text:
Incorrect reasons for rejection, what next?
Recently I received a rejection to my submission of an article to a journal. Despite three positive reviews, an additional reviewer wrote a short response with an example to claim that a proof in my paper was wrong. The editor claimed to "carefully" check the example and for this reason rejected my paper (no resubmission).
Now, this example is not a counterexample, which I can show with a single sentence (it doesn't satisfy the property I assumed in my theorem). So what should I do?

This would be a ridiculous sort of corruption.  If the editor for some reason didn't want your paper to be published, they had the ability to desk reject it instantly upon receiving it, without having to give any phony explanation or waste any reviewer's time.

Perhaps it's not corruption, it's the Illuminati, the editor is with them!

@JackSt.Claire Not yet, I'm waiting for my advisor's input, I'm a Ph.D. student. However, I'm anticipating being ignored, and I want to know what my options are after that.

@Kuhndog or maybe not completely familiar with your line of work. Or the assumptions of your theorem were not as well stated as you thought.

@Kuhndog: Isn't it pretty strong to call someone "extremely incompetent" for what could easily be a simple mistake or oversight? Even the most competent people err occasionally.  I've certainly made more embarrassing mistakes than this in my career, and I'd be willing to bet that if your career goes on long enough, you will too.  (Keep in mind, in this case, there is always the possibility that it is you who have made a mistake or oversight!)

And as a political note, a PhD student who makes a habit of calling senior researchers "incompetent" (let alone "corrupt") isn't likely to get too far in the business, whether or not he is correct.  I realize you are anonymous here, but all the same, you might want to get used to toning it down.  "X seems to be mistaken" is fine, if you have done your due diligence and are very sure of what you are saying.  "X is incompetent" is over the line in almost every situation.

@nateeldredge you are right, of course. Still, I expect a certain quality in the review process. A proof being correct is very objective and not open to interpretation. Such verifiable facts are the minimum I expect from any competent reviewer / editor. If one can't speak to the correctness of a proof because of inexperience, that is fine until one uses it as the reason to reject my paper.

@Kuhndog: I agree that reviewers and editors should have sufficient experience and expertise to judge the paper.  What I am saying is that even such experts make mistakes.  If you are saying that anyone who ever makes such mistakes is ipso facto unqualified to review or edit, then you are setting an impossible standard, and certainly not the standard that the academic community sets.

I would also gently suggest that you are relatively new to the field, and it's possible that the level of quality you expect in the review process is unrealistic.

@nateeldredge You are right; part of the reason for my frustration is they have had my paper for over a year now; so they kept my paper from being published for all of this time and don't even provide a valid reason for doing so.

@nateeldredge I guess also, let's say there would have been something wrong with the proof. Even in that case, why not allow me to revise and fix it? It just doesn't make sense with how positive most of the reviewers were to categorically reject it.  Hence my frustration with the editor

@Kuhndog: Not sure about CS, but in math, an incorrect proof is definitely grounds for straight rejection, regardless of the paper's other good qualities.  Correctness comes before everything else. If the error is quite minor and the reviewer can see that's it's easy to correct, you might get away with being asked to revise.  But generally, the process of getting the proof right is supposed to happen before the peer review process, not as part of it.  The editor doesn't want to be stuck in the middle of arbitrarily many rounds of "is-this-better-how-about-now"...

... this sort of thing is a job for an advisor or collaborator, not an editor or reviewer.

If the paper got rejected for incorrect reasons, try to correct them by pointing out the correct reasons why the paper should have been rejected.

A note for perspective:  Kalman originally submitted his first paper on the topic we now know as "Kalman filtering" to an IEEE journal.  They rejected it, outright, I don't recall why.  He then submitted it to an ASME journal.  They published it immediately.  Kalman never submitted another paper to IEEE, despite being an EE by trade and training.

(1/2) You better get use to this experience. 1 year for review of a journal article, while long, is not uncommon. Multiple reviewers liking an article and one reviewer rejecting it results in rejection, has happened to me multiple times (I am in CS too). The one reviewer not quite grasping something, happens all the time. I typically see this as an opportunity to better explain myself. Turns out, I recently did it to someone. As a journal reviewer, I recommended rejection. I saw the other reviewer's comments, and they were all over (accept, minor revisions, major revisions).

(2/2) Editor chose to reject. A few months later, the same paper shows up in my review queue, but the authors provided responses to the reviewer comments (journal allows for 1 resubmission). I haven't look at it yet, but I will be a fair reviewer. Check to see if the journal you are submitting to allows for 1 resubmission. If so, resubmit. If not, you  can try contacting the editor. Or just submit somewhere else.

When you are writing a paper, your task is not to prove something. It is to communicate to others that you have proven it. If you make some theoretical mistake in your paper, that's your problem and you should correct it. If you write a paper which does not communicate your results well enough and misleads your readers to false conclusions, this is also your mistake, and it is your job to correct it.
And yes, writing is hard. We love to jot down our train of thought in the way which makes most sense to us, and then we expect that others will understand. In reality, a good paper tailors its writing to the readers. The best authors design their text as a track for the reader's train of thoughts, knowing the possible junctions of misunderstanding and gently leading the reader away from them.
The average author, and sometimes even the best author, cannot write a perfect text from scratch. Readers will misunderstand things every now and then. And a reviewer is a very thorough reader. If your reviewer misunderstands something in your paper, then it is likely that a large swath of later readers (who don't try to follow your text anywhere as closely) will misunderstand it in the same way. This is a major flaw in your paper, and has to be fixed. Luckily, such fixes are very easy with a bit of thought.
In your case, the problem is obviously that the assumption you made was not salient at the time the reader reached your proof. You have to change that. For example, in the place where you list your assumptions, add a sentence or two discussing why the assumption was made and what are its consequences. It will force the reader to think about the assumption and notice it, and keep it in mind for the rest of the paper. Should he think of his counterexample later, he will notice himself that it is not a counterexample, as long as it is obvious how it hurts the assumption. If it is not obvious, it is a good idea to discuss (somewhere after the proof) how examples of this type are not counterexamples, because there is a twist which makes them hurt your assumption.
After the paper has been corrected in this way, you can decide whether to resubmit to the same journal (point out to the editor that it was a misunderstanding and you have made changes to the text to clarify the point) or to another venue.

When a paper is rejected, do not argue about it.  Submit to another journal.
If the paper is really good, it is the loss of the rejecting journal.
The loss to you of publishing in a less-important journal is minuscule compared to the aggravation you suffer by arguing and worrying about a rejection.
If (over time) you become known to editors as an argumentative submitter, it will only count against you.
I remember many years ago, the professor in the office next to mine was an editor on a major journal.  He once remarked that the most unpleasant part of that duty was arguments received from authors of rejected papers.

Also, if the review process is problematic, and several authors complain, then none of them would be singled out as "argumentative" - which is why I agree with @dan1111 that "honesty is the best policy" in OP's case.

This advice can be very misleading, and is certainly culture-dependent. Rejections come in many flavors, including "rejection with possibility to resubmit" - which often just means major revisions demanded.  Incorrect reviews do happen, and successful appeals happen, too.  You just have to calibrate to know when it is worth arguing.  If this is a genuine clear error in review, it will be much faster to appeal than to be re-reviewed.

I'll make two practical suggestion:

It is unlikely the editor would be willing to entertain the possibility of accepting your paper anyway, for a combination of several factors:

lack of time: academics are mostly super-busy always.
feeling it's beyond what his/her duty entails - considering how s/he is typically doing it without being paid
conceit: some people are too high and mighty to be bothered with correcting such mistakes
apathy: some people do not feel guilty for letting something like that stand

now, this doesn't mean you shouldn't try appealing to the editor, like @JackStClaire suggests, but expect failure with high probability.
Get people in your field to glance at your paper and the review, without having told them there's something wrong with the review. Or - tell them something like "I'm worried about what happens in the case of XYZ, what do you think?" - if they are not able to come out and say "oh, that's not a counter-example, it doesn't meet the preconditions" - that means you should probably have explained within the paper itself why that would not be counter-example. Yes, maybe it seems stupid and obvious to you; but apparently it doesn't to other people

but most importantly:

Remember how unfair this has been to you, in case you end up being an editor or a reviewer yourself. When you are in that position, make a vow to be extra careful in your work and to accept appeals of reviews and considering them on the merits.

... and that goes for all you readers of this Academia.SX page as well!

Don’t get involved in the arguments, as the chances are that you will have him as a reviewer again. Next time he may just reject you without any good reason, as a personal grudge can develop between you and him. If you really want to publish, send it to another journal.
One of my acquaintances had his paper published after it was previously rejected by several journals, and guess what, the paper was accepted in a much better journal than all those which rejected it.
Carry on. Don’t lose hope. It works like this.


text:
What are the Key Elements to Highlight in an Undergraduate's CV When Applying for a PhD Program?
I am an undergraduate student preparing to apply for PhD programs and I am currently refining my CV for this purpose. I understand that a CV for PhD applications may differ in focus compared to one for job applications, and I'm seeking advice on what elements are most crucial to include or emphasize.
Specifically, what aspects of my background, experiences, or skills should be highlighted to make my CV stand out to admissions committees in the PhD application process? Are there certain experiences, such as research, internships, or specific coursework, that are particularly valued?
Also, how should I approach the presentation of these elements in my CV to best demonstrate my potential as a PhD candidate?

You may find more specific answers if you specify a (general) field. I am sure the answers vary between disciplines.

In STEM fields (I am thinking specifically of physics, but I imagine this applies to others), a CV is typically looked at for

Prior research experience
Internships or other projects completed
Relevant coursework

In roughly that order of precedence. Graduate programs are very different than undergraduate, and require a different although related set of skills in order to succeed. You are training to be an independent scholar or researcher in your field, as opposed to only acquiring a set of knowledge regarding an academic subject. They are primarily project oriented, in that you can expect to spend a large portion of your time planning and carrying projects to completion (i.e., your research and thesis). Therefore, reviewers assessing applicants want to ensure that admitted students will be able to do this, and the best way to show that is by highlighting past undertakings that demonstrate these skills.
Most relevant would be past research projects, as these are most similar to the types of things you will be doing in your graduate career. Better yet if the research is relevant to the field you are hoping to enter, but even if not, highlighting this experience demonstrates that you understand what is required in a PhD, that you have begun to develop those skills, and that you might be a safe investment of faculty members' time and grant money should they mentor you. Highlight any deliverables that came from these projects, such as papers or conference poster.
After research, internships and even independent projects (in certain instances) can be important to highlight for the same reasons. While they do not show familiarity with the field or specific scientific skills, they do demonstrate your ability to complete work deemed valuable by others, work collaboratively, and learn new skills on the job. Independent projects, if they develop skills likely to be used in research, can be helpful to mention as well. For example, programming related projects can demonstrate useful skills even if they are unrelated to the field of study in question.
Coursework can be useful to highlight, especially if other areas might be lacking, but it is not the most important thing on a graduate application. If you have taken and done well in advance courses, this can further assure reviewers that you "have what it takes", but on its own it does not demonstrate you will succeed in a PhD program. In any case, curricula vary between institutions and it can be hard to assess coursework, especially when there are many applications to be reviewed. It can sometimes help calibrate reviewer's understanding by mentioning textbooks used in certain courses, as that gives an idea of the level of the course taken. But do not dwell on it or use up to much space here, it is not the most important aspect and you will likely be expected to take graduate courses anyway.
Finally, parallel to these topics and not falling into this hierarchy, it can be useful to highlight outreach and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives you may have taken part in with positive effect. But especially on a CV, where space is limited, I would not make these the main focus.

I can confirm this answer also applies to biology/biomedicine.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Optimal Length of an Undergraduate CV: Is 4 Pages Too Long?
I'm an undergraduate student currently updating my CV and seeking advice on its optimal length. Until recently, my CV was 2 pages long. However, this year, due to gaining additional teaching assistants and research experiences, it has expanded to 4 pages.
I am wondering if a 4-page CV is considered too lengthy for an undergraduate. My concern is that it might overwhelm or dissuade potential reviewers (like professors or hiring committees), despite the additional experiences being relevant and significant.
Could you please share your insights or recommendations on the ideal length for an undergraduate CV? Are there any general guidelines or norms within academia regarding CV length at this stage of one's career?

You might want to consider having both a long & short CV. Example long CV (13 pages): http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~hiranya/Peiris_CV_long.pdf; with corresponding short CV (2 pages): http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~hiranya/Peiris_CV_short.pdf

You are no going to "overwhelm" them. Treat your CV the same as you would treat a resume. It should be tailored to fit the audience and opportunity you are pursuing. As Allure mentioned you can have a general version in long and short form but you shouldn't rely on them for every submission.

I"m having a hard time seeing how one year of additional experience is 2 pages on your CV. But I say that as someone who (1) has kept my CV to one page (not counting publication list) and (2) will never have to update my CV again.

There is no such thing as "optimal length of an academic CV". If your CV is 4 pages long because, despite still being an undergrad, you have already done quite a bit of relevent stuff, then great. If your CV is 4 pages long because you've padded it with irrelevant stuff, that's not good.
A full academic CV is basically an exhaustive record of relevant things you have done. For more experienced academics, they can get quite long indeed, with two-digit lengths being usual. It is common to ask for a short CV instead, with maybe 2-5 pages only.
If your full CV has 4 pages of relevant stuff, and nothing in the job advert etc specifies that they are asking for something short, then submit the full 4 pages.
[Outside of academia this all works very differently, I believe.]

There are many ways to write a CV and I worry about what format you are using for such a long (4 page) CV as an undergraduate.
I think a CV should be easily scannable/readable in a few minutes to pick up the general gist of what the writer has accomplished. If you do this, I think you would be fine.
But if the CV consists of a few long expository sections saying how great you are and requires reading to get that idea, then people will be likely to give it up before you'd like. In that case, four pages is too long.
One form of a CV is just a list of papers and projects worked on, letting the detail follow from the papers themselves, via the titles. I doubt that an undergraduate (or maybe even a graduate student) is going to get to four pages in a typical case.
One solution is to carefully format it, so that it can be scanned without needing to see the detail, but providing the detail as well. That is, a list of very informative headings followed by some explanation (inline) of each item as needed. Maybe like

Undergraduate project on fusion underwater basket weaving:

The FUBW project searches for mumble mumble...

Senior thesis: "Advances in Fusion ..."

... main conclusion of the paper.

Such a format could easily reach four pages and could also be easily scanned by anyone willing to skip the detail parts. But if you have a lot of papers, then the titles and venues, if any, should be enough.
Just make it easy to scan and grasp the main points, not requiring any detailed dive into the ideas.
And, of course, don't list things that aren't relevant to the position you seek. Being able to blow the biggest bubble-gum bubble in your cohort should be omitted (most cases).

And don't choose one of the fancy formats I've seen that are more suited to display in a modern art gallery. They all waste far too much space and don't let the reader lock in on the important information. I've looked over hundreds of undergraduate resumes for summer intern positions and way too many of them make it hard for me to find small details like their major and their (projected) graduation date.

There can be only one answer to this question: yes!
I have seen more than a thousand cvs  in my professional career, and frankly would not even bother reading a four page one. If you can't express things concisely in a cv, you will most likely be hard work,
1.5-2 pages to the very max, and not in a small font in order to squeeze it in.

And one must presume that anything on the second page and later will be completely ignored unless the first page is compelling by itself.

That doesn't sound like experience in academia to me.

I do not know that I have ever seen an academic CV (to be distinguished from a resume) which is under 2 pages.

@Arno Correct. I forgot academia is special.

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


text:
Choosing Between Monetary Compensation or Last Authorship in a Research Project Outside My Field
I have recently been presented with an opportunity to contribute to a research project by creating a dataset, a task that would take approximately 100 hours of work. The project is not directly related to my field of study or research interests. I am faced with a choice: I can either receive monetary compensation for my work or be credited as the last author on any resulting publications.
Given that the project is outside my area of expertise, I am uncertain about the best course of action. On the one hand, being an author could diversify my academic portfolio, but on the other hand, the monetary compensation is also appealing.
How should I weigh the benefits of authorship in a field not aligned with my own against the immediate benefits of financial compensation?

Probably too personal for an answer here. Talk to people who know you with whom you can discuss your goals. Money is good. Recognition is good. Your call.

That really should not be an either/or proposition. Either the intellectual effort suffices for authorship or it doesn't. Payment is entirely separate.

This is an unethical proposition. Authorship should not be sold for money; that's effectively the proposal here. Either you're selling away your rights to be an author, or you are purchasing authorship, depending on how you look at it.
If the work is an intellectual contribution you must be an author. If the work is work, you should be paid for it. Depending on where the work is done, it may be legally mandated that you are paid for work.

I agree with this and upvoted, though I suspect confronting the group on this will lead to getting neither the authorship nor the money.

@Dave In that case they didn't really need OP for anything; if they need OP for something, they'll get both. Better not to work with people who behave this way, it's certain for there to be "another shoe to drop" somewhere along the line.

What they are offering you is the basic deal offered to scores of undergraduate and graduate students every year: you can get compensated with money (e.g. and RA) or you can get authorship. Yes, there is no reason why they can't both pay you and give you credit, but in the spirit of exploitation, it's the way it goes. From your description, it does not seem that they are asking you to come up with ideas or contribute to the writing, but to do technical work. Seems similar to doing lab work, and in my field, it's very common to offer the choice of money or authorship. (Note: I am very against this practice, and have always offered both money and authorship. But my experience/practice does not make it the rule.)
When I was a young grad student and presented this choice, I always took the money, and I still feel it was the right choice. I used the money to buy equipment and pay for trips to conferences. Oh, and groceries, which were very helpful in writing my own papers.

No, this is not a basic deal offered to scores of students; the "or" should not be there, "and" is there instead, when you have a functional university/research group. I'm sorry you've been treated this way but it is not normal.

I agree with Bryan, this is very unusual. You can get credit or paid in most places, but authorship is orthogonal. And on top of that you used the money you got paid to buy equipment and pay for conferences??


text:
Does Responding Quickly to Rebuttal Questions in Peer Review Benefit the Review Process?
I'm currently in the midst of the peer review process for a paper I've submitted. Recently, I received a set of rebuttal questions from the reviewers. I am able to provide answers to these questions relatively quickly, but I'm unsure if a rapid response is seen as beneficial in the academic community.
Is there a general consensus on whether responding quickly to rebuttal questions during peer review is advantageous? Does it facilitate a more productive conversation or contribute positively to the review process? Or, is the timing of the response generally considered inconsequential as long as the deadlines are met?


text:
What Types of Questions Can I Expect in an AI/ML Summer Internship Interview?
I am currently preparing for interviews for summer internships in the field of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Given the highly specialized and rapidly evolving nature of this field, I am seeking guidance on the types of questions that might be asked during these interviews.
My background includes coursework and projects in AI/ML. Therefore, I am particularly interested in understanding what interviewers typically focus on. Are the questions primarily technical, testing specific knowledge and skills in AI/ML? Or do interviewers also emphasize soft skills, problem-solving abilities, and understanding of broader industry trends?
I also saw this question but I didn't find it similar: What do professors expect during internship interview.

Are these internships in academia, in industry, at a government lab, etc.?

I'm talking about internships in academia. @Aruralreader


text:
Why is it forbidden by the IEEE to post 'author-submitted' papers on ArXiv?
I am reading IEEE's policy on uploading a conference paper to other venues such as arxiv. Here is the current policy: https://conferences.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/get-published/post-your-paper/.
What is confusing me is that IEEE differentiates between preprint and author-submitted paper, where it is okay to put a pre-print on ArXiv, but not okay to put the author-submitted version.
Is the following understanding of the rules correct? One is allowed to upload any version of the paper to ArXiv except for (1) the version submitted for peer-review, prior to any changes being made to the paper, i.e., before addressing the reviewers comments, and (2) the final version of the paper, which is different from the accepted version, as it undergoes final styling and copy-editing.
Also, on a meta level, what is the logic between allowing preprints, but not author-submitted papers, and how much difference does there have to be between the two versions to not count as the same?

If your nickname should mean that you are in Germany, take a close look at §38 (4) UrhG https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__38.html - you may have the right to a secondary publication after an embargo period of 1 year.

pre-print = accepted, but not yet published. author-submitted = still under review? Putting the latter on arxiv breaks double-blind reviewing, which is standard among many IEEE venues.

what is the logic between allowing preprints, but not author-submitted papers?

There is no logic behind this. It is part of the culture of publishers who want to restrict access as much as possible, so they can profit from selling closed-access research.
If it were just up to publishers, I don't think IEEE would allow preprints, either. But they make an exception for arXiv because the culture has changed such that people want to make their papers available there. Additionally, note that it is valid to post any version of your paper other than the final copy-edited version online on your website.
(Note: if you ask IEEE, they might come up with some reason for it. Perhaps they treat submitting to arXiv as a competing submission, and since you can't submit elsewhere while a paper is under review, you shouldn't be able to submit to arXiv either. But I don't think this objection holds water, because arXiv and posting to a personal website have similar effects. Also, I don't think it is the real reason, which is that their business model relies on limiting paper access to some extent or another.)

What is confusing me is that IEEE differentiates between preprint and author-submitted paper, where it is okay to put a pre-print on arXiv, but not okay to put the author-submitted version.

It's worth pointing out that many researchers do wait to publish online until a paper is accepted. The idea is that papers go through lots of revisions, and the title, narrative, and main results of a paper could change after it goes through the publication process (possibly being rejected a few times). So, you may not want people to read the draft version and get a bad idea (or wrong idea) about where your work fits, and you prefer to make only the most impressive and clarified version available.

how much difference does there have to be between the two versions to not count as the same?

There is no rule here, as far as I know. It could even be the same version, but that probably means you ignored the reviews, which is a bad thing. Often for my papers, there is also zero difference between the preprint and the "final" version, other than it having a new template and formatting to look pretty, which doesn't really matter. (And I prefer to treat the preprint as the real "final" version.)

Actually IEEE is a non profit professional organization, not a publisher per se. They publish things as a service to members and use any proceeds to support professional activities.

@Buffy While you are correct, they are the publisher for a large number of journals and conferences. I'm also not sure the non profit designation makes a real difference here.

About "the most impressive and clarified version available": For some (admittedly only a few) of my papers, that was the version before incorporating the referee's recommendations.

Do you have any sources for this answer?

@Allure Mostly personal experience and understanding, however, which part in particular? I could look for a source

It is part of the culture of publishers who want to restrict access as much as possible, so they can profit from selling closed-access research, and But they make an exception for arXiv because the culture has changed such that people want to make their papers available there.

I think this answer is correct (and spot on). There, I gave you a source to cite. :-)

@Buffy While the IEEE is a "non-profit organization," that just means that they don't return profits to owners or shareholders as cash (i.e., distribute dividends). They still, however, restrict much of the value they create or acquire (such as papers) to their members, rather than making that value available to the general public.

I may add from my chemist perspective that also the ACS and the RSC (both professional societes) are also among the more restrictive publishers.

There might be a logic: pre-print = accepted, but not yet published; author-submitted = still under review? Putting the latter on arxiv breaks double-blind reviewing, which is standard among many IEEE venues. In fact it happened to me several times that even without actively wanting to reveal it, it was annoyingly impossible for me to not identify the authors when looking for related work and plagiarism. arxiv-Results are highly ranked and Google directly shows them with the authors' names.

@Daniel If that were IEEE's reasoning, then they would not allow publishing a paper on your website before peer review either. But they do. And note that publishing a paper to your website often causes it to be indexed by Google scholar, which makes a large number of users aware of it similarly to arXiv.

Well, by your own words, they want your paper to go through their peer-review before being unleashed on the world. On the one hand, they think it will make Arxiv, and the world, a better place. But more than that, they want to prevent headaches, drama, and confusion, whereby a hypothetically crummy version of your paper co-exists in this universe with a superior version that IEEE published. Imagine the bad version gets scores of vitriolic comments on reddit, which will never be forgotten by the Internet.
If the IEEE were 100% evil (as suggested by the other poster), they'd only let you publish the pre-review paper on Arxiv, to try to make Arxiv the repository of bad, unreviewed papers.

Really bad answer... I'm not sure why some people think peer-review is just a god given thing... Also, some people think when something passed peer-review should be taken as 100% correct and any other thing which is not peer-reviewed yet should be taken as 100% incorrect. In my opinion. it doesn't matter if something is peer-reviewed or not, as long as it makes sense scientifically and could be reproduced, I'm happy to use it in my research, otherwise I don't care if something is published in IEEE. Nature, Science, etc. cause there are lots of junk science published in these elite journals

If this were IEEE's reasoning, then they would not allow publishing a preprint on your website before peer review either. As it stands, the policy has no logic to it. They aren't 100% evil (if they were, they would not let you publish online at all), but they are partially evil (still recovering from an outdated system).

The other answer does not suggest (or come even remotely close to suggesting) that IEEE is “100% evil”.


text:
How do conferences / journals select reviewers?
When you submit a paper / manuscript to a peer-reviewed venue, the organizers usually forward your work to 2-3 other "experts in your field" to assess your work.
I'm curious how this process of selection works, i.e. how is this pool of reviewers put together? and how are the best people from this pool chosen once there is a paper to review?
Is there an official list that each venue maintains and to which people can sign on if they want to be reviewers? (If so, I've never seen any "calls for reviewers" so how do they get people?)
Do organizers cold-call people/professors and ask them if they were willing to review a paper? If so, how are these people selected? [I realize that this might differ considerably, so I'm happy with anecdotal evidence, too]

Examples from my experience:

Anyone who has an account in the editorial management system for whatever reason. This could be former authors, former reviewers, former editorial board members, people who've written to us explicitly asking to be a reviewer, etc, as long as they have not indicated they are not willing to review or are not currently blacklisted (e.g. if a reviewer writes a very poor review, we might blacklist).
Author-suggested reviewers (which we try to use sparingly since they often know the author personally)
Reviewers suggested by other reviewers (e.g. if we invite, they decline but suggest X, we will invite X)
From the references of the paper. If the paper is well-written then the introduction would give lots of related works, and the authors of these related works would be suitable to review the paper.
Searching via Google Scholar, Web of Science, etc using keywords for the paper (sometimes but not necessarily the author-provided keywords).
Personal contacts.

To choose people from the reviewer pool: choose the person with the closest-related expertise, as long as he/she is not already overburdened (e.g. already has an outstanding invitation, or has done three reviews in three months).
Cold-inviting reviewers does happen, and is a natural result from some of the methods mentioned above. It's not generally perceived as socially unacceptable however. If the reviewer doesn't want to review for the journal, they can decline indicating they're permanently not interested, we leave a note on their profile, and they're excluded from future searches.

Answering from the perspective of computer science conferences:
There is a committee, usually dubbed the "program committee". This is a group of of people that are invited by the conference organizers and this committee is formed in advance of papers being submitted. The size of the program committee varies from a dozen for a small workshop to thousands for big machine learning conference. The list is usually published and will change from year to year.
Sometimes the program committee does all of the reviewing. Papers are assigned by program chairs based on a bidding process. However, they may also bring in sub-reviewers. Sub-reviewers are third parties that are cold-called to review a paper because of their relevant expertise. Selection of sub-reviewers is up to the program committee members. Usually, they ask people they know, or if they are lost they look through the references of the submitted paper.

As far as I can tell, your link gives the list of reviewers, not the programme committee; the real commitee is certainly more than just a dozen people but it's not in the thousands either.

@ArnaudD. The terminology varies. For that example, NIPS, the committee is split into four tiers and the biggest/bottom tier is just dubbed “reviewers”.

For NIPS, for context, reviewers each do ~6 reviews (each submission has 3+ reviews), so it is indeed what other conferences would call a "program committee." This year there were 3045 reviewers, 240 area chairs, 35 senior area chairs, and then a handful of organizers above that.


text:
Strategies for Connecting with Security and Privacy Researchers in Less Studied Regions, Especially the Middle East
I understand that establishing connections in various parts of the world, especially those based in less studied or underrepresented regions, such as the Middle East, might present unique challenges due to differences in academic networks, cultural contexts, and possibly limited visibility of local researchers on international platforms. Therefore, I seek advice and strategies to effectively connect with security and privacy researchers in these areas.
What are the most effective platforms or networks to discover and connect with researchers from less studied regions, particularly the Middle East?

The words privacy and security are used with several different meanings. Do you mean information security and information privacy? (If you were referring to other types of security like national security, then that's a context for which surely the Middle East is one of the most studied regions instead of least studied...)

I mean the intersection of Security-Privacy with HCI. @DanRomik

I can suggest two possibilities.
First, identify some top universities that have a technical focus, though the overall mission might be broader. Write to department heads there in CS and IT departments (or look at web sites) to see if you can be put in contact with individuals.
Second, look to professional societies that have a focus on your area of interest. Both ACM and IEEE come to mind, but there are others. They may publish directories of members.
Not quite so obvious is to look at who has presented papers at conferences in the field and look at their affiliations. The professional societies that sponsor these have web pages for the conference and they seem to be maintained year after year.


text:
What is the Standard Duration of Collaboration with a Professor for a First Research Paper?
What is the standard or typical length of time students work with a professor while both are at the same university, specifically for the purpose of writing their first paper together?
I understand that the nature of research and the field of study might influence the duration. I am actually looking for reasons why this collaboration won't continue maybe forever until retirement.

Can you maybe explain your concerns more directly? Wondering what the average duration is and then talking about it continuing until retirement seem like very different types of concerns... Are you talking about for an undergraduate student? Graduate student? And why wouldn't you ask the professor directly what they are expecting?

Will it continue forever?  In some cases, maybe.  But in most cases the student graduates, goes elsewhere, and works with others instead.

I'm assuming you're referring to Ph.D. students, rather than undergraduate students, as it is somewhat rare for undergraduate students to publish papers from undergraduate research projects.
There isn't really a standard or typical length. This is very field/research dependent, but is most dependent on the publishing rate of the professor, which is HIGHLY variable and influenced by a lot of different factors (including whether they're trying to get tenure, how soon they retire, how much funding they have, etc.) It is very common for Ph.D. programs to require that Ph.D. students publish X number of first author papers, so that requirement also influences frequency of publications.
As to when collaborations end - this is again very highly dependent on lots of factors. Most Ph.D. students will leave academia after graduation (this number is likely out of date, but as of about 8 years ago, only 8% of Ph.D.s became professors). If those students go on to work in industry, this can limit collaboration opportunities since industry is less focused on publishing than academia is. Some students don't like their Ph.D. supervisors, and thus choose not to work with them after graduation. Some students end up doing postdocs/work on topics that aren't of interest to their Ph.D. supervisor, and thus don't collaborate after graduation. Some students collaborate heavily with their Ph.D. supervisor for the rest of their careers.
Long story short - whether or not you want to collaborate with your supervisor after you graduate isn't dependent on them retiring, and entirely dependent upon whether both supervisor and student want to keep working together.

Ideally, collaborative relationships should, and can, continue past graduation and forever, so long as both (all) maintain common interests. This can be a very powerful boost to an early career academic, providing both support and ideas for new research projects.
The project may not continue forever, but the relationship can.
This assumes, of course, that everyone behaves correctly and (hmmm) collaboratively. Cross campus visits can bring new ideas into research groups, for example and can aid students of both (all) members.
It is common, however, though less than ideal, that such relationships end at the end of a project. It might, then, take work to reestablish them in the future.


text:
Understanding "Mastering Out" in Graduate Programs: Implications and Consequences
One of my friends have been currently navigating through graduate studies and have come across the term "mastering out." My questions are that:

What does "mastering out" of a graduate program typically entail? Is it considered a voluntary decision or is it often suggested by the program advisors/faculty?

What are the common reasons students might choose to or be advised to master out?

How is mastering out perceived in academia and in the professional world? Does it carry any negative connotations, or is it viewed as a practical decision under certain circumstances?

Are there any long-term consequences of mastering out on a student's academic and professional opportunities?

Is there a particular country you're interested in? While the very big picture is similar in most places (you leave a program early with an exit award of a Masters degree "by research" rather than a PhD) the precise details and timelines will vary by country (and institution & field) like a lot of academia.

In the U.S., and in subjects that I'm familiar with (math, physics, philosophy, history), this usually occurs when a student realizes the rigor of a Ph.D. program is more than they wish to deal with or more than they can handle -- voluntary -- OR when a student does not pass the Ph.D. exams (within the required time and/or within the required number of attempts, which varies with the university) -- not voluntary. As for #3 and #4, it's often the case that no one would know whether you did this as opposed to simply entering the graduate program with the intention of only getting a Masters.

@DaveLRenfro I'd say there can be a lot of causes besides too much rigor, including life changes (birth of a child; a spouse needing to relocate for a job) that are not well supported by academia, personal conflicts with a supervisor, loss of funding, recognition that a tenure track/academic career is unlikely based on progress so far, etc.

Recommend reopening this question. While we normally discourage multiple questions in one post, I think it makes sense in this case since all four are closely related and serve only to more fully qualify the title question.

@Bryan Krause: I completely agree with your additional reasons. However, I had only 4 or 5 characters available when I finished, so I couldn't expand anymore on what I wrote (without using more than one comment, which I decided then not to do). My "usually occurs" is based on my experience in several U.S. math graduate programs and many people I knew in other programs. Also, at least in the U.S., I'm not sure how anyone later (e.g. an employer) would know whether you initially tried to get a Ph.D. or you only sought a Masters degree to begin with unless you told them, (continued)

although of course you might have to tell them in the case that you failed your Ph.D. exams when applying to another program, since the failure might be part of your formal academic record from that university, which an official transcript would show (besides, this is certainly something you would be expected to tell the admissions committee for another program even if it is not mentioned on your official transcript, although I don't see why you would need to tell an employer). However, I'm sure things are different in other parts of the world, and possibly even in other fields in the U.S.

@DaveLRenfro Perhaps that's more common in math, then, doesn't match my experience though. As far as employers, it's probably not as big of a deal if you're done in 2-3 years, but if you're deeper into a PhD it'll be harder to explain that 'gap' in your record where you were a masters student without an apparent job, when your actual job was being a PhD student. I wouldn't write "FAILED PHD" anywhere on a job application but someone savvy will figure it out; I don't think it's that important.

Mastering Out means that someone leaves a doctoral program prematurely and is awarded/earned a masters degree instead. It means that the doctoral program can't continue at that institution, though the person might be able to join another one, probably at a different university.
It can be voluntary, as when a person has family or health issues that prevent their continuation. But it might mean, and often does, that the parson has failed some important (comprehensive/qualifying) examinations and are so no longer eligible for a doctorate.
The consequences for an academic career depend on whether the person can be accepted to another doctoral program and complete it successfully. I have evidence that this can happen, even with a change to a higher rated university. But if there is no further degree, the person is probably closed from much of academia.
The perception of the individual can vary. Some at the original institution probably have a negative impression, others may not and might even help in a transition (again, I have evidence of such happening). But the long term reputation depends on what the person is later able to accomplish. It is a stumble, perhaps, but not necessarily a fatal one.
Some people change career plans after this happens. Others just resolve to continue and may succeed in their quest or not. Every case is individual.

Students decide to "master our" when they leave a program before they finish. The option to leave the program may be voluntary or not, but you're not forced to get a masters degree. A student should master out if possible when they plan to quit the PhD because they just don't want to do it anymore or because they're failing.
Mastering out is mostly "leaving academia". To someone in industry, you become a person with a masters degree. Generally that's a better thing than not having a masters degree. It may even be a better thing than having a PhD to some people hiring.
I would ordinarily consider mastering out to be effectively leaving academia. That's fine, most everyone leaves academia, there's too few long term career spots for everyone to remain. There is some slim chance to return (lots of Q&A here about that), but generally I'd recommend making a clean break and figuring out what non-academic career to do after mastering out.


text:
Seeking Additional Funding During PhD: Feasibility and Variations Across Universities and Countries
In the midst of PhD journey, can someone contemplate the feasibility and norms around seeking additional funding in the second or third year? This could be for various reasons such as increased research expenses, personal financial needs, or unforeseen project expansions, but my question is:
Is it common or even possible for PhD students to request additional funding after their initial funding arrangement? How is this typically approached?

This very strongly country dependent. What country are you asking about?

The USA. @TimRias

To (potentially) increase your income there may be fellowships to apply for. The other things are research funding that is up to your advisor and their grant funding. If the initial pay is not enough, don’t go.

If you are funded through a teaching assistantship, that will be decided at the department/college level and will represent a fixed value, which usually scales slightly every year with inflation (but usually doesn't keep up with it).
If you are funded through a Professor's grant, then it is basically the same thing, but there is a bit more leeway to negotiate, but often not much as these numbers are predetermined when you apply for the grant. So if you want to pay a student more, it usually means the grant runs out faster, or you may be dipping into another salary stream under that grant. Grant contracts for graduate students are typically for 20 hours/week, so there may be opportunity to take on a bit extra by taking on small departmental responsibilities, an extra teaching load, etc...
Performance-based raises by your PI for doing well are extremely rare, because mainly we do not have an infrastructure to do that. I typically manage to do that when my overhead coffers are full (which on my end means my students earn an extra 3K during the summer or something small like that), but that is cyclical and not a reliable source. That money is better spent sending students to as many conferences as I can afford to.
Fellowships are the way to get the biggest bump, but in the US the options for internationals are limited.
Unfortunately, for internationals, overall, the situation can be very difficult, even more-so depending on country of origin (particularly if you are from China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and Syria), as that can limit participation in certain grants, or even certain labs (I legally had to keep manuals locked away from a Chinese postdoc for doing a particular brand of semiconductor work in the past).
So moral of the story, if you are an international, make sure you are happy with the base stipend when you go in, because you may not have as many options to raise it.

Since you ask about the situation across countries, for postgraduate students (both research and taught) at UK universities, support funds typically exist for unexpected financial emergencies with regard to living costs, potentially including tuition fees, either in parallel to or from the same pot as undergraduate students. Speaking in general these schemes:

get significantly more requests for support than they can fully meet
require appropriate evidence of a change of circumstances such that the original funding plan the student arrived with no longer works
won't cover research expenses, which would generally be expected to be covered by the department or the student's scholarship.
Only cover the 3-3.5 years a UK PhD is expected to take, with perhaps limited support in the final 6 month "writing up" period.

In terms of primary funding, holding more than one scholarship, or trying to vary the terms of the scholarship after starting would both be unusal. Note that in the UK, ancillary teaching is a side-hustle for PhD students, not a primary source of income. Financial pressures, and thus the percentage of students applying generally varies with the economic climate (local & global), and appears to be on a down-swing at the moment.
Some example funds at Cambridge, Imperial and St. Andrews.


text:
Seeking Collaborators for Unpaid AI-HCI Field Research: Strategies and Platforms
Is there a practical approach or platform to find unpaid undergraduate or graduate students interested in collaborating on AI-HCI field research studies? I'm looking for enthusiastic individuals who want to gain experience and contribute to the field, but I'm unsure how to reach out or where to look. What strategies or online communities can I leverage to connect with potential collaborators?

This seems like a fruitless quest unless you are at a large university with an established program in the field. Both undergrads and graduate students have their own issues and tasks that must be dealt with. Few are willing to work without any composition if it to be added to other necessary tasks.
At a large university you could start a working group and advertise locally (with other professors) about the topics of interest in the group.
Unless you are an advisor in a degree program you have little to offer.
If you publish widely in the field it is just possible someone will find you with a request to collaborate if they are looking for a research problem. But even then you'd have to coordinate with their university advisor to make this possible.
You might find other professors with similar interests at conferences if you use the time between talks fruitfully. A lot of informal idea sharing goes on at some of them. The "coffee/snack area" can be pretty productive.


text:
Why Do Some American Universities Prefer Direct PhD Programs Over Master's for International Students?
In exploring graduate programs in the United States, I've noticed a trend where several universities offer fewer Master's programs for international students and instead have a larger number of direct PhD programs available after undergraduate studies. This seems particularly prevalent in fields like science and engineering. I'm curious about the reasons behind this educational structure.

What advantages do universities see in promoting direct PhD admissions over a separate Master's track for international students?
Does this model benefit the universities in terms of funding, research output, or global rankings?
How does this impact the career trajectories of international students who might traditionally benefit from a Master's degree before committing to a PhD?

I have never heard of a "master's for international students." In what fields/countries is it common to offer a master's specifically for international students? What makes them ill-suited to master's programs for US citizens?

@AzorAhai-him- I think you misunderstood the question.

Not sure how else to read "several universities offer fewer Master's programs for international students" / "promoting direct PhD admissions over a separate Master's track for international students?"

A number of highly-rated engineering schools happily accept masters students - for an engineer in industry the masters is a fine terminal degree. On the other hand, some departments may focus on PhDs only, and use the masters as an exit point.

I'm not understanding the "for international students" parts of your question; can't I just delete those three words wherever they appear and have the same question? What are you seeing as specific for international students? Where are you seeing programs for international students specifically rather than all students?

Separately, when you say "few Master's programs" and "larger number", then what are you comparing to? A historical number from the past? Something else? I just don't understand what the question here actually is.

Actually, most doctoral programs in the US in most fields are open to those with only a bachelors. It isn't a few. It is nearly all. There are several reasons. Probably the most important, though perhaps not stated, is that the faculty gets to look at a student for a while before taking them on as a dissertation advisor. But there are many other considerations including how the university is managed overall.
Most programs start with advanced coursework giving a broad education in the field of interest. This leads to required comprehensive exams in the major subfields. Once past that, perhaps in the third year, serious research toward the dissertation begins. It may be that you earn a masters along the way, sometimes just for filling out paperwork and sometimes after a minor thesis. But this isn't necessary for everyone.
Most universities also have masters programs intended for those not interested in a doctorate, perhaps because they want industry positions, rather than an academic career. These are normally funded by the students themselves through tuition and fees. On the contrary, doctoral programs are normally funded differently through Teaching or Research Assistant positions, which normally include nearly all fees as well as a modest living stipend.
The advantage of the doctoral funding arrangement is that most major doctoral programs also have a large undergraduate population and the TAs help maintain the lower level courses by grading and by holding regular small group sessions for students whose courses might be very large (hundreds of students). They make some personal contact possible to ask questions and get feedback. Without TAs the faculty would need to be much larger, leading to a much different financing issue.
Note that my experience is Math and CS. In those fields, most entering doctoral students haven't gone to R1 (major research) institutions as undergraduates and actually have little significant research experience. This is due to a lot of factors, but the US undergraduate program is very broad with a math major taking courses in writing, history, philosophy (perhaps) and several others. There is little time, even in a four year program for research and few reach enough experience in their field to be able to do anything but poke a bit at research.
Even masters programs in the US, which are often just two years, are too short for most students to do serious, leading edge, research. Some masters programs are just advanced coursework, such as a beginning doctoral student might have, and some require a thesis. It isn't likely to be leading edge, however.
There are some exceptions, however. A few programs run closer to the German model where students are expected to have a masters on entry and are immediately assigned to a lab where they are given some "research adjacent" tasks that will hopefully lead to a doctorate. This isn't the norm, however.
Where a broad based education, validated by comprehensive exams, is the expectation someone who already has a masters might actually be at a disadvantage if their masters didn't provide that broad base making it possible to pass those exams, which can be very challenging and are normally based on advanced, not elementary, material.
I don't see a lot of relation between this model and global rankings. It is an alternative model that works. Funding of US research universities is very varied. Some is from the states that run the university. Some is from foundation grants. Some (a lot) is from tuition paid by students. But the TA system helps keep costs down due to the modest nature of the funding compared to the salary and benefits that need to be paid to research faculty along with the cost of facilities in general.
International students with bachelors are admissible to such programs on the same basis. Some might even have an advantage since the bachelors program in several places is more field-intense than is typical of a US bachelors. And with a masters you might still need to deal with comprehensive exams.

As a gross generality, the larger the department the more degree options there may be.
Choosing one large, well known, highly ranked program, the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department at UC Berkeley. They offer:
A 5-year combined bachelor/masters described as:

This program is available only to Berkeley EECS and CS Undergraduates. It is a five year combined Bachelor/Master’s program geared toward outstanding and highly motivated students who desire a program of study that offers greater breadth than is practical in the B.S. or B.A. programs alone.

A Masters of Engineering described as:

The Master of Engineering is designed for students who plan to join the engineering profession following graduation. This accelerated program is designed to develop professional engineering leaders of the future who understand the technical, economic, and social issues of technology.

Graduate research degree programs:

The Master of Science (M.S.) and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) programs emphasize research preparation and experience.

although they also note:

The MS only degree is intended mostly for currently registered UC Berkeley Ph.D. students that want to add the degree. Occasionally we admit exceptional applicants with research experience, but the cohort generally is limited to less than 10. Students interested in a research oriented degree should consider applying directly to the MS/PhD program.

Further, UC Berkeley EECS also offers a combined PhD/MD program.
None of these programs are aimed solely at international students, nor have I seen such programs at the universities that I am familiar with.

In most STEM fields a masters is seen as a failed PhD. This is largely due to the fact that people who fail to advance beyond their quals (or equivalent) for their PhD are given the option of "mastering out" after completing basic course requirements, and sometimes a short research report (wouldn't even call it a true thesis).
Masters programs are mostly pedagogical in nature. In the US (at research active schools, even research active PUIs) there is a lot of emphasis on undergraduate research. So the need for a masters research class of students is low (we already have such a big pool of often quite talented undergrads). Whereas PhD students who can take on long-term research projects are much more valuable.
So unfortunately, a STEM masters is just stuck in the middle of two strong programs (research focused undergraduate, and PhD).

This doesn't match my experience at all, except for a few programs.


text:
Can we convert poster viewing distance to a software "zoom factor"?
I am preparing a poster for an in-person (finally) workshop and I know that the general guide for posters is that they should be readable from 1-2 meters away. What I don't know is how this translates to what I see on a screen.
Since we have this guideline (1-2 m viewing distance) and know that the poster has a fixed DPI and final size this made me wonder: Is it possible to work out a zoom factor that I should set in software to virtually "view" the poster from about 2m away to check if the content is readable and looks nice? Has anyone worked this out before?
I am using Inkscape, but this should apply to other programs that allow zooming, e.g. any browser or PDF viewer.

Visual angle is the same for A0 on 2 m distance and A4 on 50 cm distance.
I thus find it a good, practical rule to make sure an A0 poster printed out on A4 paper (i.e., scaled to 25 %) is easily readable.
Or, the other way round, to work on the poster as if it were an A4-size flyer.
My 24" monitor has a height of about 30 cm, so approximately A4 length. It is placed at a viewing distance of about 70 cm, and I check an upright A0 poster scaled so that it fits the monitor height. (Since I tend to put too much stuff on posters ;-) and since I have good eyes the 70 cm instead of 50 as calculated seem appropriate to me)

Set the zoom to 100%, and look at your screen from 1-2 m away.
If you want to be sure it's really 100%, you can check with a ruler to confirm that 1 cm (or 1 in if you use freedom units) on your software actually corresponds to 1 cm on the screen.

freedom units - that made me chuckle

Alternatively, if you don't have a ruler: open a paper/other document prepared for A4/Letter paper on your computer; hold up a sheet of A4/Letter paper, and adjust until they're the same size.

And if you really want to be sure, after checking on screen print a part of the poster with the smallest font sizes on a piece of paper in orginal size and check if you can read that from 1-2m away, as screen readability and print readability are not necessarily the same.


text:
Is it okay to disclose papers under review for feedback on the review?
One of the "learning outcomes" of PhD studies is to be able to critically evaluate a piece of work (for correctness and significance). Further, PhD students are expected to learn to conduct a proper peer review.
Under that aspect is it okay to disclose the paper you are asked to review to your group to get feedback on how to improve your peer review? The same goes for professors so that their PhDs can learn how to become better in writing / conducting reviews.
On what scale is this okay and not okay? 1o1 with a student and the supervisor? Within a group? A department (in a journal club style perhaps)? [If none, how do you learn this efficiently?]

As you say, it's part of the process of getting a PhD to learn how to conduct peer reviews, and working off templates and examples is only so useful.
I would however say that maintaining the confidentiality of the review is paramount.
Were it my own paper that was being reviewed, I'd have no problem with it being discussed 1-on-1 with a student and their supervisor, or within a small, lab-group setting. Wider distribution than that would start to make me a little wary - essentially, the wider the circle, the harder keeping the review in confidence becomes.
Another technique is to review already published papers or pre-prints as if you were peer reviewing them. This is commonly a format for journal clubs, and helps you learn the process in a way where confidentiality isn't a concern.

The "issue" I see in journal clubs is that you will only get "positive" samples, i.e. papers that are good enough. You can then nit-pick because no paper is perfect but how do you for example deal with obviously bad papers and judge what is "on the edge"?

@FirefoxMetzger You can find some bad journal articles :) I have a personal collection of "I would have rejected this" for just those purposes. This is also why I mentioned pre-prints - if available for your field, they're a much better sample of things that might not be publishable.

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


text:
Using the names of the teachers in Personal Statement?
Is it ok to use the names of my ex or recent professors in the personal statement? Of course in positive context (how they influenced me etc.) I am not from the USA and in my country it is quite uncommon to write essays like that, so I do not know if it would be ok to use the names.

Could you give an example?

I am going to write about the people and circumstances that motivated me to pursue for studying in the USA. the ex professor of mine influenced me a lot in this case, so I would like to mention him, but I am not sure if it is ok to mention his name also.

Is this regarding your CV or résumé?

I can't imagine there's a problem with that.  You might want to contact that professor so they know they're being mentioned, in case they have an objection for some reason or so they're prepared in case they're contacted.

There is no reason of ethics or custom to prevent you from using the names of professors in your personal statement.  Remember, however, that the personal statement needs to be about you, not about your professors, and choose accordingly whether to talk about a particular professor.
Thus, for example:

If you are talking about a research experience that you had as an undergraduate, then the name of the professor that you worked with is quite germane, and likely to be one of your references in any case.
If you are talking about a class that inspired you, then the class and the professor are not particularly interesting for the statement: instead what is interesting is what that inspiration has caused you to do.

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


text:
Which is More Valuable in Computer Science: Conference or Journal Publications?
In the field of computer science, there seems to be a unique emphasis on where research findings are published, with significant weight often placed on conference papers compared to other fields where journal publications may hold more prestige. I'm curious about the current perspectives and experiences of academics in computer science regarding this distinction.
Why might a publication in a top-tier conference be viewed as more prestigious or valuable than a journal publication in computer science?

As far as prestige goes, either at the same "tier" would be valuable in a CV.
The advantage of conference publications, however, is at least twofold. First, the time to publication is shorter than for journals since the conference is held on a date certain. The implication is that the community learns of advances much earlier.
But more important, IMO, is that you actually go there to meet people and have a chance to develop a circle of collaborators and, since many (most?) conferences in CS are annual affairs you can keep the contacts current over time. It is a good way to build a reputation, as it was for me. Think of a conference as a social event as well as a professional one. You meet a lot of people if you work at it. And an implication, again, is that the community gets a chance to discuss results with authors in person and relatively soon.
So, the CS community has decided, at least implicitly, that the "value" of those face to face meetings is important (very) beyond the value of an entry in a CV.


text:
How can student grades from different countries (e.g., India and China) be compared when applying for academic positions?
In the global academic landscape, students often apply for positions or programs abroad where the grading systems can differ significantly. For example, India and China have distinct educational and grading systems.
How can grades from these and other countries be effectively compared when considering applications for academic positions? Are there standardized methods or conversion scales commonly used by universities or institutions to evaluate the academic credentials of international candidates?

It is difficult to say the least. This is why I like having GRE subject scores.

For US grad schools: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/104279/19607 and https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/162819/19607 Also related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/17658/19607

There are certainly ways of conversion, but not really "standardised" ones. In my university, the admissions office is very apt at these comparisons, they have over the years collected large tables how to convert grading schemes as well as academic credit points from all around the world into our local Swedish system.
Of course, this is only one half of the medallion - knowing that an "A" in a specific system usually refers to "85% or more of total credits" is good, but does not tell you how hard it is to get an A and what percentile of students usually gets an A or better. This is a much more difficult to answer question, since this will rarely be officially documented, and answers will be highly local to individual universities, programs, or even courses.
This is one of the reasons why some universities have started providing "rankings" of candidates upon graduation in addition to their grades (e.g., when my wife graduated her degree stated that her grades were among the top-n percentile of students in this year and program).
To answer your question:

How can grades from these and other countries be effectively compared when considering applications for academic positions?

Basically, you can't. I'm not sure you should even compare candidates based on grades from the same country, and when you throw in different grading schemes and academic tradition I believe it becomes effectively a fool's errant trying to assess if a 1.3 from country A is better than a A- from country B.

Heck, you can’t even assume grades are directly equivalent between different programmes within a university!  I’ve worked at one university where (anecdotally, but consistently) students transferring between the maths and engineering programme, in either direction, found that B/C-students in maths were straight-A student in engineering; conversely, I’ve worked at another where the maths dept was consistently about one letter-grade more generous than the CS dept.  Trying to allow for grade inflation — and, even worse, recommendation-letter-inflation — is one of the hardest parts of admissions.

@PLL I was about to propose selection bias (if it's only one directional from math to engineering), but you mention "in either direction", so I guess it's evidence enough, haha.

Yes, there are standards, but they differ from country to country. Each country tries to "translate" the other country's grade system to their own system. Moreover, those translations are often pretty bad. This is why many applications require additional information like letters of recommendation.

There are no standard conversion metrics I’m aware of, and there’s a very good reason for that. Imagine the outrage if some academic body would formally state “a C from university X is the same as an A from university Y”. That’s basically saying that the mediocre students from X are as good as the top students from Y.
Admission committees often rely on firsthand accounts from faculty/students who are familiar with those institutions- we ask the Chinese faculty/students to give us their impressions on Chinese universities, Indian members for Indian universities etc. In time, admission committees accumulate enough institutional knowledge to make those determinations. The problems start when an outlier appears: an application from an uncommon university. This unfortunately often biases reviewers against these applicants.

That’s basically saying that the mediocre students from X are as good as the top students from Y. - not necessarily. It could be that university X has more stringent grading and Y suffers from grade inflation, which doesn't necessarily say anything about the quality of the students at either.

There should not be too much outrage about such statements when they are patently true, which is often the case. We had plenty of students from all over asia who finished top of their class in their 4-year bachelors programmes, which with a recommendation got them into the second year of our bachelors programme. No way they would ever enter a masters programme directly, they struggled plenty with second year courses. Different universities have different standards and that's fine, no need to pretend they're all equal.

@BryanKrause you are right about the truth value of those statements. I’m only saying that university leadership doesn’t like to hear accusations that they’re inflating grades, or that their classes are less rigorous

@Spark coming from the German university system and having a bit of a background in standardized quality assurance for study programs: faculties are duly aware of such mechanisms, and you wouldn't be "accusing" anyone of anything. Most professors would be very happy if they could start handing out 2,3 to mediocre students in final theses, and these students would then be happy to have gotten a grade with a nominal meaning of "good". But the reality is that inflation happened, and professors are well-meaning with the students that do a theses at their chair; they don't want to ruin any careers.

Of course, I’m painfully aware of the push for grade inflation. My only point is that there are some things that universities prefer not publicly stated.

Standard methods are:

Ask for a standardized exam. Examples are the GCSE A-levels and SATs for undergraduate admissions, and the GRE or GMAT for graduate admissions.
Ask for a percentile in addition to the grade itself. A student who is 99th percentile is better than 99% of students in his/her cohort. It's not perfect since it's possible that the cohort is broadly better at one university than the other, but it's still a strong sign that the student is good.
Calibrate based on prior experience. If an A-student from university X attends this program and does well, then future A-students from that university are more likely to do well. With thousands of universities in the world however, this is not really possible for every university.
Say "screw it" and rely on letters of recommendation, and Google for the letter-writer's credentials.

Incidentally the problem is difficult enough that there are verification services for academic credentials. Example. I've never used one of these though and don't know how useful they actually are.

Some institutions and authorities do their own evaluation: others choose to outsource evaluation of academic credentials to an external agency, typically (always?) a member of the National Association of Credential Evaluation Services
Credential Evaluation Services are typically used by state regulatory authorities: less so by academic institutions, and less the higher up the academic system you go: they are most often used for bulk evaluation of minimum standards.

This answer seems to assume that the institution is in the US, but the question did not specify.


text:
Should I cite the article that I am writing an opinion piece on?
I am writing an opinion piece on a definite article. Should I cite that article whenever I write about the author's ideas in my opinion paper?
I couldn't find any helpful resources when I googled this query.

I'm not too familiar with opinion papers, but the natural way to go seems to be the following: find 3 or 4 other opinion papers in the venue you intend to submit to, and see how they did it.

Could you state the field of your paper?

I agree with the comment saying that you should see other opinion papers in the same venue. I personally think you should - it seems logical. If someone wants to read the original paper, they need some way to be able to know where to find it.


text:
Can I mention the completion of online courses as professional qualifications when applying to university?
I am applying now to a postgraduate program in Computer Science. In the application, there is a subsection where I can mention my professional qualifications; I am wondering if it is appropriate to mention the completion of a web-development online course (on Udemy) with uploading the certificate of that?

If the courses are relevant to your proposed research area, then yes. I did (after consulting with SE experts), was accepted.


text:
How to mention my class rank in my CV
If I graduated from a university (named X for example) in 2014 and my average (or GPA) was the highest among all students who graduated that year from the same major (let's call it Y). So I want to say in my CV that my rank was the first. How to say that in a proffesional way?
What I'm currently using:

Graduated from X with a B.Sc degree in Y with an average of 90% (class rank: 1)

What do you suggest to remove this misleadingness?

To remove the ambiguity, use: Graduated from X with a B.Sc degree in Y with an average of 90% (Y class rank: 1)

What you have looks fine to me.  I've seen numerous cv's with notation like that and never thought amiss of them.

Realistically, it's your CV and you can do anything you like.  And people do.
A common format for an entry in the education section of a CV is degree honors, major, university, month year.  If your university recognized your rank as first in the class as valedictorian or perhaps summa cum laude, I would probably write it this way and skip the GPA.

B.Sc valedictorian, Y, University of X, June 2014.

If they didn't recognize your performance with a specific designation of honors, I might add the additional information in parens following.

B.Sc, Y, University of X, June 2014.  (GPA 90%, Class rank 1)

But again, it's your CV and there are no hard and fast rules.


text:
Is it unethical to get paid for the work and time invested in thesis?
I'm a student of a technical college. My MSc. final project supervisor liked my work, so he hired me for his company. Where I live, it's actually quite common (my bachelor thesis professor also hired me for a part time job, but that was after I've finished my bachelor's degree).
The thing is, that the research I'll be doing for the thesis is closely related to my work in the company: basically what I do in the company is just application of the research I do for my thesis. Is it ethically acceptable to claim hours I've spent on doing the research and experiments for my thesis and get paid for the time spent this way?
I think my supervisor is okay with that and he would pay me without blinking an eye, but how about the university? Is it ethical? And if not, where do I draw the line between my paid job and my thesis work if they are so closely related?

How much of what you do will actually be owned by the company and how much will you have the legal right to disclose? This might less a question of ethics and more a question of law. Does your project supervisor intend the company to be for-profit?

Luckily, it's easy - theoretical results of my research (computer vision) will be owned by myself (I must give a non-exclusive license for the university to publish it). The implementation (mobile app) will be owned by the company. Since the CEO of the company is my thesis supervisor, I think legal problems from the company are unlikely, since he will know exactly what I publish. I was more interested in the ethical aspect of this, if it's universally viewed as wrong, or if it's just some professors/students in my Uni.

That is totally fine, many people do a master thesis in an official cooperation with a company. University hasn't hired you for your studies, and the diploma is not your "payment".
Who might be in trouble is your professor and his company, if he hasn't cleared this with the university officials. Because he has a contract with the university, and they have some rights to your results, because they provided the lab, provided your professor, etc.

Well, afterall, I think you are right. Well, there are no resources (like university lab) embezzled for what I do, the field is computer science... The bad feeling I have about it is probably just because what the professor does is kind of controversial (some professors don't like him for doing this kind of business). But that is not my fault.

Many professors dislike that, especially those without good connections to companies. I know faculties with a special regulation, that you must not be hired during the time of your thesis, for the work you do for it. I don't think that rule would hold up at an administrative court, but nobody has tried ... ;-) . Anyway, I assume you've checked the rules at your school, and this doesn't apply.

Yeah, there is no formal/legal rule banning me from doing this, it was the ethical standpoint I was asking about, since some professors are strictly against company/student cooperation like this. So I wanted to know if there is something intrinsically "wrong" about it. But now I think it's just that those criticizing it either have different values (eg. academia should be separated from business...) or are just envious. Thanks for clarification.

Well, i do not approve of your profs scheme, if he doesn't have an open agreement with the faculty about it. And it also has traps for you. If your prof makes you keep part of your work out of the thesis (e.g. because he wants it kept secret for patenting etc.), his colleagues might hang you for it. Surely a second prof has to review and grade your thesis?

I think it's fine to get paid by the university for doing your research. No one's going to fault you for your work having real world applications. I know many students who have summer jobs that overlap with their research interests and no one blinks an eye when they finish up their research and then go to work for companies that benefit from it. Ideally, you'd probably want to get a job for a company that does work in your area.
That being said, it's probably unethical to double-dip and get paid for the same work twice. Depending upon your school's policies, you also might have to list the company as a conflict of interest on some internal document.

"I think it's fine to get paid by the university for doing your research." - the university is not going to pay me anything. The results of my research will be used in a private spin-off company of my professor (and the  also published as my thesis). The university, however, will give me the degree. I think there is something smelly about this situation, but I'm quite unable to pin-point exactly what, since all parties seem to benefit from the situation - university will have a student doing a thesis on real topic, the company will have the problem solved and I will get both degree and money..

Regarding "double dipping", I only think it is unethical if they don't know that. If the company is perfectly aware that they are buying part of my thesis, and they still want to pay me, it is ok (they are paying me for giving them my results).

I approve your initiative to request more information on this subject, however I am not sure you will be able to find your answer here.
I suspect this question is very dependent on your College, field, research, country, ...
And I would need a clarification, how much application is "application".

basically what I do in the company is just application of the research I do for my thesis.

If I think of organic chemistry, one can develop a new catalyst,  for example while working at the University, and then use the same catalyst at a company to create a new range of products.
There won't be any problem in this scenario if you haven't signed any confidentiality clauses with the university. Since this would be only the application of the knowledge you gain from your research. Usually, when you are hired for a job, you are hired on your knowledge about something. It can get quite complicated though if you find something when you are working "at the company" and you would like to use it in your thesis.
To be honest, it is for avoiding such dilemma that most PhD program where you are paid require you to not work anywhere else.
If you have a contract (and you probably have) if you are doing research (even if you are not paid), read it again and see if there is any mention of this kind of situations. If you don't have any or if there isn't any mention of this, have a look at the policies of your lab/institute/program or try to figure out who is in charge of the legal issue of your College; if such a person doesn't exist (very unlikely) the head/dean of the College should probably gives you the authorisation.
As you are in a technical College, it would be funny that you are the first one with this situtation.

There should be no problem, the only right my university reserves on theses is a non-exclusive license to publish them and make them available for free. All other rights belong to students. There is an NDA I've signed with the company, but this only explicitly applies to code and datasets/databases I work with, not theoretical knowledge or results per se. The CEO of the company and my thesis supervisor is THE SAME person, so I suppose it should be safe, legally. I was asking about the ethical aspects of this, because albeit I'm not the only one, some students and professors "don't like it".

I knew that it was the same person. That is where I think the real conflict of interest is.
Based on your comments (to others as well) there is not a real ethical problem here. It is more a political problem. Would there be any possibility for you to postpone working for your supervisor for after you are done with your degree?


text:
How to Search a Paper by Citation
I have a very simple question. I read a paper and need to take a look on one of the references. Say

R. Mansouri and S.U. Sexl. Gen. Rel. Grav. 8, 497 (1977).

Well, it was easy to search it if there were any title. How can I find the paper? I mean, its title or the journal it was published in. Thanks.

What kind of paper cites a reference without a title?  Yeesh. But I admire the detective work of @user2768, with two approaches to getting around it.

Actually I'll answer my own question. Google the citation as given and there are a zillion using just that form.  How helpful!

The following worked for me:

Google "Gen. Rel. Grav." to discover that it abbreviates journal "
General Relativity and Gravitation"
Google the journal's title to discover http://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/10714
Look for issue 8 in 1977, don't find anything, assume 8 is a mistake (it later turned out to be the volume, which is redundant, because everything published in 1977 belongs to volume 8)
Look for page 497 in 1977, find the result (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00762634), namely,

Reza Mansouri & Roman U. Sexl (1997) A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization, General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 8, Issue 7, pp 497–513.

In essence, I recognized that Gen. Rel. Grav. was most likely the journal's name. (The other possibility was Sexl. Gen. Rel. Grav., but it seemed less likely, because S.U. Sexl. seemed likely to be the second author's name followed by a period.) Once I had found the journal, the year was most useful to me. I then guessed that 8 was the issue. This didn't turn up anything. (Later I discovered that 8 is the volumne.) Next, I guessed that 497 was a page reference, which guided be towards Issue 7. From their, I searched for (what I presumed was the first author's name) Mansouri, which gave me my result.

Thanks! I guessed I could find a search engine or something like that, for this purpose. But this seems a good and routine way.

Recognize that R. Mansouri is the first author's name and that 1977 is the year of publication, and search Google Scholar using that information, i.e., visit https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=author%3AR.+Mansouri&as_ylo=1977&as_yhi=1977. From those results, deduce that

Reza Mansouri & Roman U. Sexl (1977) A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization, General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 8, Issue 7, pp 497–513

is the correct result, because it is the only result that starts on page 497.

Did you mean to edit your original answer or add a comment? Please don't write a duplicate answer.

I've given two distinct answers. My first answer (http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/87690/22768) is based upon what I did. The second (http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/87694/22768) builds upon the OP's comment (http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/87689/how-to-search-a-paper-by-citation/87694?noredirect=1#comment221786_87690) that a search engine could be used. My answers use different tools: the first uses Google [search], the second uses Google Scholar. So, I think the distinction should be clear.

Feed the two last names into Google Scholar and it's the first hit.


text:
How can I prevent scope creep in my PhD project?
I am a senior software engineer with experience in product management (which makes me addicted to proposing new features!). Now, I am an early-career researcher, and I am still looking at my PhD research as a product. This means I keep jumping between ideas and proposals, while the original idea (the big picture) is still the same one I started with. However, even after one year, I am still not clear about the scope. I am unsure about it. Any advice on how to manage this issue?

I'm in mathematics (at a research-oriented uni in the U.S.), so my experience may not be soooo relevant for you... However, with my PhD students, and in my own projects, it is actually desirable, and is inevitable, that with the information acquired along the way, the visible possibilities simply change. :)

@paulgarrett do you mean it is a feature not a bug (programmer's silly joke:)

A PhD that plodded along doing exactly what one originally thought would be very boring.

@AdhamEnaya, haha! Yes, definitely a feature, not a bug. :)

This seems like a question for your advisor. Set a scope with them and do enough for the degree. You can fly free thereafter.

To expand on my comment, which is to do "enough" for the degree and move on, let me suggest the following.
Keep a notebook. My preference is a set of notecards, actually that are originally sparse, but which can be revisited. When you get a flash for something that might be added to your project, just make a note of it in the notebook (leaving room for later edits). This is your "future work" cache and can later become the "work in progress" agenda.
Set a scope for the dissertation with the advisor and stick to it (as much as possible/appropriate) and spill the rest into the notebook.
When you finish the degree you have a lot of ideas that might be followed up, which is always a benefit to any academic.

It is a good idea to also review the notebook periodically to see if anything might be added without disturbing progress on the main line too much. That is why I like notecards. They can be carried and quickly annotated. Search here for "Hipster PDA" to read more on this idea.


text:
How to Shift from a Technical Mindset to Urban Studies and Theories in Research?
I recently transitioned from a software engineering background to pursue research in urban studies and urban theories. Despite positive feedback from my supervisor, it's clear that my approach is still heavily influenced by my technical background. I tend to focus on technical details, building solutions, and deterministic problem-solving. This was evident in my presentations and discussions, where I concentrated more on specifics rather than broader, critical discussions.
I'm seeking strategies to help shift my mindset from a technical focus to one that embraces the critical thinking and high-level discussions required in urban studies. How can I better engage with urban theories and adopt a more holistic view in my research?
Any advice on readings, methods, or practices that could facilitate this transition would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you!

A good engineer first asks the question "what is the problem?" then starts thinking about how to solve it. You need to pull back from focusing on 'solving' to thinking more broadly.

As a partial answer to your question, spend time with and among your test subjects.
Experience the urban environments you seek to study.
For example, if you're interested in the effects of parks on mental health, spend time in urban parks.
Or, if you're interested in mass transit, spend time riding around on different forms of mass transit in an urban environment.
Keep a journal of your observations, similar to a naturalist studying a forest.
For specific readings, ask your advisor what they have read.

Well, the more you study the available literature and expose yourself to the right group of people, the more your research mindset would be aligned to the actual topics, the community is interested to learn.
To further trigger your brain cells, you can always participate in seminars, workshops, and conferences on urban studies to immerse yourself in current debates and methodologies. If you cannot travel to be part of such activities physically, you can at least watching some interesting talks available to TED, youtube, and so on.
As far as the suggestions are concerned, here are the some interesting books, you might want to borrow from your local library to deep dive into the subject.

The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs
The Urban Revolution by Henri Lefebvre
Social Justice and the City by David Harvey
The Information City by Manuel Castells
...

Version 1 of this answer is AI-generated.


text:
Will strange transcript preclude the possibility of graduate school?
I am a student at a community college and I hope to eventually pursue a research career.  The issue is that I have taken classes inconsistently for personal reasons, and I fear that it may make that goal an impossibility.  I began taking classes part-time 3 years ago, at 17, and have been inconsistently taking part-time classes since then (1-3 classes per semester, not taking classes every semester).
I have struggled immensely with certain personal issues (like ADHD, depression, and addiction) over the past several years, and I'm not sure if it's possible to recover from this academic record.  And I need to learn more math before having enough remaining courses available for me to take a full load of classes.  My GPA in the classes that I have completed is 4.00, however, and I have no Ws or Fs.
If my inconsistent record precludes the possibility of graduate school/research, I have no reason to continue in this field and think it best that I drop our and instead simply focus on finding a way to make money, but I'd really like to pursue research.
So, am I screwed, or can I recover?

It took me four majors, three colleges, 10 years, and about 220 credit hours to finish my bachelors degree.  At the end of my first two years as an undergraduate, I had a GPA of 1.95.  I have a PhD now.  It wasn't easy, but it can be done (particularly in the US, where the system permits many second chances).

No, being a part time student will not doom your graduate school applications especially if you have excellent grades. You will probably need to eventually transfer or enroll in a 4-year institution and succeed there, however.
To be successful in graduate school you will likely need to overcome some of the struggles you've had so far. I would focus on strategies to do that and continue to grow skills rather than worrying about any part time education.
To reiterate: I do not see anything in your description of your situation from an academic perspective that it is necessary to recover from.