text:
How to unintrusively distance myself from control-freak advisor and ride out the end of my PhD?
I am the PhD student of an advisor who is known within my institution as extremely strict, controlling and prone to temper tantrums, making undergrads cry in lecture halls, etc. I am in my final year of writing, 12 months to go with all of my experiments completed and 60% of my writing done.
I have found my own ways of managing our relationship (i.e. to grin and bear it), but now, in my final year of thesis writing, I am finding it increasingly difficult to cope. He is extremely controlling of my personal time: making it clear that he expects me to work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week 'just to keep my head above water'. Though he always cheerfully reminds me that 'deadlines are flexible', on the rare occasion that I do try to take him on his word (this has happened twice in 4 years), he completely flips out and makes me work to the deadline (even when this has meant me working 20 hour days). This happens even though the events are out of my control (a problem with an experiment, the death of a friend) and though I have never asked for more than 7 days extension. The death of a friend thing happened recently and is the straw that broke the camel's back, I just can't understand how I couldn't take a week to deal with that (it was over Christmas, when I was still 'supposed to be working'...).
I would almost understand his behavior if I were a terrible PhD student in need of a kick up the backside, but by all objective accounts I am on track to finish well before schedule. My advisor tends to go through periods of bombarding me with compliments and praise for my work, teaching, etc. until I feel totally great about our relationship, only to completely flip and treat me like a child in need of chastisement. What disturbs me about this is that he will often make me agree that he is in the right, and that he is 'not a horrible advisor, just has my best intrests in mind'. Two friends of mine have left our research group because of difficulties working with him, telling me personally 'I don't know how you are able to work with him, I feel sorry for you.' A friend's advisor has said: 'I hope Anon is OK and has someone to talk to, their advisor is really tough'. I'm including this context because I consistently doubt my own perception of this situation, and need to justify my feelings to myself (and anyone reading this) by remembering that others corroborate my perception of my advisor. I am also extremely paranoid about him finding out about this (hence not using my usual SE account).
Usually, I would make my feelings clear and ask for a mature discussion about our needs, but I think my advisor will take that as confrontation and I don't want to jeopardize my thesis or my job prospects in these final stages. I am too apprehensive to talk to other staff in the institute about this in case somehow word gets back to him.
At most, I'd like to get a good reference and bounce out. At least, I want to survive with my sanity and happiness in tact (I have self-esteem problems and am feeling increasingly awful about myself - I see a therapist so I'm accountable to someone and don't plan on hurting myself etc.).
TL;DR: Overbearing advisor, I feel increasingly bad. My strategy at this point of is to continue my mantra of 'grin and bear it', keep a low profile and ride out the end of my PhD. Please could you share some strategies for doing so in a non-confrontational way?

How does he keep track of the hours you put into this? How much of his criticisms and outbursts will affect the final work/grade? I only ask because how you handle it is affected by whether his outbursts are just a hot headed way to relieve stress (which is inappropriate), versus he could ruin your thesis grade. He sounds a bit irrational though.

Does your advisor have bipolar disorder?  Maybe you should think along the lines of "How do I work effectively with someone who has a mental illness?" Rather than "How do I hide?"  It's not like you won't find more people with mental illnesses later in your career.

Seek out avenues for addressing your current situation outside of your relationship with your supervisor:

Within your faculty, seek out options for additional support, such
as an advisor or another supervisor who can provide counselling,
advice, or mentoring from an inside point of view.
Within the university, seek out student support services to provide
    similar assistance to your situation.

With some additional assistance, this might tip the balance in your favour, making the final 12 months manageable.
Within your relationship, you can take steps to establish your independence as a researcher, and this would be part of your professional development.  For example:

Tell the supervisor that you are taking time off (a certain number
of days) during which you will not be doing any work at all.  Make it clear that this is a separation of personal and academic life, and it's not a matter for discussion.
When the supervisor provides a deadline, take the step to negotiate a different timeframe, from the point of view that you are an equal in this relationship when it comes to discussing time frames.

You need to be able to establish your own boundaries, and create the space in which you can work effectively, and with appropriate regards for your own health.  You'll need to be assertive to have a successful research career, beyond just surviving the PhD.
Your approach to accessing assistance should always be phrased in terms of "I need assistance in my final year" and not "I have a problem with my supervisor".

My advisor tends to go through periods of bombarding me with compliments and praise for my work, teaching, etc. until I feel totally great about our relationship, only to completely flip and treat me like a child in need of chastisement. What disturbs me about this is that he will often make me agree that he is in the right, and that he is 'not a horrible advisor, just has my best intrests in mind'.

Your advisor is abusive, and this is classic gaslighting. It can really do a number on your confidence, and "I consistently doubt my own perception of this situation" is exactly what this behaviour is designed to achieve. It is very difficult to keep/regain perspective within that situation.
Recommendations:

Minimize face to face interaction as much as possible. With e-mail, you can go back and re-read the past conversation, and confirm that things were like you remember them.
In the same vein, document all your verbal interactions, the positive just as much as the negative. Keep a journal or an advisor log. Re-read what you wrote during the last 'nice phase' when your advisor is being nasty, and vice-versa. This will help you keep some distance from both (giving you a better perspective of the whole situation). It will also be very helpful in case the situation deteriorates and you need to argue for yourself against your advisor with the administration or others. People like this are extremely good at convincing others that you are the crazy one - so good, they can even make you believe it yourself.
Read up on the patterns and techniques of abuse. There are few resources for abused grad students, but it fundamentally all works the same way, so looking into husband/wife or parent/child abuse you will recognize many facets. I highly recommend Lundy Bankroft's "Why Does He Do That", it's an incisive analysis of abuser mentality.

Well, the key here will be support from the department/the university.  Once an administrator is aware of the situation, and has indicated to what extent the department (or university) will back you up, you'll be able to quietly assert yourself.
I would make an appointment to speak with the director of graduate studies or the department chair, to make him or her aware of the situation.  (You could print out your question here and bring it to the appointment for the administrator to read.)
In the U.S. I would expect the administrator to say that yes, of course you can take a week off when someone close to you dies, and also that a certain number of weeks of vacation per year are perfectly reasonable, as long as you work out the when with your advisor.  (But there is no need to get permission to take a week off when someone close to you dies.)
Once you know where you and your advisor stand with regard to rules, expectations, and unwritten customs, at your university (i.e. once you have your ducks in a row), you'll be able to assert yourself with quiet confidence.  For example:

(email) Dear Prof. X,
I too want to move forward with the project as quickly as possible.  As soon as my two-week [for example] period of mourning is over, I will be back at work.  I will send you an update halfway into my first week back, on (date).

If he blows his stack, you immediately inform the administrator you checked with earlier.
Obviously, only draw a line in the sand in this way when it really matters.  As much as possible, avoid conflict with him as you've been doing.
Note the lack of emotion in the sample email.  That will be your emotional shield.


text:
Reviewing article and bad-faith citation
I did my PhD topic in mechanical engineering. A decade later, I agreed to review an article on the exact same topic, that has a great number of similarities with mine. OK, that can happen.
The authors do cite my PhD manuscript (not the related peer-reviewed articles, by the way) but only once throughout the paper and in a short misleading sentence. Let's say my PhD was about counting from 1 to 20, an analogy would be to say something like "X managed to count up to 2 [ref]". OK, reading too fast can happen too.
The main thing I am uncomfortable with is that the submission is supervised by someone who was in the jury of my PhD defense ten years ago and knows my work well and acknowledged it is a strong text. I am certain that this conduct is intentional. I see several reasons why they would try to minimize my work:

Their article brings nothing new (the novelty claims have all been already addressed during my thesis);
I proved that the scope of the article should be achieved computing some certain quantities, and they never did that (because it is much more difficult). They have several possibilities. Manage to compute the quantities: they apparently do not want to. Disprove my claim: very unlikely. Ignore my work from the literature review: dangerous. Inappropriately cite my work: what they chose.

I am convinced that they purposely omitted nearly all of my PhD thesis to have a higher chance of having their article published. They have been citing my articles inappropriately every couple of years, but the consequences were minor (in terms of science).
What would you do?
Edit One comment and one answer indicate that whether this behaviour is intentional or not does not matter at all. That is precisely what is not clear to me. When someone submits wrong data supporting a claim in an article, if they just plotted the wrong curve it is a mistake. If it they made up data, it is fraud. That makes a difference to me...

"I proved that the scope of the article should be done by X, and they never managed to do X."  This is unclear.

Do not make assumptions about intention. Apart from that, you can kill the paper if they are not original, and that's the argument.

Regarding the edit, from the current version of your question, I cannot get the impression that they are making up data. Can you include more explanation on how you think they are making up data (and less about guessing the motivation behind including certain citation if that's not what your question is about)?

@justhalf No no I do not believe they made up data, this sentence if meant to show that intention/motivation can sometimes count! In short, the situation is: a professor is in my jury, acknowledge my work on "X", then years later writes an article stating that nobody has ever done "X".

Right, can you make that clearer in the question? I assume your second question is the crux of it, but the way I see it now is just a self-citing without due relevance. From your comment it seems what you want to say is "They claim novelty, but it is not actually novel since I already did that in my PhD thesis. They did cite my thesis, but didn't seem to understand that what they did is already covered in my thesis." or something like that. So it's not about the citation, but about the novelty claim of the paper.

"They have been citing my articles inappropriately every couple of years" - for each of their papers that have already been published, you should call them out on PubPeer.

@DimitriVulis Thanks for PubPeer, I didn't know this relevant site.

You got the comment and the answer wrong. The intention does matter. But it does not matter to your decision as a reviewer. Is the research novel enough and does it properly attribute the existing state of the art and the sources used? Answer that in your answer, do not hypothesize if it was done on purpose or not if you do not have evidence for that.

If you are certain the article is not novel, you should recommend to the editor that the manuscript be rejected.  Give detailed references in your review.
It is impossible to know if the poor citations are deliberate or accidental.  It also does not matter at all.

I edited my OP regarding your last sentence. I now realize that it is the core of my question: does it matter or not (mistake vs fraud)?

You might have two different questions that should be different posts.  Regarding mistake vs. fraud, your role is a as a peer reviewer.  Peer reviewers make recommendations to editors.  Editors can accept, reject, or request revision.  Poor citations are irrelevant to the editor's decision if they are going to reject the paper anyway.  If the paper is not novel, the editor will reject it.  Even if the poor citations were the deciding factor, the editor's decision will not be based on the authors' intent; it will be based on the content of the paper.

If your role was to investigate scientific misconduct (presumably in a paper already published) then the mistake vs. fraud issue would matter.  Deliberate poor citation might be fraud, but I would not spend much time thinking about it unless someone was actually harmed by the fraud.

Upvoted for the answer, which is good. But probably almost every poor citation leads to a small amount of harm done (unfair credit taken) that could potentially turn into a greater amount of harm if the paper with the poor citation lifts off stronger than the first one. An interesting example is the Schmidhuber vs. Bengio & Hinton & LeCun  controversy in deep learning.

@lighthousekeeper The harm is actually caused by using citations as a performance metric.

That's part of it. In the Schmidhuber case, deep learning caught on overwhelming societal impact and BHC seem to get more credit than they deserve (e.g., winning the Turing Award).

Upvoted, because as an outsider, one cannot conclude that the authors of the paper have conducted any type of clear misconduct. Being sloppy is not misconduct. Perhaps OP has a much better understanding of the field. Perhaps a supervisor first "did the right thing" and pointed a graduate student to OP's thesis but then did not check if the student understands the details of the work. I would even go so far to say that if the authors wanted to deceive, a more likely strategy is not citing OP's work and using unethical but presumably available practices to avoid OP as the reviewer.

I see OP mentions in comments and his clarifying edit that the core of the question is whether it makes a difference if this was a mistake or fraud.
I have to agree with other answers, and elaborate: it does not matter for a reviewer, from a practical point of view.
Missing a piece of related work happens all the time, and can be an honest mistake. A story of every paper is constructed to present the strong points of the proposed approach. Misleading citing, omitting citations, and similar dubious practices can appear exactly the same. If a reviewer spots the lack of novelty, context or a false claim, it means the review process works. The reviewer can then recommend revisions as required or a rejection all together if the work is not salvageable. If the editor then conditions the publication in including all the missing literature, and correcting all the false claims, the reviewer gets further re-assured in the quality of peer-review for that journal. If the editor rejects the reviewer's claims, the review might re-consider their opinion and confidence in the research published in that journal.
If all problems get fixed in the review process and the paper is deemed correct and a novel contribution, it doesn't matter what the original intentions of the authors were (besides, getting published). If a problematic paper gets denied publication, again, the original intentions of the authors don't matter.
You may equally replace "a piece of related work" with "a suspicious looking data point". The story is exactly the same.
And this is where the question ends from the "reviewer" perspective.

From a broader perspective as a researcher and a member of your research community, the scientific community and an active member of society, the mistake or fraud becomes a somewhat important question if the false claims get published.
If the work is somewhat false, and somewhat inconsequential, it will likely get ignored. If the work is substantially false and has important implications, it will ideally get debunked and hurt the reputation and credibility of the authors in the long run. This might happen directly, but this is somewhere you, as an ex-reviewer, but also somebody in a close research field, can contribute to: talk to the colleagues in your community about how journal X ignored the reviewers recommendations about bad science, false data, or plagiarised work. Publishing in dubious journals doesn't help credibility.

@lighthousekeeper Well I kind of try to imply that when I say "and this is where the question ends from the "reviewer" perspective". And I can see your point about submitting bad science, but honestly, I have reviewed a number of "bad science" papers in the last few years, and I promptly forgot the papers and the names after submitting my review (and even more so following a swift rejection by the editor)

You certainly can request in your revision that articles that should be cited, because they are highly relevant, be cited when they are not.  You are also completely entitled to request that peer-reviewed articles be cited instead of PhD theses where such articles exist. They are the official original publications of the facts (at least that is usually the case) and very often better accessible, or at least it is more certain that they will remain accessible in decades to come. Also, they generate citations and h-index for their author, but that, even if relevant in life, is not relevant for the review.
If they claim that they did something novel when such a thing is in fact already published, you should certainly point it out in your review. If it makes the whole paper not novel enough, you can recommend rejection. Sometimes reviewers miss important differences from previous existing works, but in that case it is the task for the author to point out the differences clearly.
It is hard to prove that they omitted the article citations intentionally o that they misinterpreted their content intentionally so I would be careful with a claim that they did so. Claiming a priority for a scientific discovery, that is already published, is wrong or dishonest, but it is hard to prove the intention.

Recommend that the journal reject for plagiarism.
If you feel that an article that you're reviewing is plagiarizing your work, then the answer of what to do is simple: recommend that the journal reject for plagiarism, probably accompanied with a citation of the work you feel that they're plagiarizing. Plagiarism is a clear violation of academic ethics, and recommending a work be rejected for it seems like it would be straight-forward.
If a student in one of your classes plagiarized some of your research in one of their assignments, you'd reject their work and refer them to your university's academic integrity board, right? Why should you be more hesitant to recommend the rejection of plagiarism when it's done by your peers?

But there's no indication of plagiarism at all? The OP is just hurt that their thesis wasn't cited more often.

@NickMatteo It sounds like they're claiming that it's a copy of their work.

I think plagiarism is to far streched. But lack of novelty is a reason to not publish it.

@NickMatteo My thesis is cited, so the number of citations is irrelevant. I am hurt of it being citing incorrectly on purpose. Regarding plagiarism, they surely reproduced what I have done without mentioning it, but I cannot claim that they would have done it differently if they were not aware of my work.

Act as if you were not the author of your PhD thesis or the related article, just some random reviewer with excellent knowledge of your work:

Point out that both or at least one of your works should be discussed in the literature review as they are relevant for their article.
Make clear that the cited work contains more of relevance for the reader and must be explicitly mentioned.
Further point out, that the article makes it not clear what is achieved beyond these works. An article has to claim something novel (either explicitly or implicitly).

Every single point is valid criticism. Non contains hurt feelings from you.
You can reply to the editor, that you are not sure whether you should recommend a major revision or a rejection, as you don't see the novelty of the work until point 3 is resolved.

There are two sides to this for me.

They are missing / omitting / misunderstanding parts from a reference, which makes their work less relevant.
This reference is your work.

Is your thesis publicly available? It does not matter, but if it is, the offending matter could have been found by anyone else. If not, you are on a thin ice about the reviewer's anonymity.
I suggest you list all the problems in your review. Typical review forms have two parts, "blind comments to the authors" (the actual review) and "comments to editor" (typically blank).
I would definitely write a comment to editor. It is your thesis they belittle. You happen to know the authors personally. Your reviewer identity might be compromised. The editor needs to know of all this.
It might happen, that you will be considered in a conflict of interests. But I doubt very much this paper would be accepted by the editor, if all the above issues are communicated to them.

My colleagues also believe I should write to the editor, which is now my plan. Yes the thesis is publicly available. About the anonymity: I intend to write the review as a random reviewer (cf usr1234567's answer), but as a side note, it does not really matter to me: I think the reviewers should have their name publicly attached to articles.

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава

sort: votes


text:
Serious error in published journal paper by a faculty member
Consider the following scenario:
Paper A used a model developed in Paper B.
This model developed in Paper B was corrected over the years in an erratum before Paper A was published.
This makes the outcome of Paper A invalid.
Paper A is published by a faculty member in the department you study as a research student.
Questions:
1) Do I contact this professor with this problem?
2) Do I go ahead and submit paper based on the corrected model in Paper B, which calls for a slightly different methodology hence different results, and stating that Paper A published earlier by the professor is wrong?
3) If 1) is the case, how do you ensure the professor would retract the paper or even include you as a coauthor in an erratum?

There are papers published years ago that say the world is flat - most people understand that they are out of date / incorrect - doe that mean they must be destroyed, deleted or rewritten and replaced?

That is research, mate! Go ahead with your own model and publish.

Am I right in thinking that Paper A was published before Paper B was corrected? The first paragraph gets a little confusing because it reads like a chronological ordering (the use of "is" in the last sentence in particular makes it seems like publishing occurred after B was corrected, but I think this isn't your intent).

Looking at the publication date, the erratum to Paper B was published before Paper A. Sorry. I will correct the sentence.

@Boltzmann Ah, that makes the situation a bit more interesting.  If it was the way I thought, Coder and Solar are right: nothing to see here, that's just science being science.  But since it's not that way, it's potentially more complicated than that. If the errata and Paper A were near each other in publication, A might be forgiven for not taking account for a very recent publication; but if the errata had been around a while, sounds like a failure in research effort for A.

I would definitely speak with my supervisor at first. He she may suggest to discuss with the author of paper A. Unfortunately the situation can cause some friction distress at the faculty.  So it is better if everyone know. It can go surprisingly smooth,  at the end.

It's not clear to me what the relationship is between the paper you suggest submitting in point 2 and paper A. Are you asking whether to write a monograph whose sole purpose is to correct paper A?

Initially the question read in a way that the answer was obviously "this is how science works, no need to make a big deal, just do your project."  It was then clarified that the errata to paper B was published before paper A.  Which makes things a bit more complicated.  Here are some thoughts on the matter.
It's all about the timing
Possibly the timing of the review process and publication for A as well as those for the errata to B made it essentially impossible for A to be aware of the errata and to take it into account. This should probably be your default assumption going forward until you have solid evidence to the contrary.  In this case, the answer is "This is how science (and peer review) works, no need to make a big deal; ideas and methods get updated and discarded for newer ones all the time".
At some impossible to define threshold, though, when the errata for B appears sufficiently long before A, then we have a clearer problem: A should have known about the erratum, and failure to be aware of it constitutes a deficit and failure in the research for paper A.  Unless you have compelling and clear evidence that this was actually done intentionally by A's researchers (e.g. "We don't have the funding to fix it, so we'll pretend it doesn't exist and hope the reviewers don't notice", or "The erratum to B undercuts our research program and beliefs, so we will ignore it in order to minimize the damage to ourselves"), you should still not make a big deal of this.  You should point it out (in the prior case, as well), but do so dispassionately and "scientifically".  Don't denigrate or insult the researchers, simply point out the flaw, cite the erratum and possibly other relevant works that make this flaw clear, and then put it behind you and write the rest of your paper as independently of it as you can.
The worst case scenario
If you have compelling evidence that the failure to account for the erratum to B is because of unethical research practices, or fits into a long running pattern of such omissions/mistakes, then you've got a potentially serious problem.  Consult with your advisor, but avoid getting emotional and personal about it.  They might have more information and perspective that you are lacking that might paint a less negative picture. If your advisor echoes your concerns, then they may know what steps to take next and may take them for you (assuming they have tenure, they have a lot more job security than you do).  Your university should have an ombudsman or other person or office that is specifically concerned with the monitoring and enforcing of ethical research, and this is who you would go to if you feel you still need to take action.  From there you could conceivably elevate things to the deans, but this is a very severe action with no guarantees the dean(s) will side with you, and even if there are legal protections for you in this situation you may still find your career negatively influenced.  You may wish to consult with a legal professional before going to the deans (possibly even before going to an ombudsman).

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


text:
Does submitting multiple papers to the same journal unsuccessfully over time develop a bad reputation?
I am aware of the ethics around submitting papers to multiple journals simultaneously. I know some people have also asked about submitting simultaneous papers to the same journal. In that case, there is hope that maybe they'll all get accepted. I am instead concerned with sending multiple papers to the same journal sequentially (i.e. a month or two apart) when none of them have been accepted.
I am in a situation where I have a large database that I use for analysis (healthcare related field). My collaborators often want to shoot for the same top journal in our field. I have been rejected multiple times already from this journal (all desk rejections), and worry that I could generate a negative reputation with the editors ("Oh, another article from _____, reject it.") even if some of our later studies/findings are more impressive (though to be clear, the prior studies have all been rigorous, asked distinct questions, and were not "salami" science). My collaborators are largely different for each project though so I don't believe they share this worry.
Is this fear warranted? Do editors even remember individual submissions? (my dataset is somewhat unique so I have at times thought they would remember me because of it).
Edit: I spoke with an associate editor of a journal who suggested there was not much to fear in repeated rejections and that we should aim high, and that most decisions from the top journals are desk rejections. It seems opinions vary on this.

Note that a desk rejection is often a sign of bad judgement or insufficient research into the submission standards of the journal on the part of the author. They can happen for all kinds of innocent reasons but if they happen repeatedly for the same journal you should think about whether it is reasonable to submit there.

The "bad reputation" would be local, with the journal, and not global, but, yes, multiple desk rejections will result in added editorial skepticism of future submissions.
You need to find a more appropriate venue and/or "up your game". Not every paper is suitable for Nature. At some point your submission becomes noise and you might get rejected in future for something worth consideration.

You should exercise care. Not only will editors remember that you had multiple  unsuccessful submissions, but the submission system of the journal might even keep track of that electronically (e.g. rejection rate for corresponding author). That is, even if they don't remember or the manuscript is handled by a different editor, they might know about it. In turn, such a knowledge will certainly not work in your favor, as it might bias them towards assuming that also this paper is likely to be rejected (potentially causing e.g. desk rejects or a tendency to reject in case of unclear reports).

Well, they might get annoyed by the same person trying to push "hopeless" results there, but it is not too uncommon and also quite unlikely that will influence their future decisions enough - if you paper is a good fit, they would consider it.
Asking yourself what do you misunderstand about either the scope of your papers or the journal itself would be a good thing to do, though.

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


text:
Voice too "authoritative?"
As part of my graduate program, I am required to give presentations to a group of attendees and a program panel about various topics including but not limited to research, involvement, and case studies.
The audience pays attention but rarely ask questions. A survey was released about my effectiveness as a lecturer and nearly 65% of attendees stated my voice was "too authoritative."  A common problem was my voice being authoritative and causing the audience to be too timid to ask serious questions related to the topic. Talking in an "enthusiastic" tone (in my own opinion) yielded no results. My voice is very deep and, in order to project well, I tend to speak loudly (no microphones).
What are some tactics to get the attendees engaged and not appear "too authoritative?"
EDIT:
Let me add some details that I find relevant that I missed adding. The survey is handed out as attendees walk in. Between each lecturer there is a 10 minute "intermission" to allow attendees to exit or enter. The attendees are required to hand in surveys as they leave. The uni hosting the lecture combines common themes among the surveys. It is unknown how similarities are determined except to the staff reviewing the surveys. The results are then emailed to the lecturer with good and bad things about the lecture. I am then required to email to my supervisor.

Was "too authoritative" one end of a spectrum with "too enthusiastic"? Did they define it in the survey questionnaire?

The survey question was "How would you rate the effectiveness of lecturer X". Some examples listed were "Not engaged","Too timid","Not engaging". Most of the responses listed me as too intimidating in reference to my voice. I'm received well among the panel but not necessarily the attendees.

You may try to  tell a few jokes to relax the atmosphere.

Are jokes appropriate for conferences? The lectures I have personally attended never tell jokes. The conference is a technical conference. My supervisor suggested I vary the tones of my voice during the presentation. This i'm not sure would be effective for a voice that comes across as "too strong."

Jokes can be appropriate if you're at risk of coming off as too strong.  You can also try to allow more sensitive audience members to pigeon-hole you into a non-threatening persona by playing up the bit, e.g. you could probably sell non-threatening nerdy guy pretty well.  Kinda fun to adopt alternate personas for public appearances anyway.  =P

The solution will depend on what the survey respondents meant by "too authoritative". For example, it might mean any of the following:

your talk is pitched at too high a level, so people feel dumb when
they don't understand, and are too intimidated to ask questions
your style is argumentative
one or two people did ask questions, which you didn't answer clearly
your style is pompous
you sound overconfident
you state your opinions as fact
...and so on

I assume the survey was confidential, so you can't go back to people and ask them what they meant. So I suggest you ask a few colleagues who are good speakers what they think you need to improve on.

My voice is very deep and, in order to project well, I tend to speak
  loudly (no microphones).

A deep (low-pitched, bass-y) voice projects farther than a high voice. You may simply be speaking too loudly for the room.

+1 on adding other aspects that tend to make speakers be  perceived trying to intimidate.

I think the most important part of your answer was this part: So I suggest you ask a few colleagues who are good speakers what they think you need to improve on. (you may want to emphasize it to improve the answer) These brief reviews aren't very helpful except to identify a potential problem - ask someone you trust to give you honest feedback on your speaking approach.

Based on experience, I would say that it is making sure that the statements do not excessively utilize a large amount of jargon that is relevant to a specific discipline. The reason that jargon comes across as authoritative is because it usually is within the domain of a specific group of people (and of course, not all people have access to the terminology either due to lack of knowledge i.e. a broad understanding of the discipline.)

Welcome to Academia SE. Can you please [edit] your answer to elaborate how using jargon relates to an authoritative voice?

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


text:
Changing proposed project post-acceptance
I recently applied for a research based degree and I have indeed been offered admission (with funding), scheduled to start this fall.
Prior to my acceptance, I had an interview with my prospective advisor and we both seemed to have similar interests, so they recommended me for admission. Most of the funding is indeed coming from the supervisor rather than the department.
The supervisor is a newly-hired assistant professor, just starting out and building up the group from scratch, so I didn't really have much information regarding the available projects and research directions they intend to pursue other than a short summary. We discussed a possible proposed project and even potential collaborations with other groups in the department (one of the potential collaborators was also present during the interview). I was definitely happy with the project and was looking forward to working on it, but I wouldn't say that it was perfectly 100% aligned with what I had hoped to work on. I accepted the offer and that was that. The offer letter mentions that I will be under the supervision of this professor, so that seems set in stone (no complaints so far).
Recently, this professor launched a website for the new group (came across it by chance), complete with a detailed list of all the projects they want to pursue and is still actively recruiting. On reading more about these projects, there is one in particular which I would be very excited to work on (significantly more than my 'proposed' project).
My question is, would it be OK to contact this professor now and to perhaps intimate to them or suggest that I would prefer to work on one of the other projects listed? Or to maybe influence the direction of my proposed project?
I am hesitant because I don't want to come across as indecisive and scatterbrained, and I do understand that the professor might be recruiting certain students with certain skills to work on specific projects, so I do get why my this request might upset the professor. I don't want them to feel that I conned them into accepting me on a false premise. At the same time, I would really rather work on this other project and would like to signal this to them as early as possible, before it is 'taken' by another student.
Should I initiate this discussion now? Or should I maybe wait till I arrive in the fall? Is it even too premature to be worrying about such things? Am I over-thinking this perhaps?
Would appreciate any input. Thanks.

Presumably these projects are related as they are in the same lab?

Yes, there is considerable overlap between the projects as you said, but I feel they are sufficiently different to warrant bringing this matter up with the professor.


text:
Identifying a published error
Hypothetical:

I found an error which fundamentally kills a published paper and re-opens a number of problems the paper claimed to solve.
Not only is there an error, but the results are actually wrong.  Part of another publication (by a different author) proves this.  Yes, I am 100% sure. Other experts have confirmed this in private communications with me.
I have nothing new to add, other than I can show the second paper proves the first paper is wrong.
I get no response from the first author when I let them know about the error.

What is my next step?
(A) contact editors of the journals with the incorrect results? and then what happens?
(B) post a paper to ARXIV?
(C) submit a paper to a journal?
(D) wait, do more research, and try to craft something more "substantial" for (B) or (C)
(E) do some or all of the above simultaneously? (please specify which ones)
I am not sure if my contribution thus far warrants (B) or (C), but I would like to receive some acknowledgement in print.
Something must be done because this error if unacknowledged will have a negative effect on future research.

What field is this?

I upvoted @Buffy's comment and am commenting to reask her question. This is a question of academic culture, so it is highly field dependent.

I have nothing new to add, other than I can show the second paper proves the first paper is wrong.

If the second paper already refutes the first paper, then there is nothing to do. If you could write a brief, non-trivial paper explaining how the second paper refutes the first (and the consequences of this), that's a different matter.

(A) contact editors of the journals with the incorrect results? and then what happens?

This may be field-dependent, but in general, I think this only be appropriate if the authors acted in bad faith (and thus the paper needs to be forcibly retracted). In this case, it sounds like the authors were simply wrong, so I wouldn't get between the authors and the journal.

(B) post a paper to ARXIV?

Particularly in math and physics, all papers are posted to arXiv. It's not a bad policy for other fields as well (I post all my machine learning papers to arXiv). But it sounds like your results are significant enough that you should publish them in an actual journal or conference, not "just" the arXiv.

(C) submit a paper to a journal?
(D) wait, do more research, and try to craft something more "substantial"

If you have enough "substance" to publish now, then I would go for it (and post the paper to the arXiv while you're at it). If not, doing more research is necessary -- you shouldn't publish a bad paper, particularly one that "calls out" another paper (all the more so if the other paper is well known).

Thanks for answering.  Regarding your first sentence, I should mention that the correct paper did not point out the error in the other one.
FYI, in no way do I think the author acted in bad faith and/or refuses to cooperate.  All I know is that I got no response from them.  Also regarding your last sentence... it will be hard to avoid "calling out" the other paper, but your point is well-taken.

I think it is appropriate to write a short (even 1-page) Erratum paper and submit it to the journal in which the original paper was published. However, before doing so I would make sure you try hard to contact the authors and get their feedback, and possibly even their co-authorship on the Erratum. If they do not respond in a reasonable time, it's OK (in my opinion) to submit the Erratum to the journal, and you can include a note to the editor that explains the sequence of events that led to this point.
Your Erratum will be stronger if you can show how to fix the error, not just point out the error. But I understand this might not be possible.
Keep in mind that your goal in all of this is to help the research community by pointing out this error, rather than adding a pub to your CV. It sounds like you are approaching it with the right attitude.
The community deserves to know that the original paper contains this error, if it is an important one.

I am not convinced erratum is the technical word for this. The fact that a paper pointing to the error does already exist mitigate the need for an action. I would certainly send a comment if able to fix it, but otherwise I would rather wait for a fixing to come to my mind, or better carefully pointing to two contradicting papers when needed (if needed) for discussing my own work. Of course the latter is possible only if those papers are related to your current research. I add a question: how the " two papers behave to each others"? Ignoring the point?

My understanding from the OP is that the “second paper” doesn’t explicitly argue that the first paper is wrong, but rather that some part of the second paper can be used to argue that the first paper is wrong, and that’s what Anonymous Researcher did. I could have misunderstood the OP though. If the second paper already explicitly argues that the first paper is wrong, then I agree, there is nothing to do here.

No Larry I also think as you.  Just not sure it is a good move to point out the error without a fix, but I am not sure honestly. Say, if one can disprove general relativity without fixing something, it will still make much sense. Opposite pointing to the fact that alchimista made a stupid model for an experiment important to specialists only, well better wait or try to discussing it without a frontal "attack", at least without proposing the correction.

I think it depends on the importance of the paper and of the error to the community the paper is aimed at. Even if the paper is aimed at specialists only, it might still be very important to correct the record and make sure future researchers don’t rely on the incorrect results, leading them down the wrong path. OTOH if the error is just a minor mistake, no action may be warranted. It would certainly be better if the OP could offer a fix, but if the paper was trying to solve a hard problem (as most research papers are) then developing a fix might be as hard as the original research topic.

-1: That answer would work in an ideal world. But seriously, denouncing an important error to the people who made it and to those who published it...

I don't see it as denouncing, I see it as correcting the record. I've seen several errata published by the original authors themselves -- sometimes with the person who found the error added as an author, sometimes with an acknowledgment to that person. The difficulty in this situation is that the authors haven't responded to the OP.

@LarrySnyder610 : Errata are fine, but do they include examples of paper-killing errors that were appropriately dealt with by the authors and journal? I provided an example of the contrary in my own answer.

Yes, I know of examples of errata that were dealt with appropriately by the authors and the journal. I'm sure it can go the other way, as well. But I still think it's worth trying to handle things the right way.

@LarrySnyder610 : I was asking about paper-killing errors, of the kind that leads to retractions, not mere errata. This seems more relevant to the OP's situation.

Nothing comes to mind at the moment, but that doesn't change my advice or opinion.

Definitely do not contact the journals who published the incorrect results. Their interest is to reject, bury or delay the wrong results' denunciation. To get a fair and professional answer from them is possible, but unlikely. And it would probably require an unreasonable amount of time and effort from you. Quoting James Heathers:

How does “originally rejected without review, appealed, then accepted after 18 months, 5 rounds of reviews, and 6 reviewers” sound? Does that sound like something that would ever happen to a paper?
Well, that’s what happens to criticism. Would it be more efficient to just upload it and get on with your life?

This leaves you with arXiv, if it is widely used in your community. (Failing that, a well-chosen website or social network could do.) Short rebuttals of papers on arXiv happen quite often.

This seems awfully cynical. Reputable journals want to publish quality results.

Maybe. But if you wait for the journal to correct such an important mistake, the correction is likely to appear too late for being useful, if at all.


text:
Editor not responding. Should I withdraw my submission?
I submitted a paper in October 2018. After 2 months, the status changed to "awaiting CE decision" and stayed it ever since. I waited a month and sent an email to CE in February 2019. I did not receive any reply. I then waited another month and sent a second email to CE and editor assistant in March 2019, still no response . I don't know what to do next? Should I email publisher? Should I send another email to CE. Since the paper has been in the review process for 6 months, should I withdraw my submission? What if CE doesn't respond to my withdrawal, can I submit the paper to another journal?

I'm just going to point out this varies fairly heavily by field.

Did you try emailing a journal staff member? Or perhaps an associate editor?

Check if you are using the correct email address and try to verify that it is not outdated. You can also try emailing some other contacts to communicate your issue.
If you are not receiving any responses from the editor for extended periods of time, you are justified in withdrawing your paper. Just make sure that you clearly communicate your decision to withdraw, either through their online system or through email (or both).


text:
My main advisor quit, my retired co-advisor is being unhelpful and I am under pressure to leave the country. How do I proceed?
I was recruited by an advisor who retired midway during my PhD but agreed to keep on advising me with the help of a co-advisor. This co-advisor quit one month ago. I am currently without a main advisor.
I was on a funded three years PhD program with a low stipend in a foreign country but did not finish on time. In order to meet basic requirements, I needed two published papers and one international experience at a conference. I asked for an extension of my PhD program, which was granted, that guaranteed my visa.
Currently I have one paper officially approved for publication this month, one international experience and a paper in an R&R stage (deadline is April 8th).
The deadline to meet these basic requirements as well as finish writing the thesis manuscript appears to be the end of June if I want to obtain my PhD without asking for a third extension of enrollment.
Regarding the second article currently being reviewed, I agreed with my advisors that they would provide thorough feedback on the statistical analysis because this is not my specialty. However, when it was time to give this thorough feedback, my retired advisor did a poor job (dragging it out, extremely vague feedback, only about the form and not the content etc.). She told me that I did not have the level to write it and that I should give up on this journal. But she would not give me the reasons. So I submitted it and received the feedback from reviewers. Regarding statistical analysis, I requested her thorough feedback to strengthen my research. As a consequence, my advisor asked me to withdraw this article and submit another unwritten paper to a different journal, which would completely make me miss the deadlines to pass my defense in a timely manner. Another thing that she told me is that since I will miss the deadline, I should withdraw from the program, which would cancel my student visa and force me to apply as a free PhD candidate from my home country if I do not find a job to sponsor my visa here.
I asked her why would I do that, if I can ask for another semester extension per the university's rules. She told me that after two extensions, I am "un-welcomed".
So I have several issues now.

Find a new advisor. Both former and retired advisors have been  unable to convince anyone to take me as their student. I had no idea about what was happening because I was told right before the former main advisor quit.

I do not trust my retired Co-advisor anymore. I do not understand her reasoning behind the options she presents as the only ones available. Her feedbacks have always been of poor quality. It feels like she mis-represented her capacities in statistics and tried to blame it on me. I don't know what is her "interpretation" and what is the reality. I don't know if that has more to do with her inability to give thorough feedback on statistics (which she finally admitted a few days ago), and she does all this to basically avoid responsibilities and make me (the problem) disappear to my home country. Nor do I know why she does not support me obtaining my diploma as fast as possible like we agreed at the very beginning of my PhD.

I don't know if it is feasible to meet the deadlines I have mentioned.

How would you advise me to proceed?

one thing that striked me "She told me that I did not have the level to write it and that I should give up on this journal."
There are two possible things here, the first that she is very poor on statitstics, the second that you are very poor on statistics. Both can be true, so although she is unhelpful, it is up to you to gear up and improve the statistics, either by finding a good fellow PhD helping you (a road that may bring you pain and sufference, or joy and friendship) OR going for a lower tier journal (cynical way, no pain no joy just get the paper out)

@EarlGrey Yes. I considered that. Maybe I overestimated my capacities. But she seems to have misrepresented hers. But there are many things that she says that do not make sense. So I reached out to acquiaintances (such as mathematicians and professors) and asked them for a honest outlook. They agreed to help. So I have been studying stats, and simply modifying point after point every element that was written on the review. She tells me that this journal is strict. But if my draft was that bad, why did they review it and not rejected from the get go ? They sent me 4 pages of thorough feedback.

Although I have seen it before, it's unprofessional for retiring faculty to abandon students this way. (I've also seen the mess it makes when the "retirement" is because of death.)

I believe the the institution owes you some accommodation since none of your issues are your own fault. I would speak with someone in authority, such as a department head or dean about how they can provide whatever is needed for you to finish.
The visa is a different problem, but it might be possible for you to finish the degree even if you can't stay in the country and do it remotely. You seem to be close enough to fulfilling the requirements that this might be possible. You might have to return briefly for a defense, but that might be arranged with a short term "visitors" visa rather than one that depends on employment. Even a remote defense isn't impossible these days.

I agree. I would consider the supervisor quitting an issue the institution should fix, too.

First of all, stress not because this is not your fault in the prevailing circumstances. It is the poor management of your supervisor who did not inform you about her future plans well in advance so that you could find another supervisor and modify your research topic. Secondly, believe it or not, my case partially overlaps with yours, so I can understand your pain and frustration. What I did was to talk to both my department administration and the student organization in my school, who fights for the students rights. I seek professional advice from the relevant people who know the university rules and regulations very well.
Did you talk to research advisor, academic ombudsman, (vice) dean or similar person in your department? In my case, the department is taking the responsibility for successful completion and defense provided all other requirements are fulfilled from my side. In case, your department is not very cooperative, find some counselor, academic lawyer, or powerful student organizations who are professionals in handling such cases with iron fist.
You might apparently feel things are not going in favor. We in this forum can just give your general suggestions. But you literally need to talk to relevant people in your university to come up with a mutually agreeable solution. I hope the situation would not be as grim as it sounds.
All the best!

It is a fine answer apart from the first sentence: while not OP's fault, this situation is a completely understandable source of stress and should not be taken lightly.


text:
How to get specific guidance from busy advisor?
I need to graduate this semester, my master's project is far behind schedule, and I'm not getting the guidance I want from my advisor. How can I work with him to handle this productively?
I have to defend my thesis in two months because my funding will be gone after this semester. I have zero data because my project is computer-based and involves an initial stage of bringing a simulation into equilibrium, after which we can get usable results. I've been working on this preliminary phase since June and it's still far from our "usable" threshold. In the meantime, I've been working on everything I can do without final data (practicing trial analyses, writing a literature review and methods section).
I'm getting only vague guidance from my advisor, who is admittedly very busy. He has a large research group, administrative responsibilities and outside collaborations, so I certainly understand that my project can't be his first priority. He told me that I have to graduate this semester. I've kept him updated about the project status and my current steps, and he says that is all "fine" and I'm doing the right things, but that it's impossible to predict when the simulation might work, and "that's just how research is." I've expressed my concerns more than once, and he's typically responded by telling me not to "over-think things" and not to "freak out." At our most recent meeting, I said that I doubt the simulation will be working in the next few weeks and asked what I should do in that case--he said "you still have two months, we'll just have to see what happens."
My advisor is well-established and respected in his field. He has a strong track record of graduating students, and he's certainly more experienced and knows much more about research than I do. I should trust him when he says everything is fine, but it doesn't seem fine to me. I can't realistically expect everything to start working in the next few weeks when I've made insufficient progress for eight months so far. I have no backup plan for what to do without the data.
How can I express my concerns so that my advisor will listen? How can I do better at getting specific guidance?
Edit to update:
I did reach out to other students and postdocs for help on the technical issues, and I've been doing that since June as well.
Edit for how it all turned out:
I talked again with some other students, and came up with a new strategy. My advisor was a little skeptical but agreed we could try it. Luckily the new approach turned out much better. He is still too busy to give the project much attention, but as long as I can finish the entire project and write up everything in a month (no stress, right??) I should be fine!

Sounds like it's time for a second opinion.  See if there's another professor or more advanced student who would meet with you.

I did speak with another professor and the advice was basically "listen to your advisor and talk with him about your concerns."(Which I'm already doing but clearly need to do better)

Not all professors will go out of their way to help someone else's student.

Totally fair point! The professor I visited is in the graduate studies office and had recently emailed all grad students that we could come speak with him if we wanted any general advice. So I don't believe I was overstepping with the visit.

I'm not criticizing your choice of second opinion.  It's your degree, and only you can decide how persistent you want to be.

Your advisor will not solve your problem - at least it is very unlikely! Digging very deep in the specifics of such a simulation is something a person in such a position just don't have the time to - and sometimes even not the detailed knowledge, e.g. regarding frameworks used, implementation details etc.!
One question you should adress is: Will (s)he accept negative results? If you can describe all steps you did, explain why things did not work as planned, do you still have a chance for a good grade? If "yes", then really everything is fine, you "just" have to work hard and document all your attempts.
If "no", you should try to get help from a graduate student or post-doc working in a similar field. But still keep your advisor updated about everything you do.

No, negative results aren't acceptable.
I've been reaching out to other grad students/postdocs since June, and the consensus seems to be that I'm doing the right things....they just take a long time to finish and nobody can really predict the timeline.

so what could your advisor eventually do? It seems you are on the right track and things just need time...

I could really use more specific guidance about what I should do on the project if I can't make everything work in the next couple months.

Have you asked your advisor that specific question?


text:
What are the rules regarding obtaining consent from subjects when publishing results related to drug testing?
I am wondering what the rules relative to consent of subjects are for publishing results related to drug testing.
This recent publication by private lab researchers reports the result of drug testing on seven cyclists on hair samples collected by the police.

During an international 3-week cyclist race in France, a special public health division of the police [inspected] a whole team. In addition to the control of the rooms and the medical devices and products by the police, a trained forensic pathologist was requested to collect head hair specimens from seven cyclists. ... This was a target request from the judge based on suspicion as numerous boxes of tizanidine were found in the room of the medical doctor of the team.

However, the paper makes no mention of the cyclists' consent in having their hair used for research, or of any approval by an ethics board. Any thoughts?

I'm not sure what you're asking?

One would need to know what professional cyclists agree to in order to participate. Likely it includes use of any samples for anti-doping research.

@AzorAhai-him- am wondering what the rules of consent are for publications related to drug testing.  I would have thought consent of subjects is necessary, and that it would be stated in the publication.

@DanielHatton In this paper, samples were obtained during a police raid

@DanielHatton - professional sports and anti-doping are likely handled quite differently from standard workplace agreements. And has been shown many times over the decades, national governments are broadly in support of (legally, monetarily, ...) efforts to combat doping. Note that in the abstract to the paper (the only part I could access), the study was requested by the French police. That professional athletes will be drug-tested and punished if in violation is well known, and even amateur athletes are tested from an early age.

@DanielHatton - I guess the question would be, did the study go through IRB approval or not? Without access to the full paper I can't tell...

Under the WADA guidelines (https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/ispppi_guidelinesforprivacy_final_sept2021.pdf), permissible 'anti-doping activities' that use personal information includes 'Anti-doping research'.

I updated the Q to what I think you'd like to ask. Feel free to edit if I missed the mark.

Note the weird use of "controlled" by the authors - I suspect this is a translation error, but I don't know what they meant.

@JonCuster and Daniel I do have access, and it has no reference whatsoever.

Indeed, it is called (loosely translated) 'drug control' when you get tested. So we have the police providing samples - did they provide any PII or was the lab just reporting on the ability to measure a given drug in unassociated-to-a-person samples. And would a normal IRB sign off on something like that? Way out of my league. Perhaps better a question to the journal about the required standards to publish there.

@DanielHatton Was only one team inspected by police? You posted that it seems to be Bahrain (the paper later mentions all the hairs were brown/black). Is seven the entire team?

If the samples are collected under a court order, is consent even relevant?

@DanielHatton It's normal to not get patient consent when using data already collected for another purpose. There's no harm to the patient from collecting the data in that case; it's really rare to do any sort of retroactive consent unless there's a new data collection step (eg, retrospective data on a particular surgery, but you want to contact patients to do a 90d follow up). An IRB would decide whether there is harm from making the data itself public, which is substantially mitigated if the data are anonymized, and may not require any sort of consent.

@AzorAhai-him- updates to question appreciated, have added a minor one myself.

@DanielHatton Others have cautioned about trying to ID the team; there was only one month between the police raid this year and submission of the article; and there have been similar raids previous years.

Rules for this sort of thing come from two sources: institutions and publishers; there is no central body for research ethics, though there can be national and international organizations that choose to publish guidelines. There may also be country-specific laws (or at other levels of government), but ordinarily in my experience these are mostly administered at the institution level where the institution guidelines meet or exceed any legal standards, so an individual investigator can just comply with their institution and they'll be covered.
Most journals publishing in a (bio)medical area have some official statement that authors must provide assurance that some standard for research subjects protection is met. It's really up to the journal what their standard is and what they will publish. In some jurisdictions they may be subject to legal limitations but I am not familiar with these.
It seems like the relevant legal issues here would concern what police are and are not allowed to do with biological evidence and under what circumstances those samples can be released to third parties and what those third parties can do with it. I'm not trained in law and certainly not French law and I don't really think Academia.SE is the place to discuss either.
What I can speak to, though, is what sort of procedures would typically be followed in an academic research context in the US, where I work. All of that comes down to the IRB decides, but I can make a couple comments about how they'd go about those decisions:

Consent is not required for every study. In particular, consent is usually obtained to collect data. The most strict research subjects protection occurs when data collection impacts the subjects directly - for example, where a medication is given as part of the trial. In this case, there is no risk to the subjects in collecting the data: the samples are already collected for another purpose, which was not research-related. It's common in medical fields to do retrospective analyses from, say, patient health records. No informed consent is collected in these cases.

Even when data collection is not a risk, IRBs are still concerned with protecting research subjects. The primary concern is that release of data itself may somehow harm those subjects, whether through breach of their privacy or financial risks. Often these are mitigated by anonymizing the study, though IRBs will take care to ensure that data are truly anonymized, which in some cases may not be possible and may require further action like an unusual step to obtain consent. However, as far as I know IRBs are mostly/only concerned with individual harm. I don't believe IRBs typically consider institutional harm, such as to a sport, athletic organization, country, or hospital. To the contrary, a lot of data that are harmful or embarrassing to institutions are considered to have a lot of public value. Examples might be data that show evidence of racial or sex discrimination.

In this particular case, it seems that the study is missing a declaration that the work was reviewed by an appropriate ethical research authority. This seems to be against the journal's own policy, though the details of that policy are not made explicit. An IRB may have restricted how the data could be obtained or described, or they may not. I don't see a blatant violation here, though it does seem to me that the authors had a clear editorial intent to raise a controversy, as they could have easily published their main scientific findings without tying it explicitly to cycling.

Nice summary. I note that IRBs are required by the Federal government in order to get Federally sponsored research. Journals signed on voluntarily. These rules don't necessarily apply to anyone else.


text:
Seeking advice: Failed PhD due to academic + psychological reasons. Should I apply two years later?
Failed my PhD in Physics after 3 years in graduate school. I spent the whole first and a half year on foundation (courses and some learning projects) since I jumped in from a completely different field without any prerequisites. Then I spent another one and a half year on serious projects. I suffered in the second year due to the pressure from research and meanwhile, some personal issues which made me very very depressed. I failed a course (just could not work on anything at that period) and make unsatisfactory progress in research. And one can guess, failed qualifying exam. I left at the end of 3rd year without a terminal master, which is a large dent. If I apply immediately after quitting I will get rejected from all programs without problem. So, here is what I am thinking:

I still love research and would like to devote to R&D as my career.
I fully understand I am responsible for my failure and would like to deal with my issue.
I am fully recovered and actually learned a lot from this about managing emotion and deal with pressure.
I am planning to work in industry in related areas for a year or two or three, and during the time, keep looking for PhD openings. Taking exams, looking for research intern opportunities in my spare time. If lucky, I will go ahead and work towards a doctorate degree.

I have many concerns and therefore, need advices about this plan

does this sound doable in general? I've seen people doing phd in their 30s or even 40s, but I know these are not the normal cases.
What kind of job you would recommend if I want to go back to graduate school in near future? Or, what would be my best strategy?
How should I explain this part of my life to adcom when applying?
I enjoy doing research and would like to pursue a R&D career in industry. But, just trying to see the whole picture, is age a problem? If I choose to do this and succeed, I will be in my early 30s to start phd and ideally, mid 30s to start my career.

All advices are welcomed and many thanks!
P.S.
I do thought about my passion and whether it is physics after all these happened. tbh it was not a very wise decision I made 3 yrs ago. It turns out I am not very passionate about the research in this group either it was too difficult and I am not prepared, or I simply don't like it. But I do like some parts such the math tools, programming tools and HPC and I appreciate the experience I had in this group. I am considering about research in data science and healthcare/pharmaceutical domain, which would have more practical applications in industry and then more job opportunities than physics at least

Industry doesn't employ physicists; it employs engineers.  Now there are new technologies that don't have an established engineering field behind it, and it often makes sense for companies in these areas to hire physicists and retrain them as engineers.  Almost by definition, physics research is research that does not have an immediate enough practical application to make money, so physics PhDs are not automatically employable in industry.  The danger of doing a physics PhD in your 30s is that you may succeed in getting a PhD but not be able to get a job, and have to retrain again, in late 30s

Is this for US study?

@Buffy Yes this is for US study.

@AlexanderWoo Good point. I agree that very few company will hire physics phd to do  theory studies. I must admit that I am not good at doing research in those field as well. Therefore, I am also concerning changing my field if I apply such as in data science, healthcare and AI, which seems more practical and attractive to me.

There are exceptions, but in a lot of places in industry you're probably better off with the X years experience there than leaving for a PhD. There are only a handful of jobs where a PhD is truly needed in industry, and a lot of those are figurehead and management positions where you aren't actually using any of the skills that a PhD trains you in (except perhaps some familiarity with the grants process), just carrying the title "doctor" to impress customers. Unless you're doing that industry job and looking around you and seeing the positions you want next are all filled with PhDs.

@BryanKrause That's also true. The reason I am interested in pursuing PhD is actually I like doing research. Actually the jobs I really want for now are the ones filled with PhDs (in industry of course) they are just senior colleagues from my program or I know.  So it seems PhD is a must-have for me. Well, maybe this is exactly why I should at least get some experience from somewhere else. I actually don't really know whether I will like other careers other than R&D tbh.

Why didnt you get a masters degree? Go back and finish it even if you pay money,

@FourierFlux - I disagree.  If you have a decent Bachelor's degree, a Master's degree in the same or a similar field is worthless in industry in the US.  Everyone understands it is just a failed PhD.

This is not correct. Most industry positions start with higher pay and a level up if you enter with an MS. Nontrivial technical roles are starting to have MS as as a req. I'm not talking about physics but engineering discipline in general.

Does this sound doable in general?

This sounds doable to me in general (which is rare, because most of the time when failed students ask questions like this I am pretty skeptical of their plans), but probably not at the same institution.  The main thing I note from your post is that your previous candidature gave you a full suite of foundation courses in the field and over a year of practice in research.  Yes, you failed, but you were coming in with a low base of existing knowledge/skills, whereas now have an additional three years of work under your belt before entry.
Now, if you were to apply immediately to the same institution then it will almost certainly be a no --- they have terminated your candidature so they are saying you are not good enough for the program for now.  In any case, I note from your question that you feel you are not a good fit in that research group anyway.  Consequently, you are probably best off applying at another institution.  Your plan to work in industry for a few years while looking out for program opportunities sounds like a good idea.  It will put some temporal distance to your previous program removal and also give you some new professional skills in the field, which is more likely to make you an attractive candidate.  You should also note that time in industry may allow you to develop research ideas that are useful in the field, which might open up opportunities for a good PhD candidature working on a problem that comes from industry.

What kind of job you would recommend if I want to go back to graduate school in near future?  Or, what would be my best strategy?

Obviously, a job in physics.  If you can work an industry job as a physicist, or at least working on physics problems or related problems, this will give you additional experience and skills that will assist you with entry to a PhD program in physics.
As a secondary matter, you want a job that pays you a lot of money, to allow you to save up for your later time as a student.  If you have any serious desire to go back to being a PhD student later then you will need to make sure you do not get used to having a high disposable income.  Be frugal and save a portion of your money, so that when you go back to being a PhD student it is not too big a drop in lifestyle.

How should I explain this part of my life to [the admissions committee] when applying?

Pretty much the same way you just explained it to us ---i.e., you previously tried a PhD program, but you went in with a low skill base and it was too much for you.  You now have three additional years of work, including covering all the foundational courses in the field and getting some exposure to research work.  None of that sounds too bad to me, so I can't see an admissions committee having a major problem with it.
What the admissions committee is going to want to see is that you are mature and capable, and you are able to self-reflect on past failures and diagnose the problem sensibly.  They will also be impressed that you take responsibility for that failure and do not attempt to pass if off onto someone else.  Your story sounds like one where a student tries a PhD program before they have the skills to be ready, and it is too much for them.  The gain of this experience, plus a couple of years in industry, is likely to put you in a much stronger position.

Thank you very much for the suggestions. This is what I am planning for coming back in the future. My main concerns were (1) age, but most of my colleagues as well as @Buffy believe that is not a major problem, and (2) the explanation to my first phd experience, but your covered this part. This is actually very encouraging. As for the guest answer, is it true that it is difficult for PhDs to find job in industries since there are only limited spots but much more graduates in job market? My colleagues who received  degrees are all having pretty decent industrial jobs, is this the general case?

@Jimmy: How old are you?

I'm 28. I spent 2 yrs on another master previously, which is not related to what I am working on currently.

Assuming you spend two years in industry, you will be 30.  That is not particularly old to start a PhD program.

What about a little later than that, say 32, 33 to start? Is there a limit?

There isn't a hard limit, but there are diminishing returns with age, due to lower expected future career time.  If you consider a candidature of 4 yrs retirement age of approx 68 yrs then starting at 30 gives you an expected 34 years of post-PhD career, and it goes down from there.

You just answered many of your own questions. Go for it and remember Einstein also flunked out of college. You have the passion, the drive and great retrospection - age is irrelevant. If you love physics, your future will be your playground.

I suggest that the sooner you apply the more likely it is to get accepted. You need letters of recommendation, preferably from academics so you can't afford to lose touch with people who know and respect you.
But you have a particularly steep hill to climb so you need to be able to demonstrate that you are capable of the work and stress that is required. I assume you are a bit better prepared now than you were originally, but you might want to consider if physics is the right field for you or something that you will enjoy and has a better employment prospect.
Convincing people that your past issues no longer hold you back will be the biggest problem and if possible you want to use others to speak/write on your behalf.
But a PhD probably isn't essential for a career in industrial research. Especially one in theoretical subjects.
If you still have contacts at the place you failed to finish at, you might want to discuss this with them, provided that they know you well and might be supportive, given that your psychological issues are under control. They may have some suggestions about various career paths. There may be some others, even from your undergraduate study who can help.
But, I think, the longer you wait, the harder it will get, unless you spend the intervening time in some ideal situation. And the process of applying will give you some additional feedback on your chances and what you might need to do to be successful.

Thanks. I have the same worry about recommendation letters as this is the only thing I cannot do myself. Now there is the dilemma I am facing: (1) get research experience in the field I want and get good letters, let the result speak for itself, but very time-consuming and (2) get this done as quickly as I can since I am no longer a fresh college graduate, but the dent is very hard to explain. I can tell the adcom I am fully recovered and learned my lesson. But they are not as convincing as a machine learning research project, or even a publication with my contribution. But I do thought about

Try to restore old contacts. Let other speak to your recovery.

my passion and whether it is physics. tbh 3 yrs ago it was not a good decision I made. It turns out I am not very passionate about the research in this group, but I do like some parts such the math tools, programming and HPC and so on. I am reconsidering about some data science and healthcare domain research, which would have more practical application in industry and more job opportunities than physics at least.

"the longer you wait, the harder it will get" do you also mean aging will be a negative factor when the adcom look at my application? Is this common in the US?

No, not age. Age is irrelevant. I meant that possible letter writers will remember less and less of you leaving you an island of one. You need to keep contacts up.

got it. I agree.

There are many more doctorates produced than jobs for them afterwards.  This is because grad students are cheap labor.  Given that, only the cream of the crop find desirable jobs after the PhD.  And many experience exploitation along the way because of the power imbalance with supervisors.
You couldn't even get through a regular PhD. Let alone distinguish yourself.  Don't  stick your head in that trap again.  It only makes sense for a small fraction, to which you do not belong.  Go get a regular job doing something else. Move on.

Thank you for the advice.
Do we know each other?


text:
Where Can I Get Certified Copies of Documents for Master's Applications in the United States
So in a few weeks I will be submitting applications for Master's Programs in Germany. I am a resident of the United States living in Ohio and am required to submit certified copies of my Bachelor's Diploma and Transcript. The German website that handles several online applications list these as available sources:

issuing institutions, e.g. schools, universities and language schools
the Ministry of Education in your home country (I guess the Department of Education in the US)
German embassies and consulates (nearest one is several states away)
the department of cultural affairs of the embassy of the country in which the certificate was issued
public authorities and notaries which are authorized to supply official certifications in your country of origin.

The last point leads me to believe that it could be any notary, but then one application in particular says: "authorities and notaries authorized to provide official notarization in the respective country
In no case will we accept notarizations from private individuals, lawyers, a priest's office, banks, health insurance companies or the AStA (student union executive committee)!"
To sum up, basically I am wondering where I could get certified copies of my documents and which notaries count as "official notaries". For instance there is an Ohio Notary Public office nearby, which is a state department, would that count?
If anyone has gone through this process before and could shed light that would be greatly appreciated.
Edit: After some additional research it would seem notary publics in most US states can not certify copies of documents, including in Ohio. Accepted top answer as option 1 is really the only viable option in my and most US states.

Option (1) is probably easiest.
It's normal in the US to send official transcripts directly from one educational institution to another. The way you do this is typically to go to your school's website and search "official transcript". You may need to pay a fee or may only need a fee to send more than some number.
Since schools are used to sending these to other US schools I'm sure they are also prepared to send them to Germany. They'll come directly from the university with some sort of seal.
When I was applying for grad school this step at least was still entirely by physical mail; there may be digital options now too.

And if notarization, apostille, or some other extra certification is really needed, there's a good chance the school can arrange this for you (for an extra fee), without the document ever having to pass through your hands.  Every large organization has many employees who are notaries.  If they don't already offer this on their website, contact them and ask.

@NateEldredge Or even as just part of it, I've never seen an additional "notarization" fee but I guess I haven't looked that hard

@Nate I think it's standard that "official transcript" comes with some sort of notarization/seal/"proof" of legitimacy, but yes I would expect even if this is not "standard" when you request an official transcript it should at least be an option.

@BryanKrause: They usually have the university's own seal, but in some cases one might also need authentication by some government-authorized official such as a notary public (who as mentioned might also be a university employee).  It's hard to tell from the question whether the German institution requires the latter or not.

There are far more notary publics in the United States than in any other country I know of. Your bank will have one, and your department may -- ask the front office. They all can certify copies for you.

I don't see that the question was edited after being posted, and in it the OP states that notary's from e.g. banks, are not allowed.

Yeah I'm not sure what exactly a notary public would be doing here. They could notarize that your signature is yours, they could notarize that you've made a sworn statement that the document is legitimate, but they don't have the authority to themselves declare the contents of a transcript as official. The only way they would do so would be to take your word for it which kind of bypasses the point, unless I'm missing something.

@CGCampbell, I'll note that I can find a notary at my local bank. But their duties as a notary are not a function of the bank. It isn't the bank that notarizes, but the individual. The name of the bank and the fact that the person is also employed by a bank never appears. I can't judge the value of such a notarization, however, as is noted by Bryan Krause.

Like @Buffy says, the function that notary publics perform is a state function, regardless of the fact who employs them. They are not acting as individuals, but as registered and certified public officials. That falls under point 5 in the original question, and the highlighted note does not apply. I have used notary publics many times for documents the German consulate required me to provide and it was never a problem.

@BryanKrause They certify that the copy is a truthful copy of the original. That's what a notarized copy is, after all. You have to show the original for that, of course. In fact, I'd venture the guess that that's 80% of what notary publics do -- many original documents can not be re-issued in duplicate whenever you need one, so notarized copies is exactly what are required.


text:
Using grant proposal for applying to faculty position
My grant application for independent research as a PostDoc got recently funded in Germany (the position started at the beginning of this year). This grant required me to choose host labs to work at. I had written the proposal by myself, with inputs from the host professors in Germany regarding the language and phrasing.
Concurrently, I have also started to apply for faculty positions in different countries. The institute at the very top of my list asks specifically for a research proposal which will play a key role in the selection process.
Since the PostDoc grant proposal is filled with many unsolved and interesting problems from my research career (in Mathematics), I would like to reuse it for my faculty application as well.
I have a few questions regarding this:
(1) What is the code of conduct around such a situation where I want to reuse the grant proposal in a faculty-position research proposal? I have never been in this situation, and I am completely unsure of how to proceed.
(2) If I am allowed to reuse the material from the grant proposal, how closely can I use it in the faculty proposal? A lot of thought and time was invested into the phrasing of the original grant, and it very concisely written. If possible, I would like to stay close to the original phrasing.
Of course, the faculty proposal will several new problems as well. Maybe, this question has an obvious answer, in which case I apologise for it. Any ideas/thoughts are very welcome.

I'm not sure what you mean by "reuse the material". What material? Is it just what you write in the application, or something else?

Reuse the material from the postdoc grant proposal in the research proposal required for the faculty application. Hopefully the edits clarify this.

Unless there is something tricky that I can't see, there should be no problem, though I'd suggest some rewording, just to make things clear.
For example, the grant covers "work in progress" perhaps, rather than "work to be done".
But the important thing is to be clear in the faculty application about what is past, present, and proposed for the future. I think you will be in a strong position if your "Statement of Purpose" is a continuation of a research program that is already in progress and has seen some results.
I think that the rewording, rather than just copying, would make it stronger.
I hope I'm not missing something.

Thanks a lot @Buffy. I will use the phrase 'work in progress', wherever it applies.


text:
Develop algorithm without any application in mind
I am an undergraduate student. My adviser proposed me to develop an algorithm, which is a combination of two existing. So, the idea of the algorithm is clear and the main task is to prove convergence. The problem is that:
1) I cannot find any application for the new algorithm.
2) It seems to me that developing a proof of convergence is rather hard and I feel uncomfortable about it, because I am on my own with the problem.
Is it a typical situation? Is it better to force myself and try to finish the current work or is it better to try to find a new topic?

What did your advisor say when you asked him about these issues?

When I asked the adviser about applications he suggested a "synthetic" one (more of a picking specific parameters for a general framework, than a real-life application).

Ok, I will elaborate. Lets say that I am developing an algorithm for minimizing a function. In my opinion, a proper application will be minimizing loss function of a ml model. A "synthetic" one will be minimizing a quadratic function.

As for what is the main task, I don't understand why to try hard to prove the convergence of an useless algorithm.

Have you checked what possible applications the two previously developed algorithms can be used for? Have you understood how the proofs of convergence were done for the other two? Do you enjoy thinking about algorithms?

It sounds like you have two problems here.
First, you seem to have different research preferences from your advisor (from the comments: "I don't understand why to try hard to prove the convergence of an useless algorithm"). In research, there is a wide spectrum of approaches, from purely theoretical to purely applied. Researchers from one end of the spectrum may have a hard time understanding why the research at the other end of the spectrum is worthwhile and/or interesting.
From the comments, you've tried to talk to your advisor about applications. It's possible that such applications exist, but your advisor hasn't thought of them: if they're not application-oriented, this may not be a high priority for them or they may just not be very creative about thinking of possible applications.
Depending on how unhappy you are with this different point of view, you can either (1) suck it up and work on the problem your advisor gave you for a while (keeping an eye out for possible applications) or (2) find another advisor. Asking your advisor for a different problem is a possibility, but given that you've already asked about applications and gotten an unsatisfactory answer, this may not work.
Second, you're concerned that the research problem is too hard: "developing a proof of convergence is rather hard and I feel uncomfortable about it, because I am on my own with the problem". (This is mostly a separate question: a problem's intrinsic difficulty is unrelated to its topic, although solving it can be more difficult if you're not motivated.) If your advisor is effective, then they will have given you a problem that is within your capability - even if it initially seems too difficult. Depending on your relationship with your advisor, you might be able to ask for starting points and/or reassurance. You might even be able to ask for an easier problem; getting a simpler problem in the same area seems more reasonable than getting a problem outside your supervisor's scope (i.e., an applied problem).
It's a personal decision as to whether you buckle down and work on a problem even if you're not sure you like it and can do it, but my advice - especially if you're just starting - would be to make a sincere effort before changing course.  Your advisor is much more likely to give you help, or let you change problems, if you demonstrate that you've really tried to solve the one they gave you.

Thank you for your answer! Will it help to try to ask some specialist in the field (I will need to find such in the internet) about whether it is a feasible task for an undergrad? Also, while I admit that this is not a particular good metric, but I undergrad papers I have seen where up to 10 pages, and the source papers I was given are 20 pages +, so how can I produce anything smaller, based on these papers.

briefly (may add more later); I would not recommend asking people on the internet. Rather, I would suggest discreet, low-key inquiries among people close to your level (undergrads, grad students, postdocs) who have more experience with your advisor whether they've had good experiences/been given appropriate problems and guidance. You need to know about your advisor, not about the research problem; if they're a good advisor, then they will be a better judge than you (or than a random stranger on the internet) about appropriate level of difficulty.