text:
What is the purpose of making authorship of scientific papers public?
Anonymity has the advantage of removing unnecessary bias. It draws the reader's attention on the subject without allowing it to check the authors' affiliations out.
Public display of authors' names and affiliations seems to only be a source for prejudice.
Anonymity would be advantageous to the peer review process, too.
Authors could still be registered with the editor and would remain in any case responsible for what they write.

What would be the point of anonymity? Why make scientific publishing more like Facebook? Conspiracy anyone?

One more reason that Buffy did not cover: why would anyone spend time on doing intense and difficult research, only to disappear behind a screen and with nothing to show for their efforts, not even a boost for their ego if not their career? With anonymous publication, you will mostly get shallow and fast responses, with perhaps some interspersed gems of quick clever insights, or standard textbook wisdom a la Papyrus Rhind. I would even venture so far as to claim (without proof) that maybe the rise of systematic research may be linked to the emergence of rules on authorship and plagiarism.

Nothing stops one from using a pseudonym. But use it consistently.

This won't, and probably can't, be a complete listing of the reasons that almost all scientific papers are and should be associated publicly with their authors. I'll try to list reasons in the rough order of importance, but even that is hard.
If I know that an author has been writing valid papers in the past, it eases my burden of personally vetting the current one.
If I don't know the authors, then I have to depend on the complete validity and accuracy of the publisher's process, which was done by people who I also don't know.
The likelihood of collusion would be expected to increase if the public doesn't know authors but editors and reviewers do. This might be ameliorated somewhat if reviewer names were attached to papers instead of author names, but that has its own problems.
Plagiarism might be expected to increase with anonymity and might be difficult to check. "I wrote that" can be disputed by an editor, but that requires a separate process that might interfere with some other policies, such as confidentiality. The editor can't, for example, say "No, John and Mary wrote that" as it breaks confidentiality. Claims of authorship, both valid and invalid, will likely be made, breaking anonymity along with reducing trust.
Scientific reputations would be much more difficult to build and maintain with anonymity. There would be less incentive to write if there is no public recognition and there might be more incentive to write junk if it won't come back to haunt my career.
The same would be true for university and scientific lab reputations. Who do you trust? Who do you hire?
The incentive for intentionally misleading research would be increased if no one needs to stand behind results. It is already bad enough given the history of tobacco "research".
Probably lots more reasons are evident to others, but the above is a start.


text:
Statistical analysis plan giving away some of my results, Reviewer 2
Context: At the end of the methodology section, I explain that I will apply an ANOVA to check if at least one condition is different, then I will investigate using multiple comparisons.
The reviewers argue that I am giving away some of my results. Since I mention that I will do multiple comparisons, I am indicating that indeed at least one of the conditions differs.
How can I reformulate my analysis plan (or change my write-up) to accommodate the reviewers? Alternately, what could I answer the proverbial reviewer #2 if I want to keep the same write-up?

Do you agree with their analysis?

What field are you in? In my people will regularly say how they adapted their analysis based upon the data (e.g., transformed data to meet assumptions, ran post-hoc tests, etc.)

I'm confused. "Giving away" as in "spoiling the shocking twist in your story", or in the sense of "your definition of RQ2 presumes a specific outcome of RQ1"?

XLeitix: it's more along the "I am presuming".

Reviewers of what? Grant proposal, paper? I'm confused by your question overall. Maybe you can explain more, e.g. what exactly is the problem with "giving away some of the result"?

This is a ridiculous request (edit: eh, maybe not quite so ridiculous; comments suggest that my 'however' paragraph below applies in this case, but I'll leave the rest of this answer as-is). For one, even before you have run any tests you should have a plan for post hoc testing.
I would respond that it's not possible to correct this without moving statistical methodology to the results, and that the authors feel strongly about keeping this methodology to one section. I can't imagine an editor having a problem with this response, and if the reviewer feels strongly that the boundaries between sections of a paper are sacred then this speaks to their preference directly as well.
However, make sure you aren't saying things you don't need to say if it will help please the reviewer. For example, if you write something equivalent to "we do ANOVA on apple oranges and banana models" and then say "for oranges, we then did post hoc test xyz corrected for multiple comparisons", you can drop oranges from the second section, writing "if significant, we then did post hoc test xyz corrected for multiple comparisons". It doesn't matter that you ran these tests on oranges, it matters that you planned to do this post hoc testing for any significant omnibus ANOVA results, no matter which class of fruit.

The reviewer comment might have been motivated by the fact that I was saying stuff like "for oranges, we then did". I corrected the write-up to keep it more generic.

@GuillaumeL Ah, that makes it much easier then! Always better to be able to make a change the reviewer will agree with rather than having to argue against something that is truly silly...

In your reply to reviewer section say.
"We agree with the reviewer, and therefore removed 'for oranges, we ..., and replaced it with 'for any significant results, we did a posthoc test corrected for multiple comparisons" and do not mention anything else that you disagree with. Reviewer will likely be very happy with this. Definitely don't mention if you disagree with one of the suggestions. My tip is to always only mention what you changed/agree with, unless there is strong reason to mention disagreements.

While it's true that "it matters that you planned to do this post hoc testing for any significant omnibus ANOVA results, no matter which class of fruit," it should go without saying that you shouldn't say that unless it's actually true. If you first did the ANOVA and then only after that decided to do the xyz test on oranges, then you should make that clear.

Without seeing the reviewers' exact comments, it's hard to say, but I suspect that they may simply want to you be clear about what you decided to do before performing the experiment, and what you decided to do after performing the experiment.  In "run-of-the-mill" science, we form a hypothesis, design an experiment to test the hypothesis, and then perform the experiment.  The order in which these things happen is very important when interpreting the strength of the results.  Usually, the "Methodology" section in a paper describes the design of the experiment: i.e. the stuff that you decided to do before performing the experiment.  If you put stuff out of chronological order, then it can be difficult to determine whether you decided to do activity X before or after previewing the results.
I'm not suggesting that it is absolutely crucial that you organize your paper in this fashion, but I think that this is the crux of your reviewers' concerns.  So, you can probably appease them by adding clarity surrounding the chronology of events:  If you have hypotheses that you formed before the experiment and hypotheses that you formed "during" the experiment be clear about this; if you changed course in your experiment because of preliminary results - be clear about what the original plan was, what the amended plan is, when in the experiment the amendment occurred and why.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Mathematics PhD after M.Sc. Physics
I am an Indian physics student, studying mathematical aspects of quantum field theory and such. Over the years, I have realised that I do not enjoy the mathematical hand waviness that goes into theoretical physics. I often find myself asking about the validity of theorems stated by authors in general. Looking at myself now, I think I care more about the abstract mathematical structures built on very strong foundations (I loved taking a proper mathematics course in Linear Algebra a few years ago). My grades are excellent and my research profile (in theoretical phys.) is decent. Given that I am currently in physics, is it a practical idea to transition into a graduate program in mathematics? Of course, I am not as good as someone who actually studied pure math as an undergrad, but with some hard work, I think I can catch up.
Any help is appreciated.

What is "practical" is a judgement call that only you can make. But it is possible. The road might be longer than you like, however.
It's not a good life choice to make a career out of things that you don't enjoy.
I suggest that you go to the maths department at your current institution and ask them what they think it would take for you to switch fields based on your prior education. If that seems reasonable to you, even if hard, then you can apply to some programs that might accept you. You might have a lot to make up, however, depending on which math courses you have already taken.  The exploration can be easily done.

There are theoretical physicists who do mathematical physics, i.e. develop theories rigorously. This is  also the case in quantum field theory. Maybe that is middle way that would suit you. It is then just a matter of finding such groups and get accepted there.

If the question is whether it's possible, the answer is yes because I can cite a concrete example: myself. In my case, I had a personal connection to the math research group in which I ended up being a PhD student (I had been a student worker there for a while) and the math department made me take some pure math courses as a condition for ultimately being allowed to defend my PhD thesis, but other than that there were no conditions: Apparently they believed that I was good enough mathematically.

Yes, people do go from other fields into PhD study in mathematics.  Doing this may mean some "remedial" course work: writing proofs, or learning parts of mathematics that you didn't cover before.  If the math program is large, then there would likely be other new PhD students doing this also.

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


text:
Does a youtube channel with my lectures add to my portfolio in graduate applications if the response is good?
Will teaching physics on a youtube channel and receiving a good response on it help me with my grad school applications in the subject?

I think this would depend on the location of your institution and how traditionally/modern inclined its culture is, as well as the person itself who reviews your application, but it certainly wouldnt hurt your application in any way. It is certainly a good way to stand out from the rest of the field, since I highly doubt any other applicant to your same programme would also be doing it.
If your graduate programme you are applying for includes teaching or TAing duties then it would be particularly relevant since it shows you already have good skills in explaining concepts to people who are less familiar with them than you are.

I am an Indian. Would me lecturing in Hindi be a disadvantage in that case?

I have not yet assigned this as the right answer since I am waiting for other responses. I will do it as soon as I see that the discussion has concluded.

The recruitment commitee wouldn't be watching the lectures to learn themselves, so I don't think it's a major problem. Though ideally they would be in English since then they could also see how good your oral communication/presentation skills are.


text:
Strengthening my CV
Does being accepted at great colleges but me rejecting to go to a better place hold any place in my CV, like

Selected at this place in the department of that?

Does this answer your question? Should someone mention her admission to other prestigous universities in past years when she applies for a PhD program?

Who do you suppose should care about this? And which country?

India. I dont know I thought maybe it tells something about someone

@GoodDeeds: That question seems rather different, it concerns a student that received an offer but couldn't get a visa, which seems worthy of mentioning, since it explains a CV gap. (That student applied again next year.) The above question isn't so nuanced.

I vote to reopen

"I rejected Stanford for Harvard," doesn't hold much relevance (and won't impress anyone that graduated from Stanford)—I suggest omitting such references.

Late question but I think still relevant: How do lines like "Selected at Stanford for MS in Physics in 20XX" impact the reader of the resume in PhD admissions? I am asking this since it is very common for some Indian students to write that they were selected here/there in the Scholastic Achievements section.


text:
What are certain work ethics and habits I should start developing right from my undergraduate to be an effective researcher?
I am a physics undergrad in India, about to graduate in a month or two. Now, I love my work and the research method, and love to read about things from many different perspectives to give myself a broad view of stuff, but I just don't feel like my current work ethic and habits are aligned towards being a competent researcher.
For physics specifically, I have read in a number of places that doing problems is the only way to become good at something, but then I have friends of my age who have studied things like quantum field theory, particle physics etc. from a number of books and they do not seem to be giving a lot of importance to problem solving; just understanding stuff from a big picture is enough they say. I have a strong suspicion towards that last line though.
In general, what are the certain no-no's which have a 100% chance of hampering our growth as a researcher (specifically in physics and mathematics) while we are still undergraduates?
On the other hand, which habits do I must have, which are 100% guaranteed to help me in the long run? I do not mean quick fixes, I mean habits that develop slowly but are worth the time and effort.
Any help is appreciated.

From my personal experience, I think it would be wise for you to pursue undergraduate research opportunities as much as possible. While classes and textbook learning are important for laying the foundations, there are certain skills and habits that you won't develop just by reading books and solving pre-packaged ("canned") exam-style problems that are designed to be solved in a short amount of time.

Nothing is 100% guaranteed in life.
Note that "studying" is not the same as "learning". Your process of doing a lot of problems is a good strategy to learn. Especially if you are getting feedback on your solutions. Reinforcement and feedback are keys to changing the brain (i.e. learning).
But to be a researcher, the one indispensable trait, I think, is curiosity. If you don't have that it is almost impossible to succeed in research. Ask a lot of questions. Evaluate the answers. Think about what questions might be asked, but haven't been.
Many (not all) researchers have good work habits and are methodical. Many are persistent in their work. But, IMO, curiosity rules all. And having fun with it is even better.

Personal note: When I was a youngster my mom thought I was a pain because I asked so many questions: why, why, why... When I started graduate school, my fellow students thought (probably incorrectly) that I was brilliant because I asked so many questions in class: why, why, why...


text:
When to transliterate words in foreign languages?
I'm writing a philosophy paper relying heavily on Aristotle and discussing several of his primary terms, including their etymologies. Therefore I say words like ἐντελέχεια and θεωρεῖν a lot. Since a fundamental premise of my essay is that we lack straightforward English equivalents for these words, and their etymologies give us important clues to their meanings, I have to leave them untranslated. But untranslated does not necessarily mean written out in an unfamiliar script---I could transliterate these words as entelekheia and theorein.
Other writers who share my views on translation go both ways on this. For instance Heidegger, in Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy, reproduces Greek script, while Christopher Long, in The Ethics of Ontology, transliterates. (Though obviously their audiences are very different.) My advisor has not expressed any preference on this matter.
Given this lack of deciding factors, what speaks for, and what speaks against, transliterating all the Greek words I use? Which audiences prefer one over the other? How would the decision to pursue publication (I will almost certainly not pursue this, but I am curious) change things?

Why not both?  Unless you're publishing in a classics journal you can't assume everyone can read the Greek alphabet.

@gerrit Here's a sentence from the essay: "Heidegger 2009, §17 considers ἕξις more fully but only as a preliminary step to a discussion of πάθη and ἀρετή." Not a great sentence but I think it would only be worse if it read "considers ἕξις, hexis, more fully but only as a preliminary step to a discussion of πάθη, pathe, and ἀρετή, arete." Your comment prompts a related one, which maybe I should explicitly ask elsewhere: how many US virtue ethicists can read the Greek alphabet? But answers here should be more general, not restricted to this paper.

I would write "...considers ἕξις (hexis) more fully..."

Greek and transiteration on first use, then transliteration thereafter? For a Philosophy paper not every reader will be sufficiently confident in reading Greek to not be distracted; if it were a Classics paper you could assume they would.

I've seen Greek with parenthesized transliteration on first use, then Greek only thereafter.

1 I believe "entelechy" is an English word, although few people would recognize it. 2 I suggest you transliterate only the first time, using International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) (i.e. en.te.lé.kʰeː.a and tʰe.ɔː.ré.ɔː ) and not Latin letters that most readers won't know how to sound out; and then continue using Greek letters.


text:
Should I email professor to update the motivation letter included with my PhD application?
I have submitted my PhD application. I like it very much but I want to update my motivation letter with more details.
Should I do it?
I don't know if this kind of behaviour is too pushy or impolite.
The position is in the Netherlands.

Have you had any direct communication with the professor?

Hi, no. I only know his email on his official website. I don't know whether It will be helpful if I send him an email with a updated motivation letter with mode details.

If I was the person who got the application, I'd reply with a polite "Thank you" and then ignore the email. My life, like that of many of my colleagues, consists of too many 2-minute processes that end up taking so many hours of my life, and replacing one document by another one in some system (or just in my own files) is one more of those.
The way I'd be thinking about this is that if an applicant can't be bothered with getting the final version of their documents together before they send them off, then that's on them and they will just have to deal with being evaluated based on the documents they submitted.

And that's very generous with your time already! I can see how many professors would go one step further and ignore the mail without replying.

There is a high chance that the professor couldn't update it anyway. When you submitted the application did you send the files directly to the professor or to a central University system? If it was a university system, then the professor probably doesn't have write access to the system. You might then have a chance if you email the contact person for the applications, especially if the deadline for applications hasn't passed. If its now after the deadline then I expect even if they could they wouldn't update the files (to be fair to all applicants).

Hi, I sent the professor an email with a title named additional documents before the deadline. And I didn't receive any reply. Should I send an email to follow up it?

e.g. could I send an email like "Sorry for disturbing you again. Hope my previous email found you well. Could I ask whether my additional documents would be considered ?"

@andy Do you mean you already did the thing you're asking about?

@AzorAhai-him- Hi, Azor, no, I didn't send the follow up email. But I truly sent an email with additional documents. But I find I could re-submit my application in the uni system again with the new documents. I guess I might send the email telling the professor that sorry for bothering you. I submit my application again in the system with more details of my experience and motivation. Do you think is this kind of email okay?

@andy Just stop bombarding them with e-mails and wasting their time. Sorry. You are understandably worried about your application and do not want to come across as inconsiderate, but taking more time out of their day just to say sorry is the most inconsiderate thing you can do. So don't. Wait for them to write you back. Maybe say sorry during a live interview where it can be short and not disrupt anything.


text:
Why do people do a postdoc, rather than getting another PhD?
Genuinely curious! From my perspective the postdocs have even less freedom than I do (I work in a national lab, where although I'm a PhD student my experience sadly is more like an employee). I know research fellowships are different, but seeing as most people go PhD -> Postdoc, this to me does not seem like a step forward.
EDIT: I am from the UK, but some of the answers below are about the US. Does seem rather different over there!
They are assigned tasks by our boss, and they have to do them. I remember this postdoc, smart guy, who had an interesting idea but the boss said "sounds interesting but that's not your work" (something he has said to me). Now I can (and have) bent the rules to do more of my own thing. I don't have to come in 9-5 in the same way the postdocs do. So for less research and work freedom they are paid a bit more than me. But after tax, it's not some huge difference?
So why don't we see more people do PhD --> PhD, instead of always PhD --> Postdoc? Seems like the life is better!

"So why don't we see more people do PhD --> PhD" And then what? Is the idea to keep doing more PhD's your entire life?

93% of postdocs don't become lecturers / professors. So what is the idea there? Keep doing postdocs all your life? If you're going to commit yourself to the research life, I don't see the point in sacrificing your research freedom. Technically, we all have a price and for me 30% more pay (as one commenter suggested) does not seem justified.

@RealDisinformation are you sure that ‘unanimously’ is the right word when you seem to be talking about your own limited experience?

You're missing the point, which is that a PhD is a training position. You advisor is, metaphorically speaking, feeding you and wiping your butt during your PhD. (Yes, I know that you are doing your research on your own, but you do not have the responsibility that comes with being an independent researcher as a PhD student. Someone else was responsible for obtaining the money that enables your PhD research.) What you're saying is in effect that you like having little responsibility (compared to a senior researcher) and having someone else wipe your butt, so that's how you want things to stay.

Surely you can see why this is not a tenable position, in that sooner or later (most likely after your second PhD, when it becomes apparent that you have no intention of becoming an independent researcher) you will run out of people willing to wipe your butt for you (read: obtain the money that enables you to do your research and provide guidance).

Finally, your disputable statistic of how "93% of postdocs don't become lecturers / professors" is not really comparable to what you are proposing. Intending to get a permanent position and failing is very different from not intending to ever move beyond the PhD stage. On the other hand, I imagine you can stay at a lab technician stage forever if that's your goal, but that's very different from being a forever PhD student.

At risk of this devolving into chat @AdamPřenosil, I'll say one final comment. My understanding is that postdocs, not research fellows, simply work on a project designated by a PI. At my national lab, the postdoc is not finding money nor has really any say on the direction of the research. Maybe it's just really awful where I work? In that sense, it's no different to a PhD. Postdocs tend to bounce from institution to institution, going wherever there is money. If you want less* research freedom, 30% more pay and 7% chance of getting a real job then a postdoc sounds great. (*caveats)

You are extrapolating your narrow experience to all post-docs. There is a huge amount of variation across the world in what post docs do. Even in my group, some people follow orders and others like myself are free to whatever we want really. Again it's my own experience, but many of my friends who are post docs get to choose all of their own research and projects.

Given that I never treated the (many) national lab postdocs in my groups that way suggests that your view may not be broadly true.

See https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17232/is-doing-two-phds-a-good-path for arguments for and against doing a second PhD (mostly against), as well as https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/second-degree.

In my experience, postdoc'ing in a national lab had a wildly different culture than at an R1 university. Much more flexibility, less bureaucracy, and more room for creativity and side projects at a university. Better pay, regular hours, actual health and retirement benefits at a national lab though.

Why do people work instead of doing a/another phd?

I am also a PhD student from the UK. I can sympathise with your feelings, as of now, PhD students in the UK are entirely tax free. Considering the small salary gain that you get when becoming a post-doc, after tax you are barely a few percents above PhDs, in practice. (Teaching is also part of your job description so you don't get paid for that anymore). Considering the massive freedom loss that comes with the role I would say that doing a post-doc in the UK is not interesting. Definitely some of the answers below do not apply to the UK, at all.

Postdoc is a job title that covers a large number of positions and employment conditions.
Some postdocs have significant project flexibility, some are hired to work primarily on a specific project. My postdoc had zero constraints on what projects I pursued, for instance.
Largely speaking, postdoc positions pay substantially more than a PhD. The range I've seen in math in the US is something like 2-3x annual salary increase. This is a very big difference, and taxes don't diminish it substantially.
Departments do not routinely hire PhD holders in nearby disciplines to pursue a second PhD, both because this would be seen as exploitive and because it's a waste of all parties' time.
To put it more shortly: I think you have Dunning-Krugered yourself on this subject. A postdoc is usually the only available full time job type in academia immediately after graduating with a PhD and pays more.

I've introduced students to the Dunning-Kruger concept for a decade or so but that's the first time I've seen it used as a verb. Innovative, but I must disagree--adjunct professor is another viable option (though arguably less desirable) for some after a Ph.D.

@E.Moore true. I've added "full time" in an attempt to balance correctness and conciseness. This question is almost a dupe, so keeping the focus on what's novel relative to our "what about 2 PhDs" question is my priority.

"The range I've seen in math is something like 2-3x annual salary increase" A 2x increase should be the minimum considering PhD students are nominally funded at 50% anyway ...

Also SLACs, etc. do hire teaching positions out of PhD school.

@AzorAhai-him- I think "usually" covers that. I do take the point, but don't think the answer's going to be improved by enumerating subsequent career steps. The question seems focused on the research track.

Worth noting that the “2–3x salary increase” is very location-dependent (I guess based on US experience?).  Here in Sweden, the median postdoc salary is only about 25% more than the median PhD salary (source: SACO (in Swedish)); I believe that in most of Europe the typical pay jump is bigger than this, but still well below a full doubling — PhD students here get a much more liveable salary than in the US, whereas postdocs and senior academics are (relatively) less well-paid.

You should indicate the country about which you are talking (probably US?). Especially the salary situation varies a lot and I don't know any country where the salary difference is that huge.

The original question referred to National Labs, which I frankly didn't realize was an institutional name replicated in both the US and UK. Now that the question has been updated, I've added a small clarification. I'm less versed on the range in the UK, but if I recall my offers from a few years ago it was still nearly a 2x multiplier from their PhD salaries.

@user176372 I guess I don't need to quibble over what percentage of the job market constitutes "usually," but I interpreted it as a broader question about post-PhD options. But, fair enough.

Postdocs are paid 130% to 330% of what PhD students are paid.  (This is usually less than what the postdoc could get for a non-academic job.)
Switching to a new university is considered a way to gain valuable experience.
The question and other answers discuss differences in working conditions; I would not generalize about working conditions.  These can vary greatly depending on the individual job.  Working conditions also vary greatly for undergraduate students and deans.

It's true I can't make general claims from my experience, but for my national lab, once I take off the national taxes then postdocs get paid up to 50% more than I do. Then they have to pay council tax (I don't) and for most their student loan contribution. I also get plenty of benefits from being a student (subsidised meals, cheap this & that) and by the time you put it all together, I bet it's like up to 25% more. At least for my national lab, would you trade 25% more pay for a very restricted research culture?

That 25% more pay and a focused research plan that gives me a great interview talk in 12-18 months so I get a permanent job is worth quite a lot. Particularly when that new job is paying 100% more. And, frankly, your research will always have constraints on it, be it time, funding, or whatnot.

I looked back at my old tax returns, and my salary as a postdoc was 380% of my earnings as a PhD student.  (This is in the US, before taxes).  That's not counting the retirement plan, the much better health insurance, the travel funds, etc.

@RealDisinformation what nation is this "national" lab? You mention council tax which I have only seen in the UK, is that the country you are referring to? You seem to be extrapolating from one field, one lab, in one country, to the entirety of Academia. What you describe certainly wasn't what post docs did in any of the four countries I have studied and worked in.

@terdon I am in the UK yeah (and for someone from a council estate it's hard to imagine going further afield from the UK so at least for anyone considering the UK my points hold)

@Trunk Many postdocs are more than 12 months, and others are renewable.  Compare a job that pays x for n years with a job that pays y for m years.  Assume xm.  The difference in earnings is ym-xn+z(n-m) where z is your rate of pay after completing the n year job.  Since z is usually bigger than x or y, you want the job with pay y.

@RealDisinformation well, having both studied and worked for many years in the UK myself, I can assure you your points absolutely do not hold and you are extrapolating from a very specific and non representative case to an entire country. If anything, I would expect post docs to have far more freedom, not less, and indeed this has been my experience across the UK, Greece, Spain and France.

@Trunk: The 380% in my comment was comparing annual salaries.  I had that postdoc position for four years.

Many people consider having been formally employed and paid for their work a step forward compared to being a PhD student (who, depending on the country, may not be paid, or may themselves have to pay for the training/tuition). A formal employment allows one to pay taxes, make pension plan, become eligible for mortgage, etc. For researchers from abroad, postdoc employment allows them to get a work visa and years spend doing postdocs count towards their immigration track in the way which PhD career does not.
As for research independence, it's true that postdocs sometimes do not enjoy the degree of academic freedom they deserve. But the same can be said of PhD students, who, depending on their PI and lab customs, may feel micromanaged and overly directed.
Postdoc is a step towards independent (tenured) academic position, which is considered the point when one fully embarks on their own research journey.

In my personal experience banks do accept PhD student stipends as income for the purposes of providing a mortgage.  However, the cost of interest has gone up 213% since I got experience.

@ the cost of interest going up 213% meanst that the interest went up from 0.25% to 0.5325% . Nothing. However, the PhD salary is enough to barely survive, and the last wave of inflation may kill off many of them. Unless the generous progressive governments impose a raise in their salary, usually less than inflation but enough to make people survive with some additional sacrifices ... and the research wheel keeps rolling with the small slaves keeping it running, while progressive governments can say "look, we care about people an Research!"

@AnonymousPhysicist I was denied by a (major) bank you've heard of (if you live in the US) the first time around, and had to go with a smaller lender.

Postdoc is the next step in academia, the reason you get a PhD is because:

you like research
to get better job prospects.

If you want to do research, then a postdoc is a step which allows you more freedom to research what you want, and (if you're lucky) bring you further along the academia career ladder.
OP, potentially you don't want a postdoc with your current advisor, but that doesn't mean all postdocs will have that problem.  Now you know what to look out for in interviews for doing a postdoc.  If your problem is with academia in general you can start looking for a regular job
If you are doing a PhD to get a better job, unless the new PhD is in a vastly different area (like one in psychology and another in physics) and your job-to-be is in the new area, there will be close to no difference in job prospects.  Or at least not 3-4 years of better prospects.
In that case doing a new PhD will just be wasting time which you could be spending on your career, getting promotions and raises.
In summary, doing a second PhD doesn't help with anything that you would do a PhD for in the first place, be that because you like research, or because you want a better job.

There are other reasons, but even if you look at it from a purely financial point of view the postdoc is a much better option.
My UK-based experience is that my gross starting postdoc salary was roughly 2.5 times my PhD stipend. Once you take off income tax, national insurance and pension contributions, this probably does come down to under 50% extra take-home pay, but...

Pension contributions are very valuable.
National insurance contributions also have some value, since they affect future state benefits you may get, including state pension.
A postdoc salary is subject to annual increments, which PhD stipends aren't. That is, you go up the pay grades in addition to the increases intended to (partially) compensate for inflation.

So really the postdoc salary is worth significantly more.
There is also the question of whether someone who already has a PhD would even be eligible for a PhD stipend. Funding agencies give these out to enable more people to get PhDs. Would they consider one person getting more PhDs good value? I doubt it.

I think part of the issue is the strange set up of (some) PhDs in UK, which tend to be more project-based and time-limited than elsewhere.  Nevermind the differences in pay and status, you should after a PhD be research-trained and reasonably independent (in principle at least intellectually although you may still be dependent on local resources and equipment).
As a result, why exactly would you be training for by doing a 2nd PhD?  What is the end game here?  You could do another PhD or MSc in a different field (some people do this, especially MBA-type degrees) but there is a point where adding degrees does not add to your marketability for would-be employers.
On the other hand, a good postdoc where you demonstrate  autonomy beyond your training can be attractive for employers.

Amassing degrees at the same level of attainment (multiple BSs's, multiple MSc's, multiple PhD's) is frowned upon in many disciplines - even though in particular circumstances an excellent cas9e can be made.
Multiple DSc's is slightly different, since they are obtained in a different manner.

Please explain the difference between DSc and PhD


text:
Is it worth to include a "Publications" section of a CV if it only contains one publication?
I can't tell if this is trying to overrate my own publication, or that the achievement is worth "showboating" it to the degree that I've described in the title.

Depends on how you plan to use the CV. For example, it is definitely a plus to have a publication for graduate admissions.

Yes, it is probably worth it. It makes it easy to find in a quick scan of the CV. Many of the readers will want to rely on getting essential information quickly.
If you are at the point in your career where one publication is good, or even exceptional, then, yes, single it out.
For admissions and hiring committees the first job is to take a pile of too-many applications and sort it into the "look further" and the "good bye" piles. You want to get in the first, of course.


text:
Linking a research publication in CV
I authored a research paper with a group for an internship last summer, which can be retrieved online. Is it worth providing a link to the paper on my resume, or is this unnecessary and a bit superficial? I also listed it as my only publication in a section for "First author publications." Is this necessary to do if this is my only publication?

Where is it - a journal website, the company or department you interned with's website, someone else's research page, arXiV? I'm guess I'm asking can you describe where to find it rather than just giving a link. Will you be delivering the CV electronically, i.e. where the reader can just click the link, or on paper where they'd have to type it in?

I think it is a good idea to include a link in the version of your CV that is likely to get read electronically, such as from your website or from an email.
However, you could put a small icon or short text to click the link, instead of showing the complete URL. This saves space, looks neater, and anyone who does not view your CV on a computer would likely search for the publication directly instead of typing in an URL, so that is unlikely to be of much use.
An alternative option is to mention a single source where all the papers can be found (such as Google Scholar, or your website) at the top of the section, optionally with a link, instead of providing links for individual publications.
For the second part of your question, just naming the section "Publications" should be sufficient, since the author list would be shown anyway, and you are not filtering your publications to a small strict subset where you are the first author.


text:
When to include degree classifications on a CV
I've looked at some CV's from colleagues and superiors that I've worked with in academia, and one interesting thing I've noticed is that most of them don't mention if they've graduated with distinction (cum laude, first class etc), but for me it's crucial to mention. At what point is it not necessary to include? Does some amount of academic experience such as publications trump whatever the honors one received when graduating to the point where it's not necessary to include? Is this done because potential employers aren't interested after the person has a solid enough background in academia post graduation and degree conferral or is it simply not worth the whitespace?

Is your bachelor's your highest degree? Is it the highest degree on their CV?

Why is it crucial for you?

And are they indeed from countries where those distinctions exist?

You haven't said whether you have a PhD, but in my experience, by the time you do, your bachelor's degree is reduced to a single line or two, like:

Bachelor of Arts, Basket Weaving  (2019)[, cum laude]
University of Nowhere

I would recommend, as a rule of thumb, if you can squeeze it onto that line, go for it. If it needs a lot of explanation, maybe reconsider, unless it was a very high honor.
Consider though, that many people in doctorate-level education have similar honors. Your bachelor's degree being cum laude will not matter for anything except maybe entry fellowships.

I would mention it and leave it on your CV going forward. It is recognized and awarded by your university. Some people might discount it and others might not.
It is a minor thing, however, as it is normally simply a reflection of your GPA. And in applications that contain the GPA, that is a more precise indicator of where you wound up.
But it is an accomplishment, nevertheless and it is valid to be proud of it.

In my experience, people include this aspect on their CV regardless of how many publications they have (or other relevant measures of success).
It is a positive and simple thing to include, especially as an addendum to the degree obtained (“degree in X from Y university—summa cum laude”).
An important consideration when writing a CV is that is is not too burdensome for others to read. In the above-mentioned way, there is no adverse cost to including this information, so it is only a positive thing.
It is a negative thing if the GPA was not good enough to receive high distinctions. In that case, it’s best not to draw attention to it.

If it is a positive high distinction, you only have to gain by including it.


text:
Does the length of a PhD thesis matter?
I am writing a PhD thesis in literature. I have covered all areas in about 120 pages. Does the length of a PhD thesis matter even if it has covered all the areas mentioned in the synopsis?

Quality counts independant of length.

Ask your PhD advisor; your question is country and university specific

In some fields, it seems to do. Asking your PhD advisor is indeed your best bet.

Actually, if you want a weighty PhD thesis, then the grammage (thickness) of the paper that you print it on is just as important as the number of pages. If you printed those 120 pages on card-stock paper, it would be solid enough to knock the socks off any thesis supervisor.

John Nash's thesis was 26 pages long with only two references and he later won a Nobel prize. What matters is scientific quality not quantity, if your ideas are superior nobody will object the length (mine was less than 100 pages).

Math is really special in this respect. You won't find a PhD thesis in literature of that length.

@lighthousekeeper But even that isn't because in literature theses are somehow evaluated by their length but only due to the fact that in literature its much harder to be concise when properly explaining a certain point.

@mlk That's a friendly, admissible interpretation of the situation. I'll leave it at that.

@lighthousekeeper true. You also won’t find someone who won the Nobel prize in literature for their PhD thesis, regardless of its length.

The advice you have so far is pretty US specific - in a system without a committee system, where you will be judged by your examiners in a one off thing, you may want to be more careful.
Of course, the person who should really know the answer to this is your supervisor/advisor, but should also be able to look up what the criteria are for your university. I would generally ask around your field. In my field in my country, a thesis is expected to contain at least three more or less complete "stories" that add up to a advance in the field. In biomolecular sciences, 120 pages would be very much on the short side for that, but not completely out of the question - a 40 page literature review and 20 pages of Methods, 5 pages of general discussion/conclusion would leave you with only 55 pages of results - doable if you are terse and everything worked first time.
But these expectations are going to differ from system to system and subject to subject. Speak to people in the know.

PhD theses are judged on the quality of their content.  Length is only relevant to the extent that it makes that content understandable (not too short) and findable (not too long).

I did one in the low hundred plus.  As long as it passes your committee that is all that matters. But a brave face on, submit it and see the reaction.
Don't even ask if it is suitable. Just submit it to your advisor as your intended work product.  After all your independent view is that it is good enough. Let him volunteer a criticism if he chooses. But don't suggest it.

This only works in a system where you get the chance to try again if the committee doesn't like it. Not all systems are like that.

If it satisfies your advisor and the committee it is fine. A 1 page dissertation in poetry is within the realm of possibility, however unlikely.
It is a mistake to pad things, I think.
Some places (and some advisors) might have minimal length requirements, though I would question them. But if that is the issue here you need to think a bit more about the overall structure, not just the page count.

Could you perhaps expand on what you mean by “pad things” in your answer? The additional clarity I think could add value to the response.

@GrayLiterature, "padding" is a common idiom for adding less relevant things (or irrelevant) to make something bigger or longer. Think about a very thin person playing the typical Santa Claus role in a department store. (Or watch the NSFW movie "Bad Santa".)


text:
How should I reference the institution in my grad school applications if I went to a satellite campus?
I go to a well respected University of X. However, I actually attend a campus that is smaller and separate from the main large campus. As I look at graduate schools and begin drafting my statement of purpose, should I specifically mention (every time) that I go to U of X, City campus, or just mention the university as a whole?

Why do you have to repeatedly refer to the university by name in your statement of purpose?

@BryanKrause Thanks, that made me think. Really, its because I spent time at a community college and at a large state university for undergrad. In my statement of purpose I wanted to distinguish my time before and after upper division, and explain the grade improvement.

If the rules and regulations are the same at both campuses, I doubt that you need to make a distinction. This is especially true if you would have been welcome to take classes at either campus without distinction.
But the university has an official name. If the satellite campus has a different official name you could, and maybe should, use that. But the "expanded" name may just be a geographic signifier without any official distinction other than geography. But you can ask the university for advice, of course.
My former university has several campuses in various cities in the same geographic region of the state. There is no distinction in the degrees offered and it is the university as a whole that grants them. The diploma shows no distinction. Is that the case at your institution?

thank you. At my institution it has no distinction of degrees. The program is slightly different, as at my satellite campus the program was built from the ground up. Also, though we have the opportunity to take classes on the main campus, it is usually impractical since they do have a bit of a drive between them, and we can only take a certain amount of classes on other campuses. My diploma will show no distinction. Thank you!


text:
Reasonable to ask 2nd supervisor for more involvement?
Next week, I will be meeting with both my supervisors (and the PhD course director) to discuss coming back to the PhD after a break.
This, I think, is a good chance to voice a variety of concerns. One of them is that I feel my 2nd supervisor should have more input. I'm interested to know if, generally, that is acceptable?

My specific case, fwiw:
On paper Professor X and Dr Y (national lab) have equal supervision. In reality, Professor X has contributed almost nothing intellectual to this project; this, really, is Dr Y's project. Professor X will ocassionally invite me to lunch and 'check in', which might be fine if serious intellectual progress could be made. Instead, I just recount what I've already done, discuss some university admin, and then we part ways.
I'm sure Professor X is a capabale researcher, but I just personally haven't seen it. On the other hand, I don't think Dr Y is all that great, but we meet (too) frequently. Perhaps its the national lab, but I want more exposure to the University - not less. Hence I thought to bring up at the meeting whether we should aim to have Professor X and Dr Y meet me at the same time, so that we can brainstorm progress / direction together. This, naturally, would ensure Professor X is able to contribute to the academic picture better. Good or bad idea?

My suggestion is that you ask X directly in a private meeting for more guidance, saying that you think his expertise will help your project. I wouldn't do this in a meeting with both as it might make one or the other uncomfortable.
But it may well be that X doesn't actually recognize your need, or even your desire for more contact. They may well think everything is fine and that Y is giving the right inputs.
An additional reason for closer contact, however, is your long term career and the possibility (hope) that X will be your strong advocate. If you work more closely with them it could be good. But you can express it, also, as your interest in them and their research directions and your long ter goal of keeping connected with that.
And if you want an academic career (rather than in a lab) you can mention that, and the fact that closer contact might make that easier.
Make it a positive thing, though, so that it doesn't sound like criticism.


text:
Difficulty in pinpointing potential PhD supervisor's current interest from their publications
I want to pursue a PhD in experimental particle physics and am looking for a supervisor. I know that the first advice to students like me is to go through the professor's most recent paper. However, the journals in my field are usually published collaboratively, which means the number of authors ranges from tens to thousands per paper.
For example, this paper has 29 authors and this has 1030 of them.
Therefore, it is difficult for me to identify what the professor has been interested in recently. Sometimes I am lucky enough to find the topics of their past supervised students, but I am not sure if I can go through those theses and ask them questions based on those topics. To make matters worse, some do not update their research interest or the topics of the past supervised projects, and I am not sure if it is appropriate to write to them and ask them what they do.
Any suggestions for the situations mentioned above?

Hmmm, when you search by author, does it not provide you with a list of their research interests even if they typically co-author with lots of other people? Even for huge LHC collabs, different groups still publish whitepapers and present at conferences about their bits of work there, and HEP communities are very open about sharing the information. Papers authored by those potential supervisors do not have to all be in Phys. Rev. D or something...

Some other possible ways to determine a professor's research interests are:

Check to see if he/she has presented at conferences lately. That might have a more reduced author list.

This might be futile if all the publications have 1000s of authors, but you can always check Google scholar. Sort by citation count, then see if you can find some recent papers that have a fewer number of authors.

You can ask your professors at your current institution; they might know the professor you want to work with.

You can check the professor's website (although websites are notoriously out of date!)

You can google search for press releases featuring the faculty member. If they have won large grants - and you probably don't want to work with someone who hasn't - they will often be featured by the institution's internal press.

You can email the professor's graduate students. (Talking to current and recent grad students is a good idea regardless.)

I would not recommend emailing the professor to ask what their research interests are. That is almost certainly going to be poorly received - faculty get lots of emails from prospective students, and they expect the students to have done their homework.
Good luck!

Inspire-HEP is probably more useful in this specific case than Google Scholar.

In addition to the suggestions from the other answers, here are a few ideas in no particular order:

Check their faculty web page. It may be out of date, but could give you a sense of what they have worked on in the past. If there is a CV on their web page, they are likely to only include the papers that they were directly involved in even if they are on the author list for the entire collaboration.
Ask other members of their collaboration. HEP-Ex collaborations can be gigantic, but usually people has some sense of what others in the collaboration are working on.
Ask senior academics in the field who you know. People pick up a large network over time and it's not that large of a field.
If you think the professor is heavily involved in a particular paper, look for them or their students or post-docs as corresponding authors on the paper. There may also be a contribution list in the paper.
Big collaborations are often broken into working groups. See if the person has a leadership role in a working group. This might not be publicly available information but sometimes people advertise it.

[Sarcastic joke about the social reticence of profs removed after some reflection, and a nice high-calorie lunch. Apologies.]
But seriously. You have the name of a potential prof. He knows the author list on those papers. Google up his home university, see if you can find his email, and send him a nice email. Ask him what his current research program includes, and whether your interests might be a match.
You should state near the top of your email that you are interested in being a PhD student, that you are looking for a supervisor, that you are interested in X, Y, and Z. And when you would be starting, supposing you were accepted at his university.

Talk to a librarian (research librarian) at your university or a nearby one. Write to a librarian at the person's institution. They are very good about such things.
Their "most recent" paper(s) may not be required, or even very helpful, actually. If you have a grasp on their (fairly) recent work and interests then it may be enough.
You could also ask them directly for references to recent works, saying you are interested in the same things and are looking for a doctoral supervisor, without directly asking them to be that person. A first communication of that form might actually be helpful. The might even have suggestions about others you might want to approach.

I am absolutely sure that the librarian at my institution has no idea who I am, much less what I am interested in working on.


text:
Rank the education levels
I am working with data on "parental level of education". I have ranked the following levels from the lowest to the highest. I am a foreigner and I do not understand the US education system. Could you please validate?

some high school
high school
associate's degree
bachelor's degree
some college
master's degree

I would assume if your highest attainment is "some college", that means you attended college, but did not obtain a qualification. Therefore this should rank at #3: you have done something after completing high school, but not enough to get any of the degrees. (Similarly, "some high school" is below "[completed] high school", which you have in the right place.)
An associate degree is, according to wikipedia

a level of qualification above a high school diploma, GED, or matriculation, and below a bachelor's degree.

Here "matriculation" means the process of entering university/college, so it is equivalent to your "some college". Thus associate degree is #4, and bachelors degree #5. (Associate degree is an unusual one, since it is the only entry in the list which is not a usual prerequisite to the next one.)
As EarlGrey mentions in the comment, there should be a #7 for doctoral and other degrees which are higher than masters.

@pigeon_gcc I don't think it's possible to rank associate's/some college. An associate's is typically two years and a bachelor's four. But someone who dropped out of a bachelor's might have dropped out at three years and reported "some college." Having worked with the same type of data, I would probably collapse those categories (they are probably fairly small).

It might be they are working with the actual responses, in which case there might not be anyone with a qualification beyond a master's.

@AzorAhai-him- I would regard three years of college without a qualification as less impressive than two years with a qualification, but YMMV. I agree that it would make sense to combine those two categories, though - I have never previously seen associate degree as a separate category in this sort of context.

Well, it's "years of education" not "how impressive of an education."

@AzorAhai-him- I see no mention of "years" in OP. It is "level of education", and I consider getting an associate degree constitutes a higher level than getting no degree, no matter how long either of these took.

Okay, well, it's usually "years."

@AzorAhai-him- If it's years of education, that is just a number and I see no reason to introduce categories at all.

It would be nice if they didn't.

You have levels 3, 4, and 5 disordered. An associates degree implies (usually) two years of college. A bachelors comes at the end of (usually) four years of college. And, you do need "doctoral degree" after masters. High school (2) should probably be "high school diploma", which implies successful completion of high school.
It is rare, but there are also people with no high school at all.

there are also people with no high school at all. --- No high school is now quite rare. Moreover, after several minutes of searching I have not found an estimated percentage, but it's probably less than 1%. On the other hand, about 10% of the U.S. population does NOT have a high school diploma, which is roughly the same percentage as all those (combined) who do have a graduate degree (Masters or Ph.D.) or a professional degree, as well as about 1/5 of those having a Ph.D. degree (about 2%). See this Wikipedia page.

@DaveLRenfro In one dataset I have of about 2000 answers I believe people who endorsed "less than high school" is less than 5. It might be 1. These are numbers I haven't looked at in a while. I would believe the true rate is 0.1% or so.


text:
How to find venues for publishing short meta-analysis papers
How to find venues for publishing short meta-analysis papers (e.g., keywords, co-authorship networks, etc.) in Human Computer Interaction?

HCI?  Hyperconverged infrastructure ... Human-computer Interaction ... Heme-controlled inhibitor ... Hale-colloidal iron ...   or perhaps HCl = hydrocloride, it is difficult to distinguish I from l with this font.

I take it you disagree so strongly with your previous (now deleted) question being considered a shopping question that you felt it was somehow appropriate to just repost it without any edits to address those concerns?

@GEdgar It's Human Computer Interaction.

@Anyon, I did not disagree. I just wanted to post it as a clear question so that I can make the question clear for the people. I hope you understand.

Technically our shopping policy does not forbid "how can I find X" as long as it's not looking for a list of or particular "X". But, I don't really think this is the form of question we want, I'd expect a bit more explanation and identification of why this is a problem. Given the post history, it feels like you're just trying to sidestep the policy rather than formulate a useful question for others.

So, while I think this question should not be closed as shopping, I do think it's reasonable for people to choose to downvote if they feel it's lacking research effort (see the downvote tooltip).

Look at where similar papers have been published. Google Scholar (or any aggregate search engine) is your friend here - search something like "meta-analysis [topic]".If you can't find any similar papers there may be other issues you need to address before you start working on something.


text:
Postdoc application rejected by HR, should I email the PI to inquire?
I recently applied for a postdoc position at a research institute in the UK via their job portal. I didn't contact the PI in advance because the job advert was already posted. However, after 3 weeks, I still didn't hear back from them & when I checked my status though the job portal, the status was indicated as "closed". I emailed the HR yesterday and was informed that I was not shortlisted as they felt I do not have the skills or experience for the position. Technically, I would say that my skills are probably around 70% of what was required for the position as the field is quite different (viral immunology in PhD VS cancer immunology in job application) but I'm really interested in the potential projects in the lab and I want to learn the new methods to be introduced there. My question is:

Should I have contacted the PI before submitting my application?
In such research institutions, how involved is the PI in screening applicants? Or does the HR first pre-screen the applicants before passing them to the PI?
Should I email the PI now to inquire if he/she is open to discussing my application?
Additionally, would a higher expected salary affect my application? I was required to input the expected salary in their online form, and I stated quite a higher range than what they offered but indicated it as negotiable

Thank you.

Please try to limit the question to one single issue, otherwise it might get closed due to being to broad.

Regarding 4): Salaries in UK universities are set on a fixed scale. It's possible to negotiate within the given "spine point" or range that is stated, but usually not for anything higher, especially not significantly higher. Remember that healthcare in the UK is free, which (perhaps) justifies slightly lower salaries. Besides, salary negotiation is usually best left til you have the job offer in hand.

"but I'm really interested in the potential projects in the lab and I want to learn the new methods to be introduced there" Those are reasons why you would benefit from having your applications reconsidered. You would need to give them reasons why they should reconsider it.

One other point on UK hiring rules is that in many cases they are very prescriptive. I'm not sure if it's universal, but at our institute once a post is advertised we are not allowed to recruit someone who doesn't fully meet all the required criteria - even if the candidate is 'close' or there's other compensating factors. And this can be very prescriptive, down to e.g. enumerating months of 'research experience' if you specify a particular level of experience. So if there was a required criteria you didn't clearly satisfy, that might have led to an automatic rejection.

This is based on my experience as a former physics postdoc in the US and Germany, and advice I got from my advisors.

Should I have contacted the PI before submitting my application?

Probably not. There are some cases where it makes sense for you talk to a PI before submitting an application -- for example, if you or your advisor are collaborators with the PI, you might mention you are applying for the position. However, in general, you don't need to send emails to PIs when you submit an application, and PIs aren't expecting to get personalized emails from everyone who applies.
Your advisor probably has more sway here anyway. I mean that in two senses -- (a) their advice will be better than generic internet advice, and (b) them contacting the PI will probably mean more than you contacting the PI, in the cases where it makes sense for either of you to do so.

In such research institutions, how involved is the PI in screening applicants? Or does the HR first pre-screen the applicants before passing them to the PI?

What I have heard from professors is that they go through all of the postdoc applications by themselves. There is usually a first "minimum cut" to weed out applications that are obviously irrelevant. Maybe in some cases that minimum cut is easy enough that it can be farmed out to an HR person, but I doubt it since there is usually some nuance in what is most relevant for each position.

Should I email the PI now to inquire if he/she is open to discussing my application?

No. If you've been rejected for the position, then that's the end of the story. Sending an email to the PI is at best awkward, but could be seen as unprofessional or like you are harassing them.

Additionally, would a higher expected salary affect my application? I was required to input the expected salary in their online form, and I stated quite a higher range than what they offered but indicated it as negotiable

Almost always a postdoc salary is limited by available funds, so you normally only have a very limited range where it's possible to negotiate a postdoc salary, if at all.
I would guess that in all likelihood, the professor reading your application didn't consider salary when making a decision, and was more interested in whether you would make a good fit for their research group. If you asked for a truly outrageous sum, there's a chance the professor rejected you based on that, but I suspect that if they really liked you for the position they would at least talk to you to see how firm your salary expectations were.
I doubt it was a deciding factor.

On salary, I think it probably depends on the number and quality of applications. I doubt any PI is going to toss the one suitable application they get over salary concerns, but on the other hand, if they have 6 candidates that seem like a good fit, and one of them has an unreasonable salary expectation, I bet most would focus on the other 5, especially if they had a past hiring experience where they spent time on an applicant only to have them reject the job over salary demands that the PI may not even have authority to negotiate.

@BryanKrause That's a good point. I guess it seems so strange to me that a postdoc application would even ask about salary expectations, that I was assuming that this must be a boilerplate question tacked on to every job application for this institution, which the PI might just ignore when reviewing applications. But I certainly agree that a postdoc usually does not have room to negotiate for a salary outside a narrow range.

Should I have contacted the PI before submitting my application?

There is no reason to believe that preliminary contact would have made you any more qualified for this position.  The PI will typically try to stay at "arms length" from applicants prior to the actual assessment of applications, so it is unlikely they would give you any additional information of assistance.  At best they might have been willing to let you know in advance that you do not appear to meet the qualifications (though usually they would be reluctant to do even this).

In such research institutions, how involved is the PI in screening applicants?   Or does the HR first pre-screen the applicants before passing them to the PI?

This depends on the institution and may even vary by department.  In cases where there are a large number of applications there might be a pre-screening before it gets to the PI.  In cases where the number of applicants is small then the PI might review all applications from the start of the process.

Should I email the PI now to inquire if he/she is open to discussing my application?

Since you have been rejected, you should not seek any discussion re-assessing your application.  If you were rejected by a pre-screening prior to getting to the PI then this means that you are a weak applicant compared to the ones that went through pre-screening.  (If there was pre-screening, this exists for a reason; the PI is not going to want to review applicants that did not get through this phase of the process.)
If you would like more information on the weaknesses in your application, you could ask for more feedback on this, but it is unlikely to involve an actual discussion.  At best they might elaborate a bit on your rejection, but even this is unlikely.  (Modern HR systems are quite averse to giving much feedback on failed applicants, in case they say something that is open to challenge.)  In any case, you seem to already have a reasonable understanding of areas in which you did not meet the selection criteria, so this is probably not going to be helpful.

Additionally, would a higher expected salary affect my application?  I was required to input the expected salary in their online form, and I stated quite a higher range than what they offered but indicated it as negotiable.

Yes, this would be a factor.  If you ask for a salary above the stated range then they would be expecting a high-quality applicant, and even then, it might not be possible for them to expand their budget for the position.

The term "research institute" spans a lot of possibilities: if this is a glorified research group within a university, then the usual considerations about getting a fixed-term postdoc in academia will apply - see Andrew's answer (mostly).
However the process for a PSRE or industrial facility will be very different: e.g. commercial organisations will not be keen to discuss ongoing and future projects and funding. There are still outposts of the Civil Service where any direct a priori contact with individual candidates will be seen as improper.
I would be very surprised if the hiring manager within any large organisation actually got an unfiltered pile of CVs, just because of the number to wade through. You should assume that a generic HR person will sanity check all applications, with variable results (I've heard of people being invited by the PI to apply, but their CV never getting through the system!).
If a salary band is indicated in the advert, specifying a higher number implies that you're not really interested in the job as advertised which is exactly the excuse the front-line staff will have for a rejection. In my experience, getting any sort of feedback at all  is doing well - 75% of my applications (through portals in response to posted vacancies) never got any reply. Unis and state institutes are generally better.


text:
Cover letter for journal submission
I'm submitting to a journal. There is a drop down menu to choose your area, and each area has a specified editor with his name readily found on the journal instructions. So the assigned editor is known. Should I refer the cover letter to the editor in chief or the editor.

If unsure, just write "Dear Editor".
On the other hand, addressing the editor personally adds a nice personal touch.  So there is nothing wrong with either addressing the specific editor: If the manuscript got reassigned to a different editor, they will be aware of that and realized that you addressed it personally to the specific editor.


text:
How can submit my paper to Elsevier when not affiliated?
I have obtained my master a couple years ago and am looking into pursuing a PhD. I currently have a part time job completely irrelevant to academia. For applying for a PhD, I figured that I need a research paper, I haven't been totally disconnected from learning in this period and have recently written a paper with a faculty member with me doing all the major part and her evaluating/reviewing. When trying to submit the manuscript to Elsevier, the very first thing I'm required to fill in as the correspondence author is my affiliation, It won't even go to the next step :( I really want to submit my paper to this particular journal. I don't know what to do, should I call the Elsevier offices? would that make a difference? Are there recent corresponding authors in Elsevier with no affiliation. Please let me know anything that might be helpful. I would greatly appreciate it. :)

I'll give it a try, the thing is that if I write "Independent Scholar", It says organization not found, and ask for details (address etc.) Can I enter the university address of my coauthor and write independent scholar?

If you aren't affiliated don't do that. Try "independent researcher", or "unaffiliated" or "none". If they all fail, ask Elsevier. But it is common enough that they will have a solution.

Good to know! Thank you :))

Also the fact of having a coauthor who has affiliation should help. Talk to him/her and the university even before contacting Elsevier.


text:
Does Google Scholar only index the "main" version of a paper (and therefore miss terms)?
When I perform the search "ND27760" in GS, it does not find this paper from the NIH PMC free collection which cites that term in the text. Here is one possible explanation. If I search GS for the title of that paper, I get this one result. It's the nature.com (non-free) version. The term "ND27760" does not appear in the main text because it's in table 2, which requires a click to open the table on a separate page. If you click "All 6 versions" on the GS result page (at least today it was 6), the PMC paper is one of those versions.
I suspect GS, in order to conserve resources, only indexes the "main" nature.com version, and not these other versions. Is that correct?
If that's true, then GS is not indexing table content for versions that put tables on separate pages. This would be unfortunate, as tables may contain important terms. It seems the PMC versions put tables directly into the text.
EDIT 1: The above example is recent (2022). Here's a similar example from 2018. The term "ND33392" is in the text of this PMC paper. The GS search for "ND33392" does not include that paper. The GS search for the title of that paper yields one result: a Springer publication. The Springer page does not contain the term "ND33392" in the text. It appears in table 1 which requires a click to open a new page. The PMC paper has table 1 in the text. The PMC appears in the "all N versions" link of the GS result for the Springer paper.

It is fairly recent. I believe GS will index the other versions, too, eventually.

I added an older example with similar issues.


text:
Advised to decline co-authorship on prior work
I am a first-year PhD student in computer science and caught in a political dilemma.
My master thesis project was supervised by a researcher at my university, let us call him Dr. Anderson. There is currently a paper written by us under review on this topic.  After I finished the master’s project, I started a PhD on a different topic at the same university under Assistant Prof. Bergman. Additionally, Prof. Candela (a more senior faculty member) serves as my secondary advisor. During my first six months, I have published one paper together with Prof. Bergman, and we are now working on a second paper.
Recently, Dr. Anderson told me that he is planning to write a new paper partially based on my master thesis work, and asked if I would like to be listed as a co-author again. I am glad that he recognizes my contributions, and from my perspective the more publications I have the better. Therefore I said yes.
However, when I later mentioned this to Prof. Candela, he promptly advised me to change my decision. According to him, publishing a paper during my PhD without Prof. Bergman would be bad for my relationship with her. She might think that I am spending my time working with Dr. Anderson instead of on the project she is paying me for. He also said that it would be bad for my career to become too associated to Dr. Anderson’s topic since it is less impactful than my PhD topic. His suggestion was to ask to be mentioned in an acknowledgment instead of being listed as a co-author.
I was surprised to hear Prof. Candela’s response. I think it sounds silly that Prof. Bergman would be so upset by this publication. Of course I would not spend much of my time on it, aside from reading through the manuscript and maybe providing some comments. Instead, it feels like this is part of some political game between faculty members.
If I decide to remain, I would be one of many authors on Dr. Anderson’s paper, which will be submitted to a lower tier conference. So in the end, it would not make a significant difference on my CV. To avoid any potential drama, it would be easiest to follow Prof. Candela’s advice. However, I still feel proud of the work I did with Dr. Anderson and would like to be properly recognized for it.
Would it be foolish to disregard Prof. Candela’s advice, and remain as a co-author? How can I talk to my main advisor Prof. Bergman about this without causing trouble?

Why not ask Dr. Bergman? What does she say? It seems silly to listen to a third party speculate about your adviser being offended without actually asking the adviser!

@WolfgangBangerth, make that an answer please!. It seems to me like the only sensible solution. Don't make assumptions or rely on hearsay.

Edit out the names (assuming they are real).

@JonCuster: They seem to be deliberately chosen to start with A, B and C, so I assume they are already anonymized.

@JonCuster "let us call him" suggests they are not real. Also A/B/C.

If a PhD student of mine were to publish the results of work that was done with a previous supervisor, I would:

like to be told about their success, but certainly wouldn't expect to be
congratulate them on their success and tell them how good it is to get early rungs on the publication ladder.

I can understand that the reaction of your current supervisor would be of concern to you but it suggests that they, rather than you or your behavior, are the problem.

Yes. This. Seems so clear cut. I have had 20 successful PhD students and I am frankly surprised this might even be an issue!

(+1) especially for last sentence.

While BillOnne's answer expresses some good ideas, it seems a bit extreme unless your current supervisor Dr. B. is unreasonable or paranoid.
According to the question post you are not doing any more work, and are only asking about your name appearing in a long list of authors because your previous work is being used again.
That's certainly well within "standard operating procedure" and sounds like it could simply be a courtesy to you.
Only if Dr. C knows something they are not telling you should you worry about this. Perhaps there's a conflict, or a problem surrounding Dr. A or their research that they can't really tell you about right now?
If your relationship with Dr. B is good and everything smells on the up-and-up, just mention it to them including that the question is only about them adding your name to a list of authors, not doing anything new.
But I see no reason to follow the other answer's advice

Explain that you didn't know you should have told her. Promise to do better in the future.

unless there's much more to this story than has currently been mentioned.

"Only if Dr. C knows something they are not telling you should you worry about this." I was thinking the same, but then Prof. C should tell that there are problems he cannot name instead of indicating Dr. B's feeling might get hurt - which is strange for Dr. B.

@usr1234567 I think it's a judgement call that we can't make from here; that can already be seen as casting shade on A, and C may rightfully wonder what happens if the OP starts going around saying "Dr. C. says there's a problem, does anybody know what's going on?" and the thing snowballs...

Yes, Candela's response is incomprehensible and the reasoning offered (which I only know via your recounting of it) is ridiculous on the face of it.
However, there are things I do not know. For instance, Bergman may have been known to be irrationally touchy and "difficult" about this sort of thing in the past and C wants to spare you and himself the hassle.
That said, B has no real reason to obstruct your work with A unless there are some really clear indications that it detracts from your work with B.
The only way to get this in the clear is to discuss the matter with B.
If this does blow up in your face, please know you have done nothing wrong.
"a lower tier conference" - could this be a clue? Is A somebody C does not want you to be associated with, the black sheep of the department? I am stabbing in the dark, but it is by no means beyond the realm of possibility.

Had Dr. C suggested that you discuss this with your supervisor, then I would say this might be useful mentoring. I agree with one of the other answers: I would want to be informed, but if it genuinely took you little or no time, then I would fully support this work, as long as there was no other deadline. It is really very normal to be continuing work and collaborations from a previous position. One day Dr. B will be glad you are finishing work you did with her while you are at your first postdoc!
I hope Dr. C is not being sexist in assuming they have to defend Dr. B, but not ask her own opinion about the time of her own supervisee.
Finally with respect to the paper, if it is really a weak conference as you say, and you are doing more important work now, then if you run out of time, then you can withdraw and ask for only an acknowledgement. But especially early in your career, just having a few more papers can help you boost your h index. And anyway, it's just right and just that you should get credit for your work. As long as Dr. A isn't trying to take advantage of the fact you are at a more prestigious lab now, then I think it should be OK. It's slightly possible that this is what Dr. C. is trying to defend you from, but then I still don't know why they wouldn't talk to you and Dr. B about it at the same time.

There is no reason to decline authorship on the paper, unless:

You anticipate quality or academic honesty issues with the paper,

You expect getting it published and through peer review will
meaningfully detract from your current work, or

Your senior advisor is irrationally jealous.

If 1, you should politely decline to be associated with the paper (obviously), but it sounds like you are proud of the work and this isn't the case. If 2, you should have a frank discussion with both Dr. A and Dr. B about your availability and come to an agreement about your level of involvement with and credit for the work. This might mean authorship while limiting your work to a few reviews of the draft paper, or possibly being acknowledged in the work without full authorship. If 3, this is serious problem unfortunately and it is difficult to offer outside advice.
Re: "He also said that it would be bad for my career to become too associated to Dr. Anderson’s topic since it is less impactful than my PhD topic." - unless Dr. A is an outright crank, this isn't something worth worrying about. It is correct to focus on your PhD work, but not to the exclusion of publishing your existing MSc. work.

No one can serve two masters.
You should have alerted your advisor at the start. The relationship with your PhD advisor is supposed to involve significant trust in both direction. Doing work with another prof without telling them is kind of whack, even if it is minimal work and time on your part.
If you had done so, a reasonable prof would have allowed you to work on the paper, provided it was not a huge amount of work. Your time is, to some extent, up to Dr. B. So you cannot spend arbitrary amounts of time on other tasks. Yet, it is also reasonable for you to keep relationships with other researchers. So closing them off would not be reasonable for Dr. B.
At this point I would suggest you go to Dr. B, and make a clean breast of it. Tell her everything, including Dr. C's suggestion. Be apologetic. Explain that you didn't know you should have told her. Promise to do better in the future.

I am not my students' master (nor my adviser's servant).


text:
What is the job market like for someone aspiring to become a mathematician (uk)?
Without sounding defeatist all I have heard is bad things so far; the sector is over concentrated with more people obtaining phd's (and wanting to work in academia) than there are jobs available.
I am really enthusiastic about pursuing a phd and eventually a job in academia but to put it bluntly I'm not sure if I'm cut out for it. I will graduate this summer with a 1st in mathematics from a mid-level Russell group university and plan to apply for an MSc in Pure Mathematics (after a gap year). My final graduating grade will be 71% and I'm just unsure how that will hold up in the academia job market. I get the impression that to pursue a job in mathematics academia you have to be really outstanding, getting publications very early on and the such as it is so competitive. I feel like I'm at a crossroads now where I need to commit to the idea or not as I do not want to waste time, effort and (a lot of) money on a lost cause. I know there are so many factors involved and there is no definite answer but some advise would be extremely helpful.

It is pretty hard to predict the job market years in advance. If you want a PhD in maths, do it for the love of the sport. Things might work out, even if not immediately. The job market goes up and down.

Wanting to work in academia is in my opinion simulilar to want to work in a specific company. It may work out, but you should also keep your mind open for different opportunities. Unfortunately, too many profs teach that "academic is good and industry is evil"..

To expand upon what @user111388 wrote, I'd look at the diverse set of careers open to math PhDs; you might find many of them appealing. There's nothing wrong with aiming for a job in academia, but if Plan B and Plan C also look good, then you could enter a graduate program without worrying that you were wasting your time.

@academic Thank you for the info you raise a good point. You mentioned the diverse set of careers open to math PhD's; are you able to expand on this? I have only just started researching and I'm unsure of what kind of industries require PhD level maths.

Your undergraduate marks do not matter on the academic job market.  Publications matter.  Also, you should get paid (poorly) to get a PhD.

@Oliver In brief, I know math PhDs who have gone on to work at CCR, NSA, NASA, Google, in finance, as data scientists, in actuarial work, and elsewhere; by and large, they have been happy. (Some of these employers are US-specific, but analogues presumably exist in the UK.) In several cases it's not so much that PhD level maths are required, but rather that they are eager to hire math PhDs.

You're right that the job market is academia is very competitive, across all subjects, not just maths. While raw talent is important to be able to succeed (and by "succeed" I mean get a permanent job in academia -- your definition of success might be different), your publication record is generally more important. The quality and volume of publications you write depends on many things: your own hard work, the work of your collaborators, the guidance you get from your supervisor (having a distant or disengaged supervisor can seriously hamper your progress during your PhD unless you're extremely good at self-motivating and learning), the tractability of the problem you're working on, etc etc.
All this to say that, once you start your PhD, the classification of your undergraduate degree doesn't matter. Working on interesting publishable problems with a wide range of people (ideally collaborate with academics outside your own university if you can) will give you the best chance at success. It's also important to advertise your work as much as possible, and don't be afraid to relentlessly self-promote; go to conferences, talk about your work to everyone you meet, convince them that your problem is interesting and your solutions even more so.
I think you have nothing to lose by doing an MSc (apart from a year's potential earnings). Try to choose a course with a research or dissertation component. This will give you a chance to explore what doing research is really like, and will help you decide if doing a PhD is right for you. Your Master's supervisor or tutor would also be able to advise you about that, especially if you tell them early on that's what you're interested in.


text:
General equivalence of physical chemistry II and undergraduate courses in quantum mechanics
I am a chemistry major with an interest in mathematical physics. I am planning to take physical chemistry II (currently in p-chem I) and I am wondering if physical chemistry II can be considered equivalent to a course in elementary quantum mechanics. The course is primarily related to quantum chemistry and includes solutions for the Schrodinger equation in multiple dimensions, as well as particle in box situations, etc. I have also taken partial differential equations, so I am wondering if it would be feasible to jump into a qunatum mechanics II course?
My question is a bit convoluted, so forgive me, but anyone who has taken chemistry and physics: will I glean enough QM from p-chem and PDE to take a dedicated quantum mechanics II course (topics in QM II being perturbation theory, entanglement, etc.)

Welcome to Academia.SE. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can help with this -- it really depends on exactly what material will be covered, so you'd be better off talking to the course instructor. As one data point: my p-chem I was a subset of quantum I, while p-chem II had 60+% overlap with stat mech.

Ask the instructors for advice.

This obviously varies quite a bit depending on where you are. For instance, at my (primary) undergraduate university, the quantum chemistry course had the 2-semester P-chem sequence as a prerequisite, so obviously there the courses would not be much alike. Also, the chem department's quantum chemistry course was a standard first year graduate course (but also taken by a handful of strong undergraduates) somewhat similar to the physics department's undergraduate QM course, but with enough differences that both could be taken if sufficiently interested to do so, although almost no one did.

This depends a lot of the specific classes. Based on my anecdotal evidence, I'd say the classes are quite different.
My anecdotal evidence is that as a physics major, QM 1 was one of the easiest upper division classes I took. Griffiths was super clear. QM 2 was a bit more complicated, but I still thought the material wasn't as difficult as other subjects.
Then my friends in chemistry often talked about pchem like it was the hardest, most confusing class they barely made it through. They also didn't really seem to have the same view of QM I had, and tended to talk about it as if it were overly complicated.
I got the sense that their class focused more on applications of the ideas than the underlying principles, and the people who struggled were trying to memorize the individual applications. I don't know if they would have recognized the material from my QM class.


text:
What should I write in the experience section of CV?
I have recently graduated with a BSc degree in Physics. I haven't had any internship before. Well, all internships last summer were cancelled because of covid. Now, I am applying for few internships for the summer of 2021. What should I put in the experiences section of the CV? Or, should I remove the whole section?

Do you have any sort of extracurricular activities?

@zhantongz I have but I doubt that will be helpful for a physics internship

Any physics or math project courses? Even CS?

@Buffy Yes I have done labs. For example, electronics labs( measure characteristics of transistors/ make adders, counters, 7-segment display, mux, demux, registors etc with digital ics), optics labs (biprism, spectrometers, newtons rings, diffraction, interference pattens and so on). We had to take at least two lab courses in each semester. I sure have done a few interesting experiments. Can I mention these as experince?

Yes, you can mention them, but don't oversell them. You are seeking deeper experience, not claiming that you already have it. This is in line with the purpose of an internship.

In the experience section of the CV, there should be (relatively) relevant experience to the job/internship you are applying to.
It is not clear what you want to write in the experience section. Of course, you shouldn't have a section labelled "experience" and then nothing in it. I would also advise against putting irrelevant experience in this section (e.g. babysitting 5 years ago) which would have the same effect to me.
Writing "internship in [place] on [topic] cancelled because of coronavirus" would not feel right to me neither, especially if this is the only item in "experience".
Keep the CV short and simple and then address in your cover letter the fact that you didn't do an internship at the end of your Bsc degree because of the coronavirus.


text:
Choosing between institutes amid a pandemic
I have been offered an admit at a institute closer to my house. I also have the option to upgrade to a slightly better institute which is more than 1000 miles away from my home. Although classes will be conducted online, as new attendees we'll have to go through a document verification phase before the admission. Institutes haven't notify anything about this phase whether it will be conducted online or offline. And thus I am stuck in a dilemma. I have to choose between  a good enough institute which is safer to travel to amidst a pandemic and a slightly better institute which involves lot of risk to travel to.
If the institutes would have made clear that physical appearance of a candidate isn't necessary for document verification I would have chosen the better institute.
Should I trust the institute that they would definitely make safe choices for candidates or make a safe choices for myself and go with the inferior institute.
The institutes I'm talking about are big name IITs and I have been offered a two years Masters course.

The other institute is 1000 miles away. If you choose to go there, do you plan to take the train? Are trains in India still crowded as usual? If it is still crowded, my advice would be not to go there.

Yes, I plan to take the train. I don't think trains are crowded anymore because of the pandemic situation and the measures the railway have taken.

Unfortunately, we really can't predict what a particular institute's document verification process is likely to entail, and only you can determine the level of risk you are willing to accept. Personally, I would attend the institute I thought was a better academic match.

@sbhhdp I expect the joining process,in the IITs, would be made flexible considering the special situation regarding COVID. But it's always better to make sure. Consider sending them a mail asking clarification on this. Their mail ids can be found on their websites usually.

If you were, e.g., based in New Zealand (which has done superbly with Covid-19) and were thinking of attending a New Zealand university versus attending an Indian university, then it would be different. You could reasonably say that choosing the New Zealand university would keep you safe from Covid, but going to India puts you at risk. But since you're already in India, the "extra" risk is based solely on the travel you have to do to get to the other institution. That should only be a day or so, a much shorter time than the actual study time you'll have to do at both institutions. Therefore it seems sensible to base the decision on whether you can protect yourself while studying at both institutions, not on the travel.
That said, moving to a foreign city is always going to be difficult since you'll have to do things like find a place to stay, places to buy food, a place to wash clothes, and so on.
Ultimately it's a decision you'll have to make for yourself. The circumstances are uncertain, meaning there's no clear-cut best option. Choose whatever feels right, and it'll be the correct choice.