiser: she said carry on, the data will be different, don't worry about the words.
In the end, I used my report from the previous year as a template - the data and some of my conclusions had changed, but I used bits and pieces of my old report (e.g. in the table descriptions). If the answers you would be re-using require very little creativity, then you may not need to edit them very much.
Check the rules and practices for your own university. If you can't find an explicit answer, get in touch with your academic support team or whoever is closest; but unless your work is going to go through plagiarism software (e.g. Turnitin) I shouldn't worry too much about a complete rewrite. You might want to make sure that the person correcting your work is aware that you are retaking the module -- corral them after a lecture if you can, it's usually best.

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


text:
Received offer to work for free, how to negotiate for a salary?
I was an international student and graduated 3 years ago. Now I want to continue my research career instead of working in the industry. I worked for free for a professor for one month last year. It was a good experience and we had a good impression to each other. I approach her again and asked to get back to her lab, she said that she could consider to work together on a project for 1 year, but she has no money. On one side, I was always excited about to be back to a lab to do more researches, and expecting to extend it to a PhD study; on the other side, I couldn't be glad and work well without enough money. I am going to meet this professor soon, I was wondering:

Why did she asked me to work for free?
How to negotiate or should I just give it up?

Who knows why did she asked you to work for free? Ask herself.

If this is in the united states, you can look into the J-1 visa

working for free, if this is a common practice in the academic world?

What country is this position in? In many countries what she has asked you to do is outright illegal and in others is in a legal gray area. The US Dept of Labor, for example, has been warning employers that it will soon start cracking down on unpaid internships and other similar positions.

@jojo in some places, it is. But I think Academia is just another career, and so unpaid labor should be erradicated. A master's is fine, but then...

Related: Nonpaid, volunteering position in a lab

The question you have to answer is:

Can you go for one year without eating and living under a bridge?

As I assume the answer is no, you simply tell her you cannot work without getting paid. She shouldn't be offended by this.
Even if she has no money, she may know other labs that have, and can recommend you My master's advisor came one day with a friend of his and said "this is Prof. Smith, and he is looking for a PhD student in a project I think will interest you".
Lastly, depending on the country, working for free may be illegal. In Spain it is common to do PhDs unfunded, in Sweden it is considered slavery.

You need to be clear what you wish to achieve. Working "for free" is never great, but it might be tolerable if it helps you to get somewhere you want to be. Once you've decided what you want to get from this, then discuss this with the professor and ask how she can help you get there. For example, it might be possible to write a grant application to fund you for a PhD, if that is what you want. Be prepared to walk away if the prospects don't seem worth the risk.
You might also ask whether there is scope for earning money from other sources - say, from teaching. Be cautious about vague promises that don't ever materialise into anything concrete.
Above all, decide what this is worth to you, and what your exit strategy is going to be if things don't work out according to plan. Once you've worked for free for several months, it's easy to think "well, just another month... perhaps something will come along". This is unlikely to be a good situation to be in...

i have financial issues, as i am not earing high salary yet, but then i have to work for free here. being foreign, poor and career jet. i am struggling for the money issue as well. i don't think that anyone will be glad to work for free for several months even. what does that mean? my value is invalid and rejected. if i am wrong just correct me here

@jojo, it means that the prof values you as a researcher and would like you to work in her lab but she can't pay you simply because there are no funds available to her, not because she thinks you have no value. You approached her ans ask to work in the lab, that is what she can offer, you have no reason to be offended. Find a paid PhD advert somewhere else and ask your prof for a reference.

If you demonstrate value you should be compensated for value-added that you bring to her project. If she really wanted to pay you then she'd find a way.

I see two questions here, one is what Davidmh clearly mentioned. The other is

If it is a common practice to do so?

To this second question, I will say it depends on the student's aims and advisor's funds.
I know one of my friend doing the same in KTH, Sweden. Another friend of mine did a research for 2 months in a UK university after her masters for free. The value you get is recognition for working in a good lab and may be some research papers if you can manage.
I assume your professor recommended so thinking you are enthusiastic about research and may do so even if she could not provide you with some money. If this is not the case, you can tell her politely, it is not considered offensive at all. I also guess here that you have not told her about your intentions to extend this research to a PhD later. If you do so, she may tell you later if she gets funds or may direct you to another lab if you discuss with her.

i did found her for the phd at the first time. now it ends as i was asked to work for free. I was recommended to her network, but i am still unemployed as competitions were high.

how many has succeed by working for free for a while? and what is their intention to ask us to work for free?

The friend in Sweden got a PhD offer in US later because of working with this professor on certain topic, and other friend in UK published a paper for her work, if you think this is accomplishment.

i already had a paper, but i am still unemployed at this moment. I am seeking a long-term stable career, not a so called honor. This senior seems respectful and profound in the area, but i can't afford to work for free the whole year.

what you can do is look for other prof or uni while still taking that offer (but it is better to discuss with her if you plan to leave on the way), and then with research papers and a good current profile, you are likely to get a funded PhD position easily.

thank you for your reply, I will think about this, but i do not want to cheat her at the beginning, either, so i may discuss with her before i start then

or would be better to discuss with her on the way?

no, discuss it before accepting offer. Otherwise it is not good ethics to leave.

It is both nice and better for relationships to disclose if you plan to leave. But I don't think it is unethical to leave from an unpaid job without notice, you have literally no ties to that "job", and everybody should understand that you cannot reject a paying offer.


text:
As a PhD student, is it worth spending time organizing a contest for a conference?
I am a PhD student in computer science: is it worth spending time organizing a contest for a conference (e.g. a shared task for a conference in natural language processing)? I think that would be a great experience to have, and fits very well my research interests, but I am afraid it might slow down my research and therefore delay my graduation date.

Often in graduate school there are an abundance of neat opportunities and experiences; it can be difficult to decide which tasks to pursue. You'll need to consider the short and long-term career benefits of organizing the conference, as well as how it will be viewed within your program. In regards to short term career development, this may be an opportunity to provide an academic service activity for the conference, though there are often less labor-intensive ways to add that type of experience to your CV. However, if you're interested in a career in management or administration and want to gain experience in developing or implementing organizational activities, this might be a valuable long-term experience. Also, if the group task will result in data that you can later use for publications or products, it may be worth the investment; it may even serve as a unique research opportunity.
Whether you pursue this activity will likely also depend on whether your mentor is supportive. If you are concerned that this might delay your research and your graduation date, you will need to decide not only if you can live with pushing back graduation, but if your mentor or program will support that as well. If you are able to pitch this opportunity in terms of career development benefits, products, or even positive publicity your mentor or program may be supportive. They may even provide you with some undergraduate assistance to reduce the burden of coordinating the event. Before you have that discussion, make sure you have a clear picture of the pros and cons, as well as what (minimal) supports would allow you to take advantage of the opportunity at the lowest possible economic, time, and labor costs.

To add to the other answers here, you will frequently be encouraged to "contribute back" during your graduate training. The idea here is that you are giving back to the institution, and you can potentially list these activities on your CV.
The issue with this is that you're already giving to the institution. You're producing research and/or teaching, and you're much cheaper labour than anybody else (postdocs, professors), and require much less training and supervision for how much you do contribute. So, you really don't owe the university or department your time.
As for adding other activities to your CV, there is some benefit to this, but it is incredibly minimal and short-lived. No amount of other activity is going to replace a single paper, irregardless of where you are in the authorship list. A paper where you are author #19 out of 20 is still better than organising a dozen things. Once you move on beyond graduate school, the other activities that are expected of you change, and you'll find that your grad school volunteering isn't so impressive. You'll be expected to review papers or serve on committees, and not so much organising contests.

User30295's answer covers most of the "hard" considerations. I'll add some "soft" ones here.
First of all, organizing such a meeting will put you in contact with lots of people "who are somebody" in your research area. It is a stellar opportunity to get known. Such contacts will be invaluable if you later get stuck and need the right hint to overcome a thorny patch in your thesis (and later work!). You will also presumably meet (and work with) lots of other students. You will have first-hand access to some cutting-edge research.
But keep in mind that organizing such a meeting will also mean that just for the talks you are most interested in, you will be called away to solve some dumb foulup (yes, Murphy's law is unrelentless). And to be remembered as "the brilliant organizer of that contest that ran like silk in 2016, and who solved my domestic problems promptly" is more important than a talk or three.


text:
How do international PhD students typically obtain health insurance in the United States?
Could anyone kindly provide me with information about how PhD international students can be covered by health insurance in the US? :
Is it often granted by the University?
How much does it cost, on average (for the student and possibly spouse/children) and what does it cover?
Does "Obamacare" reform affect it anyhow?
I would appreciate any information. Thanks in advance.

This is very university-specific. My university pays the health insurance for students who are appointed to a graduate research assistantship or TA-ship at the half-time (20 hours/week) level. Half-time is the minimum to get the insurance paid, the maximum time allowed for a graduate student to work, and the usual appointment for the vast majority of graduate students. To add a spouse is about $450/mo. I do not know how much children cost to add. The coverage varies all over the map because insurance varies so much by state, institution, and plan in the US. The plan at my institution is for medical care only. Vision and dental are separate and funded entirely by the employee (though they're pretty cheap).
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) may have changed this for some institutions which did not provide insurance options to grad students, but mine has for the last 20 years or so, so I don't really know.
All of this information should be on the website of the university you want to attend. You may have to look in the section for employees rather than students, but it's usually there. Look for "benefits" as well as "insurance".

Thank you for the information (by the way, 450$/month seems a lot of money.)

@buzzlumberjack: it is, especially compared to the typical graduate student compensation of around 2500 - 3000/mo. But as Bill says, it depends on the university. For comparison: the plan from Princeton I linked to below costs 1900/year for spouse and 950/year for children, which works out to be only about 160/mo and 80/mo respectively.

@buzzlumberjack, I have to admit that I looked at my own staff spouse rate and assumed the student spouse rate would be the same. There might be some additional subsidy at my institution. I was unmarried at the time I was a grad student here.

Be careful that at some universities graduate students working as 20 hour/week TA's and RA's are not allowed to access the same health insurance as regular full time employees of the university.  There may be a completely different insurance plan for graduate students or none at all.

A lot of universities do provide health insurance to enrolled students.
For example:

Princeton University's student health plan is extended by default to all enrolled graduate students (the line about tuition payment is pro forma: if you are on a fellowship or on a teaching assistant/research assistant position your tuition is covered automatically and so the insurance costs you nothing out of pocket). One can also enroll dependents (spouse and children) as long as certain requirements are met. Dental insurance is not covered by default, as far as I know.
A similar provision is offered by UC Berkeley.

The coverage offered are specific to the insurance plans, and thus entirely dependent on the University. The Google search phrase "< university name > graduate student health insurance" is pretty good at returning the results for the universities you are interested in.

Thank you! I asked this question because I wanted to have an overview of how these things usually look.


text:
Practical aspects -- how to change subfields between PhD and postdoc?
For the context of the question, I'm interested in switching between different areas of a field -- e.g. I did my PhD in biological physics mainly involving simulations on a specific biological system, and I am now interested in pursuing more theoretical work (e.g. applied mathematics) still in biological physics but potentially on a different system.
So theoretically I know there should be no problem and my PhD should have prepared me for any new learning I need to do to catch up, but practically I'm wondering if there are 'better' ways of addressing some issues:

Background knowledge: I have some theoretical background, but not the familiarity of having done theoretical work daily in the past years. I would also have some catching up to do (probably several books to get through before I would be comfortable). When would be the best time to do this catching up? If I do it after beginning a postdoc, my postdoc work will be delayed during this (probably months) of catch-up time. Should I take time off between my PhD and postdoc? However then I have to explain an awkward unemployed period on my CV, and additionally not having an institution affiliation would take away my access to journals/libraries.
Competitiveness as a candidate: If I were a PI, I would favour candidates who had demonstrated a capability in the field already. How can I demonstrate an ability to do theoretical work if it was not a large component of my PhD? One thought I had was to look within my own institution for a postdoc advisor since it might be easier to convince them, but I'm also aware that staying in the same institution for my postdoc could be a red flag later in my career.

Also welcome tips on how to prepare for such an anticipated switch, if I still have a few years left of my PhD.

When would be the best time to do this catching up? If I do it after beginning a postdoc, my postdoc work will be delayed during this (probably months) of catch-up time.

A piece of post-doc advice that has worked for me is to have your fingers in several pies. Build up some new expertise while working on some low-hanging fruits from your existing background that will lead to immediate results.

If I were a PI, I would favour candidates who had demonstrated a capability in the field already. How can I demonstrate an ability to do theoretical work if it was not a large component of my PhD?

The qualities that advisors are looking for may vary significantly. If they are looking specifically for a candidate with a strong theoretical background, there's only so much you can do. Others will prioritize broader research skills, like

a strong ability to finish projects (which you can show by building an appropriate track record; so be sure to have your pending papers out before you apply), and
a strong ability to tell a good story (which you can show by being outstanding in your application materials and communication to them; basically, explain how you will help their team succeed based on your expertise).

An established method of making the transition is to take a 1 year Masters in Theoretical Physics or Mathematics after completing your PhD, or to attend a Summer School. This will probably take you out of your current university and could give you contacts to apply for a PostDoc position elsewhere.
While working on your PhD could take an undergraduate course in theoretical physics or mathematics at your own university.

I've never heard of taking a masters after a PhD, is this prevalent in certain fields/countries? Also I guess 1 year means no thesis? A big part of my problem is demonstrating ability to do research in theory.

This is true. My friend ❤ did it. She graduated PhD from Biology. And went to take master in Education. Now she is professor in edu

In the UK it is common to do a "conversion course" if your skills are lacking in the field you are moving into. It is more common between UG and PG level, but can be done after PhD. I don't think demonstrating research ability is the problem - if you have a PhD that proves you can do research. If you came into the PhD from a Biology Degree you might have missed a lot of university mathematics. But this does not seem to be the case for you. I think you are worrying unnecessarily. If you can demonstrate that you can learn on the job, you will be ok.

@sammygerbil put that in answer!!!

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


text:
Authorship crisis
I was recruited as a PhD student but the work turned out to be only observational on field data collection including a very tiring and time consuming recruitment, design of the protocols as well as typing and processing of the data.
After the work was done, 2 years,  part of the for my future articles crucially important data were handed over a postdoc. I was told to find further funding for myself since there was no more left in the project. However, as I later found out the postdoc was offered a payment for writing an article as the lead author.
Postdoc worked on raw data because I was never consulted. However, already before and parallel to her writing, I had shown my plans and article descriptions to my supervisors and they were accepted. In addition, I had the possibility to stress the fact that I need these data for my PhD to the postdoc and project PI. Somehow that was ignored. I was and my PhD.
Nevertheless, she analysed the data and drafted a manuscript. I was shocked. I got the possibility to comment, though. I hadn't been appreciated before as the only one knowing these data,  the limitations and strengths. I was puzzled about the approach and analyses but did not have the power/energy/courage to question anything in the amazingly large group of co-authors: 4 profs, 2 adjunct profs and the postdoc.  I had to stay silent and appreciate the chance of being a co-author in a paper which should have been entire mine.
The manuscript came back completely rejected.  Referees shared my views, which was great to hear, but did not really get me any further. Analyses were judged completely inappropriate, the conversion of variables, results, discussion, conclusions - each had their share of the criticism. In addition, the manuscript was way too long, confusing, had too many tables etc.
Nobody in the group had ideas how to proceed other than submitting to another journal without doing anything and just hoping the referees in another journal would only have substance knowledge, no statistical requirements. I could not accept that since it was all so wrong.
I worked very hard as I sort of got my data back. I processed the raw data and finally came up with an approach&focus and research question to which these data could answer. I analysed them,  plotted figures and drafted tables.  Wrote materials and methods and results.  Understood that this completely new study would need both new introduction and discussion sections, too. I wrote a complete manuscript.  The one from the postdoc and mine have 1-2% in common based on plagiarism check.
Who is the lead author, and why - in the latter paper? In my opinion, the first manuscript can and should be revised and analysed in a correct way.
One reason that I have been given is that the postdoc deserves to be at least at a shared position because she was paid to write a paper based on these data and that she invested some time to analyze them. I do think thank hurry shows in her manuscript and definitely the fact that she did not know where the data were coming from.
The journal I would like to submit the paper to wants to have a special author contribution section. What should I write: postdoc once analysed the data and failed badly? That is her share in mine.

Has your professor commented on the latest work? Is it possible to publish separately from your group?

It was her project but it is an undeniable fact that I did all the field work as well as everything thereafter. I learned R and all the analyses. She knows Excel spreasheats but hardly uses them. I had the right to do my PhD articles based on the data I collected. She has implied 2 years ago that I will never be able to publish without her approval. I do not know if I could. It would be ethical, though because the paper is my "creation".

I have trouble understanding what happenend. Did you write an article based on data you gathered, and then without considering your article, a postdoc from your group was assigned to write a paper based on your data in parallel? which version of the article was rejected? Are you asking about authorship of your or the postdocs' version?
In any case, authorship issues should probably be approached in personal conversation first. Maybe there is some kind of consent you and your co-authors can reach? Some journals in my field have a section at the end of the paper where each task (e.g. Data gathering, editing ...) is listed alongside the authors who participated in it. This might be a way to appropriately differentiate who did which kind of work for the publication.
I strongly recommend not burning any bridges with your supervisors, professors or coworkers. Only if there is no hope for a constructive solution left, consider publishing for yourself (in case you own the intellectual property of the data) or escalating this issue to a higher instance (contacting a journal/your coauthors' superior)
This is all the advice I can give based on your question.


text:
Should I cite a pre-print as published on reviewer's request?
I have cited a recent pre-print posted in arxiv in one of my papers that is accepted for presenting at a conference. One of the reviewers (who is one of the authors of the pre-print I suspect) has suggested citing the pre-print as an accepted version in an upcoming conference (different from where my paper is accepted). Now, the suggested conference does not have its proceedings published yet. The only evidence that this pre-print will be included in the final proceedings is the fact that it is mentioned in the published technical program.
Is it appropriate to cite the paper as published or should I keep the citation as a pre-print?

How about "to be published in: ..., preprint available at: ..."?

@Dirk, your comment is worth a proper answer, I think.

Thanks for the answer

The title asks about listing this as published and the body asks about listing this as accepted.  Could you fix one or the other??

In general, a citation needs to make it easier for a reader to find the referenced article. This seems to me the good most worthy of protection here.
Anyone involved in the conference that accepted the "other" paper would know about the acceptance of this other paper that you are trying to cite. (Incidentally, do not assume easily that the reviewer is one of the authors of the other paper.) I understand and approve of your reluctance to cite with information that is not publicly available, but on the other hand, your readers might not appreciate your concerns, if the preprint gets withdrawn from the preprint server and they will now have to guess what your citation means.
If you go to the conference website, then you might find a list of accepted papers or a program. If the paper is listed there, I would think that this enough for the proper citation.
Finally, you can just trust the reviewer. There is no incentive on having you cite a non-existent paper, but there is an incentive to cite the "other" paper properly which includes your readers as beneficiaries. If you are still hesitant because the preprint and the conference paper could be different, use the "to appear in" clause that Dirk in the comment proposed.


text:
Considering dropping Computer Science Master
Background knowledge about me: I'm 26, have done a Bachelors in Mathematics and now I'm in my 3rd year in my masters in Computer Science in Germany.
I have found it very difficult in general to decide what to study, I've always been into learning things without specifying a passion and I've been a very good student. When I started my Bachelors in Math I really struggled because it was very theoretical but during the first year I decided that I would go into Applied Math and Computer Science.
Starting my Masters the courses were difficult and again I couldn't decide where to focus so I went with Machine Learning, since it was closer to my previous studies. Although I've finished all my courses I am really struggling with my Master Project(which is in Machine Learning), it doesn't seem interesting to me so I am just procrastinating. I decided not to change the project and try to find something else, because I thought that all of this time I have spend would be wasted.
I'm considering dropping the master and searching for a job, but that's also a problem since I don't have any experience.
Since it has taken me some time to finish my Bachelors and now I am really strugling with my Masters, should I leave it and try to acquire some knowledge from online courses about things that would be more relevant for a job?

Hi and welcome to Academia.SE! Can you [edit] your post to clarify your specific question? (See "Here's my situation, any suggestions?" is not an answerable question)

Only you can decide whether you should quit your degree. If you do, then it seems unnecessary "to acquire some knowledge from online courses about things that would be more relevant for a job," because employers hire graduates without additional courses.

What's the dream goal? If you're not interested in doing computer science research with machine learning, the MS is not going to help you. If you're interested in writing code, the Master's might look nice but if it's a background in machine learning that may not help you either.

Get that football across the goal line.  Your project is pass fail.  Just finish it.  Don't change topics.
DON'T drop out after so much time spent. After all, all the same options for career redirect will be there even if you have that extra sheepskin in your pocket.
P.s.  I hear you on the procrastination and avoidance.  but you have to find something to spur you on.  For me it was publishing.  Got a lot of egoboo from that.  Then the thesis was a cut and paste.  Maybe that works for you (can even sign up for a conference to push you).  But whatever the "trick" (e.g. "accountability buddy"), figure out something to push yourself.

I have found it very difficult in general to decide what to study, I've always been into learning things without specifying a passion and I've been a very good student.

Warning: I'm going to propose a very subjective answer, my interpretation might be completely wrong.
My impression is that you are a perfectionist person and you get easily disappointed with the reality of... well everything: your courses, your level, your project topic... Nothing seems good enough for your high expectations. Being perfectionist can be a valuable quality but we don't live in a perfect world, you need to start accepting that.
What strikes me in your question is that you don't mention any personal preference: do you like maths? do you like CS, or ML? Are you eager to get a job or feel like studying longer? I'd suggest you need to find where your motivation lies in order to know what to do. I don't think anybody can answer your actual question except yourself, you are looking for advice about your own preferences.


text:
Missing Information In Thesis
My question is about my master thesis. In the term of my master career (about 1 year ago), i prepared conference papers and presentations which were not published but presented. And added those papers to my thesis and published it.
But nowadays, i realized that we didn't share the detailed informations about the model that i covered. I mean we shared the model as a pictures and informations but we didn't share in detail and without them, actually results and sentences are useless. On the other hand actually i think this is the most critical part; i realized that we didn't share how we handled the first step. We directly started from the next step and we presented results in thesis. And talked about them.
Actually question is; How did you get this graph = Missing for three graphs
The second one is what was the detailed properties of the model = Missing in thesis
On the other hand, if someone asks my detailed model i can of course share them and i can explain them in detail. But i revised some codes* that are used in my thesis and they have been changed and actually i may not produce the same graphs.
*we didn't share codes in my thesis also
So, if someone take action about me for not to present some details in thesis and for not to explaining one step in thesis in terms of methodology, is it seen as an academic problem or serious sitation? Thanks in advance
EXTRA INFORMATION to clarify: My one chapter is based on that information. Without that missing information you can not reproduce figures and graphs. So, it effect the reproducibilty of my master thesis.

Just to clarify: how/where did you 'publish' your thesis? And have you graduated yet, and is this question "after the fact", or do you still need to defend your work and get your diploma?

Thank you for answer, i graduated from M.sc one year ago. And yes i got my diploma. And it is published in website of center the of universities of my country

If your thesis was accepted and you have your degree, there is no "action" that can be taken against you. You can, however, produce a new publication giving the "missing" background of your original study.
Even better would be to extend your work, and maybe your model and explain in a new paper the new work, encompassing the old.
Just be careful to cite the old work, especially since it has been "published" on the website. That will probably make it impossible to republish that, but makes it even more possible to derive new work from it.
But any "blame" for missing parts is not yours alone, being shared with your advisor and any committee that accepted the work. But, in fact, I don't think there is really any blame to share. Move on. Do even better work.

Thank you, as i understand; it is acceptable to miss some steps of procedure explanations and also missing to share some details of design/model. As far as i can produce a new journal/conference paper etc?

could you look at question again, i revised the last sentence. I briefly explained that information

No change needed. If someone needs to reproduce it they will contact you. But think about writing that follow up paper.

Thank you. So, there is no reason for revoking of my M.Sc. licence?

Like Buffy, I would do an update paper and use that as a chance to explicitly update issues with the thesis. You can do this in a gentle fashion that still makes it clear that in some sense it is a correction.
P.s.  If your publication is in English, please upgrade your grammar.  The volume of miscapitalization and comma abuse made it hard to parse your content.  This isn't meant as a personal cut or to say that I am any better.


text:
How to deal with incommunicable co-author
The background: In the grand area of Mathematics in which I do research, there is a famous Professor, let us call him 'A', who started a joint project with another younger colleague, let
us call him 'B'. 'A' gave the main ideas and they produced an initial draft. However, after a while 'A' perhaps lost interest or was busy with other things and stopped communicating with 'B'.
'B' could not manage to move the project forward by himself, and it stayed put. After many years,
on the initiative of a third colleague, let us call him say 'C', and with both the approval
of 'A' and 'B', I joined them on this project and started working with 'B'. After, say, two years, 'B' and I  managed to have a paper, which we think is quite good.
We have sent it to 'A' to hear his opinion. However, he never
returns our email messages. We have also contacted his secretary, and she has been very helpful, but we don't seem to get any reply from 'A'. Because of the pandemic, travelling and meeting 'A'
in person is not an option.
'B' and I would like to distribute and eventually publish this work. We have spent quite some
time and energy on it. Moreover, the results are interesting and could be used by ourselves in other projects, as well as by other researchers. If we wait too much, there is even the risk
of our paper becoming old and superseded by other people's work.
Of course we cannot post this work publically without 'A's name, as he was who gave the key ideas. On the other hand, posting this work with his name could also upset 'A', say, he
could think there are mistakes in the paper and he would not want to have his name associated with it.
What is the ethical way to solve this?
Edit: Thanks for all answers! They really add to the discussion. In view of your comments, I feel like adding some more details to the story and making more clear our position.
It is not that A just gave some vague ideas. He really contributed technical stuff during the first year or so of his collaboration with B.
What I did with B, in the past two years, was cleaning up the Mathematics
and adding some interesting applications. I think we have really turned the draft into a (quasi?) paper. I believe our manuscript is polished.
A is well known for his irresponsiveness in the community of researchers in the field. Indeed this is the reason why there has been the hiatus in the work on the paper, until I joined forces with B.
B and I met A in conferences in the past two years. He was nice and seemed interested in finishing the work. However, on those occasions there was
little time to collaborate with him, as he is a busy person.
B and I are fine with whatever course of action A thinks it is appropriate. We do not require him to check our calculations. We are fine to include him as an author, indeed we would like very much to have him as  a co-author. We are fine to leave his name out, if he prefers so. But I have the impression he wants to be included.
Oh, yes, we certainly want to keep a collegial relation with A!
Anyway, we cannot proceed without his response!

When dealing with extremely busy people, you want to formulate your emails in a way that makes it as easy as possible for them to give you what you need.
Providing one's opinion on a paper is a complex, open-ended process. Even more so if you are a coauthor - you need to not only read and think about what is written, but also consider what else could have been written to make the paper better. In a situation as you describe, I'd consider it perfectly normal for the professor to take a few months to get back you even they seriously intend to do so. Thus, your request is not a good choice.
Instead provide them with a straight-forward way out that works for you. Thus, complete the draft and makes sure it is completely polished. Make a plan regarding what you want to do with it. Then send it to the professor, pointing out that you and B agree that the paper is finished, and that you want to submit it to the arXiv/Journal X, and that you just ask for their consent to proceed. If the contribution of the professor is very limited, you can consider also stating merely acknowleding them as an option. If C or anyone else respected by A has read the draft and also considers it ready, include this information. Overall, you want to make it very easy for A to just respond "its fine, go ahead".
If this doesn't work, there is one way to escalate further, but I'd consider this borderline from an ethical perspective. That is to let A know that if they don't object within eg 2 weeks, you will consider this as permission to go ahead with the plan. Only ever think about this if your draft is really, really done.

Unfortunately, your "escalation" might (and should) fail. The editor may require an explicit statement from all authors and downgrading a proper author is  misconduct. But your advice to make it as easy as possible is good advice. Moreover, person A might just take extreme umbrage at such a move. Boxing someone in is not a collegial move. And you would like a collegial relationship with "a famous professor".

I like your ponderation. I think there is useful advice in your answer, thanks!

I have some differing opinion regarding the escalation.  First, I think 2 weeks is too short.  Perhaps 2 months, with regular reminders over that period.  Second, I think the prohibition on having someone as an author without their agreement is absolute (except in case of death or similar) so instead the appropriate action in that situation is to acknowledge prominently (perhaps even in the first paragraph, not just the acknowledgements) that A should be a co-author but was unresponsive to requests for permission.  Since A has a reputation, this should not surprise anyone or embarrass A.

It's a different situation, with Gabber withdrawing his name as a co-author because he wasn't satisfied with the exposition (or something like that), but you might look at the first paragraph of the Beilinson-Bernstein-Deligne monograph Faisceaux pervers (Asterisque 100).  The theorems of that paper are nowadays usually attributed to B-B-D-G, not B-B-D.  I think it's possible that A doesn't want to be a co-author before checking the details themselves but also just doesn't get around to checking the details, and A would assent to a similar solution.

Rather than asking A for specifics on the paper, ask them for advice on how to proceed. They may just tell you to go ahead, listing them as co-author.
You need their permission to proceed, but you don't need their further participation. If necessary, stress your need to get something out there for your own career(s).
But if you make their task harder than they are willing to work, then you will possibly stay stalled for a long time.
If they give permission to continue with their ideas included just, as a courtesy, send them updates as you go along.
You have to include them to avoid plagiarism in this case and, including them, their permission to publish is needed. A reputable publisher will probably require this, in any case.

Thanks for your insights, Asking A for advice on how to proceed was exactly the contents of my last email message.

@SamP.Arons how long was that email/how many lines of text?

About 10 lines, including all greetings and good wishes especially regarding these troubled pandemic times.

I can't answer definitively without much more information (which I am not asking you to provide).
I suggest writing the paper with a substantial description of (and thanks for) A's contribution, and sending A a copy with a request for comments before you submit for publication.
If A answers, you can negotiate credit. If not it's reasonable to publish.

Actually, no. It isn't "reasonable to publish" something for which A should be an author without their explicit permission. It is, actually forbidden.

@Buffy   A's refusal to answer queries means they can't be listed as an author. This strategy gives A a chance to express an opinion. That said, so does your answer. Which is better depends (I think) on more context than the question provides.

Nor can you validly "downgrade" someone who has a claim on authorship to an acknowledgement. If called on it later you can be in big trouble. Get permission.

@Buffy I'm not sure that excluding someone as an author is quite the same as offering and only leaving them off after exhausting all attempts at contact. Especially if you still go as far as to explicitly acknowledge the contributions. I'd want to make a more explicit contact than maybe the OP has done so far, though.

@BryanKrause, careful here: "'A' gave the main ideas and they produced an initial draft.".

@Buffy It doesn't sound to me like the draft was all that complete, as it took a hiatus and then 2 more years of work to get it into publishing shape. But yes, if OP is misstating their contributions made to the paper without A that may make it more complicated.

@Buffy - I know some historical examples where people who made very substantial contributions to a paper were not listed as authors for various reasons.  I think "A made contributions to this paper that would normally lead to him being included as an author, but repeated attempts to contact him to secure permission to include him on the author list produced no response." is certainly reasonable.  It might annoy A to be publicly named as non-responsive, but I am guessing in this situation it actually wouldn't because A knows they are famous for being non-responsive!