text:
Re-publishing an unavailable old result
In my area of research there is this old PhD thesis cited by everyone, which is inaccessible. Due to this, recent surveys even question its validity.
Recently, I contacted the authors and received their original document. On a cursory glance the techniques are sound and the result seems valid. Assuming that it is correct, I definitely think that this result needs to be published.
Both authors also expressed interest in a publication but I do not expect they will put much effort into it, given that the thesis is old and the student writing the thesis seems to have left academia. Moreover, the formatting of the result hardly matches what is expected by nowadays journals.
In what respect can I support the result being published in some peer-reviewed venue?
Currently, given time, I would consider rewriting the result and sending it to the original authors for them to proceed as they wish.
Are there any other options?
In what respect would the result being published in some inaccessible thesis hinder its acceptance at a good journal?

I am curious, why does it need to be republished? Wouldn't making the already-published document (which everyone is citing) publicly available not suffice?

Making it publicly available would be a great first step the authors have not done for some reason. Still the result would be difficult to follow for various reasons. Moreover, it would lack peer review.

If it's a thesis then it would be automatically peer reviewed, no? (by the thesis committee and supervisor)

@Allure Thesis "peer review" and journal peer review isn't really the same, and theses are not considered peer reviewed publications in my field and others I am aware of. One big difference is that for a thesis, the author typically is selecting their own reviewers, and one in particular, their thesis advisor, would likely be a coauthor for the published work and has the biggest influence on acceptance of the thesis.

Peer review is not appropriate here. There is an old work that is important and cited by many persons but unavailable or not easily available.(Not exactly sure how that can be.)  In that case, the work should be published as a historical reference as it is and not peer reviewed, revised or altered.

I suggest asking the authors for permission to make the paper available on the web, either on your own web site or, better, on a widely used server like arXiv. Since the paper is cited often, the authors probably get many requests like yours, so they might be happy to get an easier way to handle them.

You did not write what your area of research is. In mathematics, it is quite common to do the following:

When you write a new paper that uses that old result, you cite this result as everyone does.
Then, you write something like: "For completeness, I provide in Appendix A a stand-alone proof of the same result".
In Appendix A, you indeed provide a stand-alone proof, which is written according to modern standards, such that it is easier to read by current authors.

Your paper will be published based on its main content; the appendix won't hinder its acceptance at a good journal. Hopefully, it will be reviewed by good reviewers, who will read and review the appendix.


text:
Don't know any good teacher recommendations
I am currently applying for an informal(?) internship at my school and the employer asked if I knew any faculty or staff members well enough to write me a recommendation. I have only just completed freshmen year and don't really know any of the teachers well and long enough that I'd be comfortable asking for a recommendation. My math professor did write me a short informal recommendation when I applied to be a math TA, but I don't believe we're close enough for him to write one for an internship.
Should I take a risk and ask my math professor or just tell the employer that I don't know anyone well enough?
Background info about math professor: I had him for two semesters and would go to his office hours maybe 3-4 times a semester to ask questions or just talk about math. Not sure if this is enough though to constitute him as a good recommender.

Probable duplicate: How can I get a reference letter if I was never “close” to any professors?

You do what you can. Having someone with a positive opinion of you is probably much better than having no one. There isn't a lot they can say, possibly, but for this it probably isn't critical.
But as you go along, make sure you develop some relationships so that this doesn't arise when it is critical.
If he was your supervisor for the TA then he probably has a good enough idea. But if it was another, you might look to them, also.

Also: faculty are accustomed to this type of request and are able to write basic letters even when they do not necessarily know the student well (but have a generically  good opinion of the student).

If you have excellent grades on the courses he/she teaches and show good attitudes and abilities while working as TA, then I think it is totally possible.
You probably only need your math professor to write a single letter for one employer, so that won't bother him/her too much.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Author of public dataset requesting co-authorship: usual?
I have come across a published dataset which comes with a note saying that: (1) the authors of the dataset would like to be informed of any papers that use it (2) they might request co-authorship depending on how much the paper depends on the data.
I am feeling ambivalent about using this dataset. On the one hand, I appreciate that the authors chose to make it public, despite the many man-hours of work that went into creating it. On the other hand, it seems unusual that the creator of an already published dataset would request co-authorship on a paper they did not otherwise contribute to.
I am interested in using such a dataset for an idea, but I am reluctant to put significant work into a project when there is a risk (even if a small risk) that the dataset's creator may interfere with publication. Accepting co-authorship essentially means agreeing that the co-author may delay publication or may attempt to shape the paper, possibly in ways I am unhappy with.
Are such requests common? Are they reasonable? Is it reasonable to ignore such a request, given that the dataset is public?
I understand that this question may read like a nitpick. Realistically, I don't expect trouble. Yet it bothers me that starting to work with this dataset appears to essentially require agreeing that my work may be interfered with. It seems like a rather unreasonable "have your cake and eat it" mentality on part of the dataset author when releasing the data.

What is the data? They might have a bit more of a leg to stand on if it's perhaps super sensitive and they want to discuss your usage of the data pre-publication to make sure it's correct. Just spitballin

Plenty of researchers have private datasets of one sort or another that they don't publish, except insofar as is necessary to support particular papers. If you wish to use their dataset, you have to come to an agreement with them -- which almost always involves co-authorship. The present case is really just an evolution of that approach.

A request to "consider us for future collaboration if you use this dataset" is probably much more acceptable, but, still, not common.

People try to claim rights over all sorts of intellectual property. In the early days of the development of finite element methods for solving PDEs, somebody was actually granted a patent for the concept of linear interpolation between two points. I don't think they ever made any money from licensing it, though.

I'm actually glad that the data set is released in this format - it used to be harder to access (on a private web page rather than a public archive, required registration)

On the other hand, it seems unusual that the creator of an already published dataset would request co-authorship on a paper they did not otherwise contribute to.

I do not think they are asking for co-authorship on a paper they did not otherwise contribute to; I think they are soliciting a collaboration with someone who is interested in using their data. "co-authorship might be requested" should be interpreted as "we might ask to be involved at a level suitable for authorship".
They have not released their data with a license requiring that they are included as coauthors, so this is a request rather than condition of using the data.
I have personally authored papers based on data collected by others, with coauthors whose contribution to the paper was primarily their involvement with data collection rather than any of the analyses. Those collaborators made the effort to be authors by providing the data, helping with data extraction, reviewing the manuscript and discussing the analysis approaches even if they didn't do that directly, and most importantly by knowing and being experts about the data itself. Even well-annotated data can have little quirks that are not transparent to someone unfamiliar with the data. Sometimes there could be additional data or caveats that hasn't made it into the shared version and you'd very much want to know about this as someone using the data.
Though authorship conventions vary a bit by field, in the authors' field it is common to have multiple coauthors and there is no implied dilution of the effort of other authors (especially the first author) by having additional coauthors. The cost of their ask is pretty low, and if I was planning to use their data I'd want to contact them about their interest and if they were interested and planning to contribute then I'd certainly give them the opportunity to meet authorship standards.

I accepted this one out of many good answers for the idea that this is an opportunity, not an obligation, to collaborate. It's okay to say no, but saying yes might be advantageous. I would like to clarify that my concern about forced collaboration (rather than merely putting names on the paper) was that while it may turn out to be positive, it might also be negative. We have all heard stories of some irresponsible senior co-author delaying publication forever without considering that getting the paper out might be critical for a junior first author to advance their career.

They can request whatever they like, but you don't have to accede to their wishes unless you think it is valid. If they don't actually contribute to the intellectual content of the paper, then they aren't due authorship, but certainly need to be acknowledged with a citation. Saying "thanks" explicitly would be polite, also.
I've never heard of such a thing (but don't hear everything). I doubt that it is "usual" or "common" in any sense.
You make the decisions. Use normal ethical principles about what does and does not constitute authorship.

An exception would be if there are specific licensing terms, though, normally, data per se can't be copyrighted and so no license is needed.

If you are just using data that is published and in the public domain, I'm not really sure an acknowledgement is necessary beyond the citation. Obviously acknowledgements are cost free, and it always helps to be more polite than is strictly necessary, but I wouldn't see it as a requirement.

@IanSudbery, probably correct. But a citation is an ack of sorts. I was only worried about avoiding plagiarism charges. And a thanks is polite. But I updated. Thanks.

I don't think copyrights are relevant here. They are based on laws, and laws vary arbitrarily between countries, while the standards of academic integrity should be more universal. Datasets often come with various terms, and while the terms may not be legally binding, it's best to accept them unless you are deliberately seeking conflict.

data per se can't be copyrighted IANAL, but while it looks like that data itself can't be copyrighted, a compilation of data can be. So you can use the data without restriction, but not necessarily the data file itself. I'm not clear what that means legally for using data out of the file, though; would it be a derivative work? I might ask on legal SE

@JouniSirén, in order to require "terms" you need to own rights, such as copyright or patent. You can't put restrictions on something to which you don't hold legal rights.

Here's a link with more details about the copyright aspect for people that are interested: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11359/can-you-copyright-data Basically, straight tabular data files might not be copyrightable, but might be if the data has been sufficiently worked up and is not considered "raw". Even in raw form, it might fall under "database rights" in some countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right

@Buffy As academics, we expect many things not required by law, such as citing earlier work and including people who contributed to the work as coauthors. Why should this be any different?

@JouniSirén, because "terms" and licenses are a limitation on others. You can't limit them when you have no right to do so. It is quite different.

@Buffy Academic publishing is based on expectations, not rights and limitations. If you ignore what others expect from you, your papers may get rejected or retracted, because the editors may not want to get involved in conflicts they do not understand.

At least in Germany you can get copyright if you build a data set or data base. Each single data point cannot be copyrighted, but the work as a whole.

If you read the license (on the right side of the webpage you provided the link for), it states that "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law."
In other words, they waived all their rights. I think their request for notification or co-autorship is not obligatory but voluntary. I guess they mean 'they might be requesting to be co-authors', but accepting or not depends on you.

Is that public-domain waiver actually binding, though? I hear that intentionally putting stuff in the public domain by fiat is relatively hard. E.g., Wikipedia claims that's against the law in Europe.

@DanielR.Collins even then, it would be hard for the people who declared it public domain to sue user of the content in any reasonable court of law, so as long as they are alive and no heirs are involved it would be rather safe. And note that this claim on Wikipedia has a status of [citation needed] so you should treat it as any other hearsay.

@Molot: Okay, but the null hypothesis (and safety considerations) would be to treat the waiver as not-working until some legal citation/expert says otherwise.

Is a dataset even something that can be copyrighted in the first place? Maybe a specific way of organizing it would be, but not the raw information. This is similar to phone book copyrights -- you can copyright the yellow pages because of the way you categorize it, but not the set of names and phone numbers themselves.

All of the thoughts you raise about co-authorship are negative!

The data folks might delay publication
The data folks might shape the paper

As others have said, this is in the public domain, so you are not required to make the data folks co-authors. But I think you should consider the many benefits:

You build new collaborations. Later, this leads to Letters of Rec, conference invites, early notification about new datasets, someone on a faculty selection committee who knows your name.
The data folks understand their data. You may think that you do, but data can have subtle issues. A co-authorship incentivizes the data folks to help you interpret their data as accurately as possible.
The data folks may have more, unpublished data. Bringing them aboard as co-authors could give you the opportunity to explore the topic in a broader or more nuanced way if it provides the data folks an avenue for getting more data out there.
The data folks turn out to be good writers and your final paper is better for bringing them aboard. Personally, I know I often grow tired of a paper in the final stages of working with it. Having coauthors continue to raise nit-picks is annoying, but when we submit I'm much more confident that the final product is of high quality.
You learn more about collaboration/coordination/leadership. Increasingly, science is a team sport, so playing it that works in your favour.

When I go to seminars, I'm always awed by the final slides of the presentation where the speaker shows the veritable army of collaborators they've led in producing their Science Thing. Correlation isn't causation, but if you want to go around and give seminars, collaborating widely seems like it helps get you there.
Build a big tent :-)

That's what I wanted to say, but you did it better. +1

I request that if you read the rest of this answer, you upvote it, send me a check for $100, and include me as a coauthor on your next paper.
See what I did there? It wasn’t unreasonable, I merely made a request. If it had been a demand, it would be quite unreasonable on the other hand. The same goes for these authors, who merely wrote (coyly using the passive voice to distance themselves from the obviously rather silly thing they are writing) that

[…] Depending on our level of interest and how much a paper depends on the BCI plot, co-authorship might be requested.

(Emphasis added.)
So, as @Buffy says, a person can ask for a pony, coauthorship or anything else that strikes their fancy. All you would actually owe them if you use the database is the same thing you owe anyone else whose published work you make use of, which is a citation.
If you read this far, I request that you ignore my earlier request, and that you ignore these database authors’ equally illogical one.

Doesn't it make a difference that academic authorship has clear rules, such as no (co)authorship without significant intellectual contribution, and no significant intellectual contribution without (co)authorship (because otherwise the too-few authors would plagiarize)? That is very much in contrast to any request or demand you make here.

Hmmm. Sorry, but I don't have an address. But you can pick up a pony at mine if you like.

@cbeleites if I write a paper about research I did in which you did not participate from start to finish, then you have not made an intellectual contribution, significant or otherwise. So saying you reserve the right to ask me for coauthorship because I used your already-published dataset is no different than me asking you to give me coauthorship on your next paper because you had previously read my SE answer and were (obviously) very inspired by it.

I gave you the Upvote. 0.333 is a pretty good batting average.

While I do not generally disagree with Buffy's thought-through answer, I think there is another thing to consider which makes it more difficult to judge whether their demand is unreasonable or legitimate.
There is a change in perspective these days. With mounting demands for research transparency, there is increasing moral pressure for groups to publish their data.
Normally, a group might get multiple publications out of such a good-quality set of data. With the pressure to publish it, it may be that this groups tries a different model - if they can not keep the data exclusive to themselves for a longer period over which they develop their papers, they seem to try to ask for a different way of both permitting transparency and reap the benefits of having developed the data set. A citation may not be sufficient when they could have multiple publications instead, so this is the way they try to proceed to make the effort worth their time.
In addition, I am not sure what the copyright situation is. Buffy says that data are not copyrightable, however, it may be that the preparation/curation of the data still gives them a copyright. I would be very surprised if that famous (notorious) book listing random numbers (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Million-Random-Digits-Normal-Deviates/dp/0833030477 ; reading the reviews is highly recommended before buying) were not copyrighted - but then, it's just random numbers, no?
In summary, it is unusual for an author to request co-publication based on someone using their published information, but this might be an experiment in transparent science. Maybe, if they find it is not worth their time, in the future they won't publish data before they have had extracted their fill of publications from it.
As hard criterion for OP, the only thing you really have to obey is copyright law and the academic standard of citation, possibly acknowledgements. But it might be worth considering whether you might find value in contemplating their demands and - who knows - possibly finding interesting new collaborators. Of course, academic standards require that they contribute intellectually to your paper.

If you generate the data with a computer program, for example, you have copyright to the program. And curation can be sufficiently intellectual in nature that it permits copyright. It can be subtle. See https://libguides.library.kent.edu/data-management/copyright, for example. But in the instant case, the data is specifically put in to the public domain, which gives up all rights.

@Buffy Program yes, algorithm no, data, perhaps. And as for public domain, yeah, I noticed Tiger's comment. I am wondering whether to remove my reply as it does not really treat copyright as per OP's case. I guess this makes your response more pertinent for OP. My emphasis was on pointing out that the people responsible for the data might have a legit rationale to make the request, as OP thinks it is not legit in the first place.

Yes, a program can be copyrighted as it is a specific expression of an idea. Ideas themselves, including algorithms, aren't subject to copyright. But lets not get in to software patents here - ugh. But I'd suggest leaving the answer as there is a more general question that others might have and stumble in here. Unless you get unfair down votes, I guess.

Trying actively to find a situation where I'd think this request may sensible:
They may think it likely that further work with their data will lead to lots of genuine discussion about the data between you and them. I.e., to them actually contributing intellectually to your study in a manner that warrants co-authorship.
I could think of such a scenario if e.g. a machine learning group would want to try out things with data I acquire. Such a group would typically not bring much expertise in the particular data-generation/measurement processes nor in the underlying application field. In consequence, a study may genuinely benefit from added expertise in all three domains.

Is the dataset related to forest ecology? Because this is the norm there. The logic is that there is a lot of field work, which is really heavy work, which goes unappreciated with a simple citation. I've seen papers with 20 authors, because they used datasets which were authored by teams of 10+ people.
I personally do not agree with this view, but I've heard it and seen it in practice quite a bit.

I had one case of data being produced in a research center and used in my publication. The one who built the experiment and measured the data did not contribute to the paper.
I added him as a co-author because I could not have written my paper without his work. I felt that he deserved actual academic recognition for his work (his name on a paper), not only a thank you.
This despite him not having worked at all on the paper.
PS. This is usual in particle physics where the 1256 authors do not participate in the write-up of a paper, their name just lands as co-author because of "collaboration". I personally was not listing such papers in my CV.
EDIT following the comments: the data was not published elsewhere, this post is to show a case of someone producing data, not participating in the paper at all and still being listed as a co-author

There are two reasons why I don't completely agree with this view: 1. All research builds on older research. If one publishes a proof of theorem A, which relies on theorem B, the author of theorem B's proof will not be a co-author. The proof of theorem B will be cited, but that's very different from making its author a co-author.

@Ecobos: the data he provided were not published / used in another publication.

Accepting someone's request to be a co-author means accepting that they will have some say over the contents of the paper. This may result in a positive contribution (good), in no contribution at all (neutral), but there is a risk that it will hinder publication (bad). We have all heard of stories of an irresponsible senior co-author delaying publication forever without a good reason when it would be important for a postdoc to finally get the paper out, as it's important for their job search ...

That makes your case quite different from what I asked about (a public dataset, which has already been used in many publications).

@Ecobos: yes, I just wanted to add a case where someone who just provided data without other work on the paper could end up being a co-author. In my case it was my decision (and he agreed when I suggested that).

Data sets are a bit like software. Often they are regarded to be not publishable by themselves, but some scientific contribution like new insight have to be generated with the software / from the data set.
If this is not the case, the author gets a publication for this data set / software and everybody using it will cite this paper. Any further authorship would come with additional contributions to new papers.
If there is no such paper, it becomes more tricky, as the original author cannot gain scientific credit (publications, citations) with his work.

The key words here are the words "would like" and the word "might" in "might request".  The creators of the dataset would like to know how their data is being used.  If somebody uses a dataset in a way that the creator views as inappropriate, the reputation of the creator can be badly damaged.  Sometimes, they might have a valid suggestion or comment and might be able to provide you with other sources.  Other times, they may find your article useful in their research.  So it's really just members of the academic community being polite to each other.
There have been a number of cases involving global warming and vaccines where there have been complaints that their data has been misused.  No researcher likes to be attacked without warning by journalists saying "It has been claimed that your data proves that global warming doesn't exist" or "It has been claimed that your data proves that global warming exists".
With the mention about co-authorship, I think that they are referring to cases which come close to violating rules on plagiarism.  If your article is simply republishing their data without further comment, co-authorship might be appropriate.  The clause itself seems to be fairly standard "boilerplate".  In addition, communicating with the database creator and getting permission to use the data as it exists in the article may go a long way to satisfying the the publishers you are contacting about your article.  Nobody likes legal surprises.

This is going to depend on standards in your field.
In medicine, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors defines an author as someone who meets 4 criteria:
•   Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
•   Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
•   Final approval of the version to be published; AND
•   Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

And further says that anyone who meets the first criterion should be given the opportunity to meet the others.
In this case it sounds like the data provided by a 3rd party is fairly substantial. They’ve met criterion 1 - they made substantial contributions to acquiring the data on which the paper is based. Therefore they should be offered the opportunity to meet the others and become an author, and this would be expected should the paper be submitted to one of the journals which subscribes to the ICMJE rules.
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

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


text:
Pros and cons of teaching in a department with no graduate program
Currently, I work in a small regional university, in USA, and my department has no graduate program (at least no Ph.D. program).
On the one hand, I do not have to supervise graduate students, which can be stressful. On the other hand, there is little hope for academic "reproduction". What are the pros and cons for working in such a department?

On the contrary, by teaching well and inspiring undergraduates you may well end up with many folks crediting you for their career choices and success. What inspired you to get a PhD? I know my undergraduate professor who did, and still chat with them occasionally some 40 years later.

I'm not sure whether vote to close for not having enough focus, or close for depending on depending on individual factors (your preferences!)  Also, 'no graduate program' can mean an elite small liberal arts college that leads the US in percentage of undergraduate students who eventually get a PhD, or an open admissions university where, up to rounding error, no graduates are qualified to go to graduate school.

@AlexanderWoo, it is certainly a bit broad question, but it is meaningful, I think, and useful answers can be given...

If your personal focus is on research then there are a number of "cons". First, since the place is small, there is less opportunity for local collaboration. Then, both the teaching load and the expectations for what you do make any research more difficult except in a few areas. You will find external funding harder to get most likely and less opportunity to use it effectively. On the other hand, any research that you get published might give you a boost locally. A 60/20/20 balance in expectations for teaching/service/research leaves little time or energy for serious research. And even the "research" portion might be more "keeping up with the field" than it is "advancing knowledge".
If your personal focus is on teaching and living in an environment rich in ideas then there are few "cons", though the pay may be lower. I went to an undergraduate place where the graduate program was nearly invisible and non-existent in my field (math). I had a lot of teachers (not all) who were very interested in my progress, not their own. They didn't publish much, but had an excellent grasp of what an undergraduate in math needed to know and for most of them, how to impart the knowledge. They helped us get insight into the field. IIRC we were only three graduates in math in our class. All of us got doctorates from good schools. One of us returned as department head after working elsewhere for a while.
If classes are small then student/faculty interaction is natural, though not every place can make that happen.
Moreover, faculty at such places have an opportunity to interact with faculty from other disciplines, which can be a plus for a "well rounded" person. The "college" system at Cambridge, for example is another way to enable this and make it natural. After dinner "sherry" hour, for example.
There was a lot of opportunity for interaction with the faculty at such a place and most of them were more than happy to oblige. It was, in fact, a community of scholars and their mentors. So, the rewards are mostly personal at such places.
It is also possible that your institution has the objective of "moving up" in the world. You might get an opportunity to design and teach in a graduate program.
But my experience both as student and faculty was that you could have a "balanced" life. That can be worth a lot to some.

By “balance”, do you mean work/family balance? Or balance among different aspects of one’s professional life?

All of the above.

Thank you. This breakdown is really helpful.


text:
Any successful examples of funding research through crowd funding?
Has there been any successful examples of crowd funded academic research projects? (i.e., instead of grants from funding agencies)
I would restrict the scope of this question to only within academia.

Tabby's star is a variable star that used Kickstarter to crowdfund the purchase of telescope time on Las Cumbres Observatory. The observations and many others concluded the mysterious variability was caused by dust extinction around the star.

crowd.science is a crowd-funding platform for academic research which includes a host of examples of crowd-funded academic projects. Notable recent projects include the funding of LSD brain imaging at Imperial College London.


text:
Should students' nonhuman identity be taken seriously in classroom settings?
For students who identify as nonhuman animals, should the requests for nonhuman pronouns, animal names, and animal vocalizations be taken seriously in college classroom settings?
My question is not about specific school's policy (after reading all the official documents, I have a pretty good understanding of the university's policy: The decision is mainly the instructor's). My question is more about the general culture in higher education. I want to make sure my handling, if leaked to social media, will not cause me trouble finding a faculty position years from now (if I decide to move).
Admittedly, this is a very strange question that I never thought I had to deal with. I have been teaching for almost 20 years, and I have never even heard of such things. Until now.
This Summer, I'm teaching an online class in a different university through a visiting position. At the beginning of the semester, I used a Google form to collect some information from the students, including their academic background, career directions, and how they like to be addressed.
The last item is important, because class meetings are held over Zoom, and knowing how to get someone's attention is useful. This is where I get a rather unusual response.
One student stated that...

"She" identifies as a nonhuman animal. The correct pronouns should be it/it/its.
"She" also prefer to be called by "her" animal name (e.g. Dumpling) rather than "her" first name on the roster.
"She" also warned me that "she" would occasionally start sentences with animal vocalization (e.g. "meow meow") when talking, and "she" hope I'll be okay with that.

(there are few more unusual requests)
It is hard to tell if this is a prank. And I can see some danger from both sides of this decision. I don't have many friends in the department with whom I feel comfortable having honest discussions. Even if I do, I doubt they can offer any meaningful advises since this situation is new to all of us.
I'm hoping there's someone here who have dealt with such rare (but definitely not unique) situation.

In case relevant, the course in question is a senior level topic course in applied mathematics. The class is large, and the atmosphere is generally serious and professional. The university I'm teaching in (as a visiting professor) and my home university are both in the United States.

I think the crux of the question is what do you mean by "taken seriously"? Are you asking if you, internally, should respect the student? As usual for purely internal thoughts and feelings, that's up to you.  Externally, though, I suggest you ask HR to debrief you on their policy, in writing, before you go out on a limb to express the displeasure I infer from this question.

Mod's Notice: this question is about how the instructor should deal with this in a way that will not "cause trouble" to the instructor's career. Opinions about the reasonableness of the student's request, the instructor's concern, or academic culture generally are not responsive and will be removed. If you want to discuss these topics, please do so in [chat].

@RegressForward, "taken seriously" means taken seriously as a special accommodation and other request. I'm sure most instructors receive at least a few accommodation requests each semester. Most will be considered seriously. Some will not. And there is a spectrum. The question is where does this one falls. It has nothing to do with anyone's internal feelings. I can change the question to emphasize that, if it wasn't clear. It is also not about HR's policy, as stated in the second sentence.

@RegressForward, Did I express displeasure in this question? I post this question because this is very unusual. I don't think I expressed any personal feeling in either direction. If I did, I will change that as those are irrelevant.

@Bilbo, I think you're fine in the way you expressed it... People are nervous about such things, so will react unpredictably.

I think this question would be improved by replacing "she" with the student. Same with "her" but to the student's. That will decrease any appearance of displeasure in the question.

I think this question would be improved by explaining what it actually means for a person to "identify as" a nonhuman animal. Does it mean believing oneself to be nonhuman, or knowing oneself to be human but wanting to be treated in a certain way (using the pronoun it instead of she, treating any animal sounds as normal, etc.), or something else? If we don't know what it means, we can't answer the question.

@Bilbo Not to sound accusatory, but doubt is implied by the question. If OP were intending to give complete compliance to the student's request, there would be nothing to ask about. So I read this as asking for leeway to not comply with part or all of the request.

@RegressForward, I see. Doubt is not only implied, but also assumed. I was writing under the assumption that no one here would actually believe this student is not human or believe that she truly believes that. Maybe my assumption is wrong. But I tried to keep any personal feeling out of this question as to not be distracting. And your reading of my intention is, of course, correct: I have no intention to comply without seeing some good reasons.

@toby544, Well, no one can get into the head of this student, but she certainly did not manage to get into advanced math classes by hunting rats and taking nap all day. The fact that she must have lived as a human being is not really in question, is it?

@Bilbo But what does she mean by that phrase, and what do you mean by it?

@RegressForward One can hesitate to comply without doubting the student. A professor referring to a student by "it", and a student make odd animalistic noises in class can both create a very uncomfortable atmosphere for everyone present.

You're really asking two very different questions in the first two paragraphs, namely: what is the ethical way to handle this, and how to minimize any risk of career damage.
These questions are clearly in conflict. Your first duty as an educator is towards your students, therefore basing your actions on what is best for your career rather than what is best for this student and for the rest of your class would be unethical (in more or less the same way it would be unethical for you to treat a student who is known for making complaints about instructors more leniently just because you would prefer to avoid having to deal with their complaints). Now, one could have some sympathy for your career concerns, but taking them into account is unethical. I will therefore focus on the ethical part of the question.
Looking at the student's requests, let's be real – there is, for all practical intents and purposes, no psychological condition which makes people involuntarily produce meowing sounds. (If there is and the student suffers from it, the student needs to ask the appropriate office at your university for an accommodation, rather than asking you directly.) This behavior is a consciously cultivated personal affectation which no-one has any obligation to indulge. Indeed, to the extent that it is distracting to other students, you have the obligation not to indulge it. One can contrast this with Tourette's, which might also lead to distracting vocalizations but which is an actual existing condition beyond the person's immediate control.
What is in the student's best interest? It's in their best interest to be treated as an adult capable of participating in a university course for adults rather than a child who would undergo some grievous psychological harm if others don't go along with their fantasy identity. Let them know that you know that they are capable of behaving like an adult human, and that university courses are a place for adult humans and not cats (whether fantasy cats or real cats). To not treat them as a competent adult is to disrespect them, contrary to what the student might claim or believe.
If you can teach them the lesson that respecting a person does not oblige anyone to go along with their made up identity, and indeed in some cases obliges other people not to go along with their made up identity, this will probably be the most valuable thing they will learn in your course. This would be an especially valuable lesson given that probably the message they are getting in other places is that a reasonable person will at least try to accommodate their pronoun request (or tie themselves into knots trying to decide what to do). In my view, not respecting their "cat pronouns" is part and parcel of not respecting the rest of their made up cat identity.
It is not exactly the same thing, but it is somewhat similar to handling a narcissist – a narcissist does undergo narcissistic injury when they are not seen the way they wish to be seen (as extremely competent, compassionate, smart, etc.) and this is unpleasant for them, but one does them no favors by trying to avoid any narcisstic injury. It is in their best interest for other people not to go along with their narcissistic fantasies. Sometimes the easiest way to effect actual psychological harm is to put undue efforts into avoiding any kind of perceived psychological harm or discomfort or conflict.
It's perfectly reasonable to say to the student: "you are not a cat and I will not treat you as a cat".
What is in their classmates' best interest? Not to be distracted by a person cosplaying as a cat while they are trying to get an education.
What is in society's best interest? For instructors not to have to ponder such questions under fear of adverse career consequences. If you want to live in a society where people have the obligation to bend over backwards to accommodate someone's made up cat identity, then by all means contribute to that society by your actions. If you want to live in a society where such requests are not given serious consideration, again, by all means contribute to that society by your actions.
What is in your career interest? There is no serious push for animal identities to be respected, so you're going to be fine.
Avoid a comparison with trans issues. Of course, while this is a wise move career-wise, it is only ethical to do in case you actually believe this.
As a final remark, since you say that you "can see some danger from both sides of this decision", perhaps it is best to be judged on actions that are in line with your own ethical beliefs rather than on actions that do not align with your own ethical beliefs?

"What is in their classmates' best interest? Not to be distracted by a person cosplaying as a cat while they are trying to get an education."  This is the same nonsense as claiming short skirts/shorts should be banned because they are distracting.  If the class is boring, students will be distracted.  If it is interesting, they will not be distracted.  Distraction is too easy to do to be increased by a cosplayer.  Distraction is literally the default behavior for humans.

"there is, for all practical intents and purposes, no psychological condition which makes people involuntarily produce meowing sounds" Tourette's syndrome can cause people with it to produce a wide variety of tics. Meowing noises are certainly possible.

"She" identifies as a nonhuman animal. The correct pronouns should be it/it/its.

Fine.  Address people by their name or preferred pronoun.  No problems there.

"She" also prefer to be called by "her" animal name (e.g. Dumpling) rather than "her" first name on the roster.

If a student named "Richard" asked to be addressed as "Dick," that would be fine.  "Dumpling" is no different.

"She" also warned me that "she" would occasionally start sentences with animal vocalization (e.g. "meow meow") when talking, and "she" hope I'll be okay with that.

If a student wanted to speak Japanese in class, I would just mention that Academic English is the language of instruction for the course and all students are expected to use English to participate.  I would treat this the same way.  I would overlook an occasional sound that is not English.

For what it's worth, satirical hoaxes have been floating around lately about these topics in education outside the university level, for example:
https://apnews.com/article/Fact-Check-Fake-Indiana-School-Email-109748870442
https://www.wsaw.com/2022/04/06/wisconsin-school-district-does-not-have-furry-protocol/
At times, these have been initially incorrectly reported as true. While I am not certain if any intent has been definitively ascribed to these hoaxes, many commenters have responded as if this was a real, predictable next step after policies supporting transgender and nonbinary students, and used this as an opportunity to ridicule trans kids.
While there certainly are communities (primarily online) of people who take on a non-human identity within that community (whether animals like cats or humanoid fantasy creatures like elves), I am not aware that membership in these communities has been taken as serious expression of identity distinct from other fetishes or cosplay anywhere in the psychiatric/psychology/medical literature.
In contrast, there is a lot of supporting research around gender dysphoria and  gender identities that differ from the identity assigned at birth: these are real phenomenon with real consequences, and affirming gender identity in the classroom is the best known response for educators.
I agree, it's hard to know whether this is a prank or intended as serious. I would recommend getting advice from a superior (for example, your department chair) and/or a university office that ordinarily handles complaints and policy regarding similar issues; this may be an office that handles disability accommodations, diversity, and/or mental health, a title IX office in the US, etc.

I think your assumption

The last item is important, because class meetings are held over Zoom,
and knowing how to get someone's attention is useful.

is wrong.
Why should you address personally someone in a Zoom setting?
I would suggest avoiding addressing students directly. You can always refer to any of them with a neutral "Dear student" (lucky you, english language is devoid of genders for articles).
"Dear student that wants to ask a question"
"Dear student that is sleeping"
"Dear student that just had the cat passing in front of the webcam"
At the oral exam:
"Dear student, please demonstrate that [...]"
Discussing laboratory team-work:
"Dear students, please [...]"
I actually do not see why you should refer to them personally. If you will build up a personal relation with some student, you will then find a moment to ask them directly how to address them, or you will read the signature they use in their mail/sms/whatever written mean of comunication you will use if you have a personal relation with someone.
But I think that in a classroom setting it would be better to keep some distance.

My only contribution is to reach out to the student’s academic advisor to see if it’s come up before. You might tell the student that you would rather they not meow, because you don’t consider such vocalisations appropriate in the university classroom. If the student puts Dumpling on their Zoom moniker I would use it.


text:
How to give credit to short term undergraduate research assistants?
My field is applied mathematics, and I regularly hire short term undergraduate students as research assistants
to work on various projects.
Most students, for a variety of reasons,
cannot make any substantial contributions,
yet most of them end up making a tiny but nonzero amount of contribution.
Since the main subject is mathematics,
it is usually difficult to quantify/describe the contributions.
E.g., a student notice some patterns in some numerical simulation,
which, years later, leads to a theorem.
Or a student run some numerical computations,
and eliminated some hypothesis.
What is the standard way of giving credit to such student making epsilon amount of contributions?

Reward epsilon contributions with a delta amount of money?  Or maybe the reverse? :)

If students contribute but do not meet the authorship criteria for your field of research, acknowledge their contributions in your paper.


text:
How to manage academia life?
I am from a mathematical background yet I feel this question is more suited to Academia SA rather than MO. Even though what follows is obviously opinion-based and taste-dependent, I believe most of the organizational problems and choices in time management are common to us all.
The one-line question is in the title:

How to manage all the different aspects of an academic life?

Let me be more precise. Once in the academic world, with one's PhD degree and some position to continue in this path, there are many different aspects we have to deal with, for instance:

research (i.e. ultimately publish papers)
community (i.e. give talks, attend conferences, reviewing, etc.)
learning (extending the grasp on the related fields, changing interests, etc.)
administration (also including applications)
teaching

None of these is unrelated to the others, and most are highly time-consuming. It is then important to be able to prioritize them in some sense, without having some of these aspects fade behind the apparent urge or importance of the others (for instance, keeping going on long-term reading/studying projects of fields quite new seem to me to be a hard task when the schedule is already full of teaching and current research projects). Is there any other axis on which to classify and choose activities depending on the time available or the mood, for instance :

short/long tasks
strong/weak focus
technical/meta type
mastered/new content

Also, many research projects and ideas can accumulate, as well as social tasks (like reviewing), so it is necessary to know when to stop and when to begin again with new project. So in a more managerial aspect, questions can be:

what is a day/week made of?
how to keep track of all these aspects
how to keep a certain balance

Of course comments and critics are welcome on the choices of points I have listed above, and could help clarify other dimensions I have not taken into account.

Days & weeks are made of hours and minutes...

Sorry, but I fear this question isn't very suitable for the Q&A format, because it's too broad. The thread will only degrade into a long list of opinions and tips about work organization (e.g. read emails only once a day), planning (use Gantt charts and GTD), and productivity (do clerical work in the late afternoon). However, you will find lots of information on these and other specific subtopics already on the site. Try the search and tags.

@Solar Mike snarky comments are funny, but helpful answers are helpful.

@henning it precisely answered the first bullet point... But given that the question was so broad and more relevant to daily life then perhaps I should have just voted to close or ignored it...


text:
What to do with authors who ignore all the criticisms and suggestions from reviewers?
In reviewing a paper in analysis (mathematics), I provided a detailed review report that I feel was not too harsh (at least well within the realm of reasonable).
Today, the authors came back with a revision that, in my opinion, failed to address all the major criticisms I raised and ignored most of my suggestions. They included a detailed letter that contains item-by-item response to my points. Most of the responses are along the line of

We acknowledge the point raised by this reviewer, but we decide to not address it at all in this revision.

(I'm paraphrasing, of course. But that's the gist) There is no rebuttal nor any change. As a reviewer, it seems pointless to repeat the same points again. It will just be a waste of time for everyone.
How should a reviewer respond in this situation? Will it be reasonable to decline review invitation?

Note: Of course, I'm not assuming I, the reviewer, am 100% correct in every point. But the correctness is not the main issue here.

Devil's advocate: every author knows that their paper is not perfect, but they will act like it is, at submission. Therefore if the reviewers are doing a review to improve the paper, well said reveiwers are wasting thier time :D ... the paper is already in its possible best form!
Reviewers are there to find what is wrong in a paper, not what can be better.

Related: Is it reasonable for authors and editor to ignore review comments without explanation?

Are you saying they ignored suggestions or major criticisms? In math, I would interpret major criticisms as serious flaws in the paper prohibiting publication (errors/gaps in proofs, severely deficient exposition, ...).

@Kimball, Yes, gaps in proofs (not necessarily errors) and what I consider rather series deficiency in exploring key ideas. For the journal in question, those should be disqualifying issues. So, certainly not minor in my view.

@EarlGrey: Not true. I have had reviews which improved my papers. I don't think I am alone as I often come across acknowledgements "to the unknown referee for the suggestions".

@GiuseppeNegro sure, it happened to me as well, but it is fully in the realm of "reviewer working way too much for free".
That's why I said "Devil's advocate": reviewers are not supposed to improve a paper, although they do and we are always immensely thankful for some objective commentaries and feedbacks.

@EarlGray: Right. Now I get your point and I agree. Actually, this is exactly why I find the behaviourof the author described in this post as quite impolite. A referee did extra work to improve their paper. Maybe the author disagrees with the suggestions. OK, it may happen, but the author should at least acknowledge the referee's work with a thoughtful reply: "we disagree with the suggestion because of this and that", motivating the answer. This is polite.

Actually, they haven't ignored your remarks, but have decided not to address them. There are reasons both for why this might be reasonable and why not. One possible reason is that they believe that the suggested changes are beyond the scope of this paper as they envision it. They remain the authors.
But if you think the paper is flawed without the changes you can say that in the new report. If you think it is fatally flawed you can recommend rejection. Any of that is appropriate. And, yes, you can decline to review again.
It will be up to the editor to make decisions here. The editor probably has other reports and will need to eventually come to a decision with available advice.

While they haven’t technically ignored the remarks, for the purpose of the review it’s almost equivalent. Nothing happened and you have almost no idea why. The main difference is that it’s a little less impolite and you can exclude that it was accidental.

If the "changes are beyond the scope of this paper", this can be part of the replay to the reviewer, and sometimes it should also be mentioned in the paper itself. e.g. "Investigating foogle would be a more complete study of lampflow, but that is beyond the scope of this text."

If they have decided not to address the points, why are they bothering the reviewer with another round of review? That's the question.

I had a very similar situation recently. I had, in my review, recommended including some additional experimental comparison to competing approaches, and questioned how one of the datasets was used in a different experiment. The editor, in summarising the reviews to the authors, had also recommended strengthening the experimental section by including, in some form, the comparisons I have suggested.
The paper came back after revision virtually unchanged, with the rebuttal stating that they do not think an exhaustive comparison to other approaches is needed, and providing some reasoning for using a dataset in a non-standard way.
I reviewed the paper as it was at that point, assuming no further changes will be made. This meant that I did not give the same recommendations twice (include X, change Y), but rather pointed out to the flaws in the paper caused by omitting X and Y, explained how I disagreed with the few justifications provided by the authors in the rebuttal, and explained why I think the paper is not fit for publication with these gaps. I concluded by recommending rejection.
I also sent a private response to the editor (as the system allowed it), to clarify that I have not re-made any previous suggestion that was explicitly refused by the authors, and am instead offering a review of the paper as-it.

+1 I think this is the reasonable approach here.

I advise against declining the review. Good reviews are hard to get and cost a lot of time and effort. The editor wants to know what you specifically think of the revision. You can tell the editor what you think with very little effort. A new reviewer would have to start from scratch.
I would also focus more on your interaction with the editor rather than authors, at this point.
Similar to EarlGrey, I would think about how these points impact your final assessment of the paper. While it's frustrating if authors don't take constructive feedback, ultimately the decision will be whether to accept and what revisions to require. And the editor is relying on you to make recommendations. So if you think the paper is fatally flawed without these fixes, you can say that. Or if you think the paper is publishable but weak, or unpublishable.

You’re overthinking this. There is no logical (as opposed to emotional) reason to decline the review, and given that you undertook to serve as the reviewer for the paper, it would be a bit irresponsible to refuse to see the process to the end.
If you think the paper should not be published in its present form, recommend rejection, and explain why. That’s all that is required of you after the detailed feedback you’ve provided. Your job is not to argue with authors, nor to write their papers for them.

a detailed review report that I feel was not too harsh

it sounds like the cost-benefit of addressing the points you raised was negligible: if the report was not harsh, probably the authors read it as "the reviewer is suggesting nice things to be addressed, if only we had infinite time and resources ..."
Similar to the rain: you can walk and ignore it if it not too harsh, just addressing it by "I will get a bit wet, but I keep on walking" ... you would act differently if it was a harsh thunderstorm.

I see two options here:

Briefly review the paper once more, noting in a clear way that the author did not fix most of the suggestions. Without giving a clear recommendation to accept or reject.

Briefly review the paper again, but indicate in a clear way that you recommend rejecting the paper due to it being not up to publication standard in the current state.

In general, I would lean towards the second option, because authors completely rejecting each and every suggestion of the review without any explanation on the reason they rejected it cannot be considered in general as participating in the peer review process in good faith. If you reject the majority of comments given, then you'd better explain what went wrong (if only to pay respect to the reviewer).

I had a similar dilemma doing a recent review of mine (see my answer), and was considering sending in my feedback without including a decision recommendation. I then realised that the journal had contacted me specifically for my opinion when asking me to review (while the editor, and not me, has the specific duty of making a decision). I concluded that it would be rude to not provide what I had explicitly agreed to give -- my opinion (and decision recommendation) -- which the editor is then under no obligation to follow (if, for example, they consider my standards too high for their journal).

Many journals explicitly require point-by-point responses nowadays.
I recommend to check whether the journal is question is one of them.
If yes, it might even be that this is the only reason these responses were included at all – and thus are just a disrespectful and annoying way to cheat around this policy.
In particular if this applies but also otherwise, it may help to treat your situation very similar (but not identical) to the manuscript’s authors ignoring your comments completely, i.e., no change or reply.
For the practical purpose of furthering a decision on the manuscript, this is no different:
Nothing was improved and no arguments were provided.
There are some nuances in politeness and ascertaining that your points were not accidentally missed, but those should not affect your recommendation anyway.
This point of view makes your decision clearer.
If the authors had completely ignored every point in question, would …:

… you think that the editor wasted your time by sending you such a non-response?
If yes, decline the review with this argument.
Also consider not reviewing for the journal/editor altogether for some time.
Here you have to take into account how obvious it is for the editor that the authors non-replied to many points.
For an extreme example, I once had similar non-responses as a reviewer, but they were disguised by a page (!) of pointless waffling, such as a summary of the manuscript.
I recommended to reject (and the editor agreed), but I don’t hold it against the editor that they didn’t spot this.

… reviewing whatever changes there are in the manuscript be a waste of your time?
This applies for example if you would recommend to reject anyway, because a critical point of yours wasn’t addressed.
If yes, decline to review with this argument, but offer to review the revision and response once it is done properly (if the editor would give the authors the chance).
Mind that this is not very different from a very negative review.
The main difference is that you do not bother to look at whatever changes were made.

… you feel neither of the above: Review as it is, and state that all your previous criticism still applies and you do not consider it addressed.

It makes no sense to ignore the recommendations of a review, but then initiate another round of review to the same reviewer.
Is it not possible to communicate something along the following lines?

I acknowledge your decision not to act on the recommendations in my last review. My previous review round was thorough and I have no new recommendations. I wish you the best of luck with the paper!


text:
How should a renewal NSF proposal be prepared differently?
What NSF's guideline (PAPPG) says about (traditional) renewal proposals is that they...

...must be developed as fully as though the proposer is applying for the first time.

Should there some special consideration for renewal proposals?

What special consideration might there be other than following that guideline? Of course the renewal proposal will refer to the original and to what came out of it.

Unlike NIH, NSF does not consider projects "renewable". You have to propose a new project. This new project may of course be based on a previous one, but the issue is that NSF does not treat such proposals any differently than de novo submissions.


text:
How to deal with inappropriate hiring instructions that are only given verbally?
Suppose I am chairing a hiring committee for a faculty position
in a north American university,
and suppose the administration have some verbal instructions on how the search should be conducted that are highly inappropriate (even borderline illegal).
Just as an unrealistic example,
suppose the provost says that
"You can certainly interview left-handed people,
but we won't seriously consider hiring them in the near future...".
What would be the best way to establish a paper trail?
I'm asking from a tenured professor's point of view,
although I doubt it makes a huge difference nowadays.

Could you clarify what you mean by a "paper trail?" Do you mean making your superiors put their instructions in writing? Given what you wrote, it is very unlikely that they would agree to do so. Do you mean documenting your own decision-making process? Something else? You are in a difficult situation here...

@MoisheKohan the paper trail could also be digital as long as there is evidence. I also don't think they will do this. They are clever to do these instructions only verbally. I advise OP to check if he is in a one-party consent state for recording, and if so, record those instructions. I don't know if you can record this in a two-party consent state, but I assume that illegal behaviour could be recorded for evidence in court.

@MoisheKohan, by "paper trail" I just mean some collection of evidence, physical or digital, that will be useful in my own defense, if that time ever comes.

@RemziCavdar, I live in a one-party consent state. So recording is a viable option. But outside court, how useful are voice recordings?

What is it you're concerned about that you want to establish a paper trail? I'm unclear what your goal is -- save your own back in case someone sues you, or actively work to end someone else's career?

@Bilbo Recordings are always useful in court and even to show to your employer that you have a case. HR will definitely be worried then

One way to deal with people who refuse to put things in writing, is to write to them with the thing they said, so you put it in writing instead.  This is a form of documenting the situation at the time it happens.  Thus if you don't bring this forward for 4 years, they say, did you do anything at the time, and yes you did.  You can document it back to the person immediately, and potentially in time (months) to a higher official, with the record that you made the complaint to the individual at the time and nothing happened. I used this method to successfully fire someone who was not performing.

I think it matters what role the administrator is in.  Hypothetically, if it were the Provost, I might discuss it with first my chair and then the person in HR who does the training of search committees or who does the data collection about applicants.  But what you really want is for an equal or higher ranking person to tell the one who said it that they were out of line.

I don't see how the given example constitutes instructions. He indicated that certain recommendation of the hiring committee will not be followed, but that does not change the committee's duties, which is to recommend the most qualified candidate according to the written and published criteria.

@Elin In my University, the Provost is basically the highest ranking person for all practical purpose. The head of HR can basically considered as another body part of the Provost.

@Kostya_I, If we really want to interpret this so narrowly... Sure! But the implication is pretty clear. So it is instruction.

Okay so in the US you should have a Title IX office, I would speak to that person just to get on the record.  But I would go ahead and run the search the way you want and if the Provost or whoever is the authority says no on the basis of what you are saying, then make a fuss.

@Bilbo, from moral (and possibly legal) point of view, there's a ton of difference. As it stands, if you decide to leave left-handed out of the search, it will be your decision for which you are fully responsible. If you don't, it may piss the provost off but you will not have disobeyed any instructions, so there's no ground for disciplinary action against you.

@Kostya_I, I wish everything operates based on explicit logic. In my university, 99% of things happen implicitly.

For the record: I am a full professor at a large public university in the US. Also, I am not a lawyer (I am a mathematician).
Here are some thoughts about your situation, which I find difficult. Let me start with a story told to me by a colleague (the story is from about 30 years ago but still relevant). The Chair of the math department where my colleague was working at the time asked the Dean if the department can have a faculty hire in that academic year. The Dean replied "Yes, if you are going to hire a black female statistician." [In a way, this is similar to the situation you are in.] After a brief deliberation, the department (which is highly ranked, let's just say that it was and still is among top-20 math departments in the US) has decided not to have a faculty job search that year. (My colleague has left that department next year.) I believe this was the right decision. (Eventually, the department started to hire faculty again and the administration has backtracked on its draconian micromanaging of the hiring process.)
If I were a Chair of a department or a member of a hiring committee, I would rather have a failed search (or searches) than to accept administration's position "not to hire left-handed people." I would also conduct a fair job search and if the administration refuses to make offers to the candidates chosen by my department, so be it.
I would also have a conversation on the hiring matter with the provost in presence of more than one faculty member. Regardless of the law in your state, I would not feel good about recording the conversation unless the provost agrees on this (and I very much doubt your provost would agree). However, I would have an email exchange with the present faculty members after the conversation with the provost, confirming what was said in great detail. If it comes to legal proceedings (I hope, for your sake, it does not), such a record will be admissible in a court of law (as far as I know). At the same time, I would strongly advise against any of the options suggested by Remzi in the bottom 4 bullet points in his answer; however, I agree with his suggestions in the bullet points 1-3. I have some experience of dealing with university bureaucracy and legal system (I will not elaborate here) and even if you win, you will end up loosing several years of your life to this battle. And chances of winning are slim, the deck is stacked against you. I know, it is sad and disheartening, but this is what I know from experience and discussions with a professional lawyer (not affiliated with my university). One more thing: In general, the US legal system is very reluctant to deal with cases involving academic hiring and retention.

I think that your colleagues misunderstood an administrator saying "no." That is, they might as well have said "sure if you hire a unicorn." Or "sure, if it is someone who comes with an endowment to pay for their position."   That is, it was not a suggestion that you would literally go out and do that search.  That said, if you happen to have an "opportunity hire" who would have been transformative in your department, maybe they would think about it.

@Elin: I have 20 years of experience working in the same system my colleague was in. They understood everything correctly.

This (the answer, I mean) is (at least to me) exceedingly (or maybe that's too formal, perhaps "very" would read better) difficult (do you remember that poem in Matilda about how to spell "difficult"?) to (we're almost done!) read.

@AdamBarnes: I have to admit that I have never read any of the "Matilda" books. I guess, I can deduce from your comment that we have very different notions of what "difficult" texts are. But more to the point: Is there anything in my answer that you find to be unclear?

At last, this is the approach I followed, but I lacked the courage to confront this nonsense. However, I found some fellow cowards, and together we passively messed up, leading to a failed search. It wasn't the best outcome, but it was better than the alternative.

The question of how to deal with the situation is quite different from the question of how best to establish a paper trail.
About how to establish a paper trail:

Write an account of the meeting in which the illegal instructions were given. Sign and date it. Include as many relevant details as you can remember, and do this as close to the date when the meeting happened as possible. In your account, prefer verbatim quotes to paraphrased statements, and prefer factual, objective statements to subjective descriptions of how you felt about what was happening or speculation about the person's intent in saying what they said.

Keep the document in a safe place for possible future use.

Keep a digital scan of the document in a secure digital storage in case the physical original is lost.

Show the document to at least one (or better yet, several) other people whom you trust. Do this as close to the time of writing as possible.

If other people witnessed the illegal behavior, show them (or at least some of those among them whom you trust) what you wrote, and ask them to confirm that what you wrote is an accurate description of what happened. Get this confirmation in writing or in documented electronic format (e.g., email) if possible. If any of them are agreeable to it, ask them to write their own accounts of the meeting.

If you follow these instructions, you will have a reasonably credible account that will be difficult to refute. Although people can and do occasionally deny saying things that they said when there is no audio recording (or sometimes even when there is!), in a situation in which some time after the events in question occurred you make an accusation of improper behavior, having a written, dated, and (ideally) corroborated account of what you witnessed would make any such denial appear quite lacking in credibility.
About how to deal with the situation:
I don't know. That's a tough one! Sadly this type of behavior is quite common in academia, at least in the United States. I have seen it myself (usually with savvy administrators who know better than to say "we don't hire X" but employ more ambiguous language that says effectively the same thing and skirts the boundaries of what crosses into illegal behavior), and heard many stories from colleagues of similar things.
If you decide to fight this type of discrimination, good on you, and I sincerely hope that you will prevail; but one cannot pretend that success is guaranteed, that it will be an easy battle, or that you will not suffer any negative consequences, even if you do end up prevailing, and even if you are tenured professor. Good luck in any case!

All this depends upon how far you're willing to stick your neck out.  To some extent, this also depends on who gave you the instructions.
Certainly, if you've been asked to do something that you find to be  seriously ethically or legally compromising, you shouldn't do it.  There are a variety of ways to approach not doing it.  You can go to your Chair, and say "I'm not comfortable with the search guidelines this committee is being tasked with, and I'd rather not participate in this search".
You can up the ante, and write an email that includes your Chair and the person providing your guidelines, asking for clarification.  This email should include your understanding of the guidelines you've been given.  Now, the verbal instructions are in writing!  If you want to up the ante a little bit more, you can point out which instructions may not conform to the law.  This can certainly tick people off, but it also might give you whistleblower status.
As a word of caution -- I'm not a lawyer. If I personally were going to make a stink over this, I'd consult an employment attorney first, and I 100% recommend that you do the same (and try to find one with education experience).  A lawyer will be able to tell you whether the guidelines you were given were legal, and whether the University can legally retaliate for any action you might take.

"...if you've been asked to do something that you find to be seriously ethically or legally compromising, you shouldn't do it." While I think this is the ideal we should aim for, there's got be more practical ways to deal with unethical administrations, right? Plus, the administration couldn't care less about my refusal to work. There are plenty of people who would happily following the order.

@Bilbo -- refusing to do it isn't meant to fix a problem, or serve as a protest.  It's meant to prevent someone from doing something that they feel is ethically compromising, which can be important in and of itself.  This is a simple baseline -- elevate from there as you see fit.

I suppose "playing dumb" could be an option.
Write an email saying something like

I wasn't feeling well when we talked, and was having trouble concentrating on everything that was said.  Could you please recap the hiring criteria for me?

This gives them the chance to recant what they said before, and gives you a chance either to have the questionable criteria rescinded, or to have them put in writing, which would give you a much stronger case either to refuse or to complain to whatever powers-that-be would be in control of such things.

You don't have to play dumb, just write a summary of how you understood the discussion, and ask if that is correct.

And what are you going to do when the response is: "sure, we can meet on Friday at 2pm to go over the matter again"?

This is a very naive suggestion. First of all, advising someone to tell a superior that they were having trouble concentrating in a meeting with the superior is very bad workplace advice, no matter the situation. Don't play dumb with an administrator!!! Second, the administrator doesn't need to either recant or confirm in writing what they said, they know full well that OP heard it and understands it. They will simply write back with something unhelpful such as "Please talk to your fellow hiring committee members who attended the meeting, I am sure they will be happy to refresh your memory."

While playing dumb could be a tactic in certain situations, in this situation it wouldn't work as others have pointed out. That person could say ask your fellow committee members who were also there during the meeting or that person could reply with let's have a meeting.


text:
Should a conjecture's author be notified before a disproof is posted?
The field is mathematics (functional analysis). As we get ready to post a paper on arxive, we realized that one of the results here disproves a conjecture proposed in another paper.
Assuming the author of that conjecture is still around, is it good practice to communicate with the author first before we post our paper?
Conversely, would it be impolite/rude to post our paper without notifying the conjecture's author?

The Golden rule is a good starting point for these sorts of question.  If it were your conjecture, would you want the author to notify you?  If you would, you probably should notify them.

Is there any possibility that your disproof is wrong and the conjecture is actually true?  If so, you could get some very useful feedback from the previous author.

@David , Good point.  That's a very real possibility.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to be notified and to see an early copy of your work. Among other things it might save me some work and would put my mind to rest in any case.
Assuming you cite the other author then it would be polite to notify them so that it isn't a surprise when your work appears.
You did cite them, I hope.

Note that sometimes such things happen when the new author doesn't know about the earlier work so it isn't always possible to notify the original author. But since you noticed, yes, let them know.

+1 I agree - although I don't think it's imperative to inform them before uploading the paper. Informing them right when the preprint becomes available on arXiv would also be fine, I'd say.

I wish I had been notified, several times, for proofs and disproofs of conjectures I made/

@EthanBolker I hope these proofs and disproofs weren't all of the same conjecture, but if so, then I think we all wish to be notified :-)

@Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda Several conjectures, some proved, some disproved.

@EthanBolker Plot twist: Carl-Fredrik is an alias of Alan Turing :)

If you were claiming that someone had made a mistake in their paper (in mathematics), then in that situation you should notify them beforehand and give them a chance to rebut your claim.  (Keep in mind one of the possibilities would be that the claims in your paper are correct but you didn't understand the claims in their paper.)  However, a refuted conjecture isn't a mistake, because a conjecture isn't a claim at all, only an informed guess (or, in some cases, a provocative way to ask a question).  Hence, you aren't under some obligation to inform them before making the paper public.  You certainly can if you want, and they could have some further information, for example further context for the conjecture, that would help you produce a better paper.
However, if you're asking about notifying them roughly simultaneously with putting it on the ArXiv, I don't see why you're asking.  Mathematicians have a hard enough time getting anyone to read their papers as it is; by some measures of what it means to 'read', the median paper is probably read by fewer than one person not including authors and referees.  The person who proposed this conjecture is naturally someone who is likely to be interested in your paper, and of course it is to your advantage if they know about it.  If this is a well-connected senior mathematician who organizes conferences and workshops and might help you publicize your work further, even better.  Without being obnoxious about it (and letting someone know that you have resolved their conjecture is definitely not obnoxious), you want to publicize your work to interested parties as much as possible.
Also, this person is a likely referee for your paper, and it will speed the process along if they happen to have already read your preprint prior to being asked to referee!

It's not a mistake. The earlier paper said "X might be Y (or not), we don't know". OP has found that X is not Y. Proving or disproving conjectures is a typical (and quite high-profile) mathematical research.

@OlegLobachev: This answer agrees with you. (See the bit starting from "However, a refuted conjecture isn't a mistake".)

I like the idea of "a provocative way to ask a question"!

Yes, you should notify the author of the conjecture that you believe yourself to have rebutted.
In addition to the other reasons given, that other author, being human, will have some emotional investment in the conjecture, and thus will be motivated to give your rebuttal the highest level of scrutiny.
After all, it may be that you are the one in error and the other author's reasoning is in fact quite sound, and if this is indeed the case it is best for everybody involved to expose the error as soon as possible, wherever that error may be.


text:
Post-PhD thesis submission, burnout and leaving academia - how to cope?
I submitted my PhD thesis a couple of months ago and am in the weird place between submission and waiting for the viva. The last 4 years have been hard, and I can no longer face the idea of staying in academia, research, and i'm even fatigued of my subject area (psychology). I've taken up a temp placement in a completely different area since i have no idea what I want anymore but need money and industry experience. It feels very weird to be doing something unrelated psychology, i'm having to learn a new subject area from scratch. I'm still feeling the burnout of the past 4 years and am still coming to terms with the fact i've completely lost all motivation for the goals I pursued the PhD for in the first place, and feeling like there was little point in giving all of that energy towards something I no longer want. I'm tired, confused, sad, struggling to come to terms with figuring out a new path and am dreading preparing for the viva etc as I am so done with it all (but of course i've come too far to give up now). I'm also struggling with knowing my worth within an industry setting because all of the high pay grades they say you can expect post-PhD only make sense to me if I was going into a post that i'm specifically qualified for (e.g., post doc research). I couldn't feel confident applying for a high-paying role which isn't what the PhD trained me for. I've spent 7-8 years studying psychology and learning how to be a researcher, I'm now put off going for any further long-term training because what if I end up deciding its not for me again?
How do people cope with that feeling of 'what now?' after deciding to leave everything you've been working towards? I've heard/read that most people who leave academia/research end up much happier in the long run, but how to cope with the here and now burn out, lack of motivation and the sense of losing one's identity (at least in terms of what you felt you thought you were 'meant' to do), as well as a sense of feeling like there is little reward at the end of the struggle. I guess i'm just feeling a bit lost and wondering what other people's experiences are. Thanks.

Burnout is pretty natural at your stage. So is Imposter Syndrome. I was "lucky" enough to go through my burnout stage earlier. Some other folks helped pull me through.

Oh Christ, not imposter syndrome again; can we have one thread where we don't bring that up.  (It's not even the issue here.)

How do people cope with that feeling of 'what now?' after deciding to leave everything you've been working towards?

Take some time off after graduation.  Finishing a PhD is a lot like completing a marathon.  You're drained, and need to rest - and that's ok.  Things seem really bad right now, but you've still got really great options even if you don't continue researching.

but how to cope with the here and now burn out, lack of motivation and the sense of losing one's identity (at least in terms of what you felt you thought you were 'meant' to do)

You don't have to plan out the rest of your life now.  In fact, you probably shouldn't.  Use this time to explore hobbies you may have ignored during school.  Many people who pursue PhDs are very goal oriented - I'm guessing this applies to you.  You've got plenty of time to figure out your next goal.

I'm tired, confused, sad, struggling to come to terms with figuring
out a new path and am dreading preparing for the viva etc as I am so
done with it all (but of course i've come too far to give up now

You're right - stay the course.  Do whatever it takes to cross the finish line which is VERY close.  I've know other PhD students with your sentiment - they were done, but too close to the end not to see it through.  They are all happy successful people now.
Finally, most universities offer some level of therapy for students.  If nothing else, a therapist will be a neutral 3rd party, which I think would be beneficial.

While the question is specific to your pursuit of a PhD, if you just think a bit, it is no different from choices all people make. Someone took up medicine and it did not work out after eight years. Another built himself as a retail professional only to see covid and on-line retail killing any passion that could exist in a quota-focused role.
In essence it's all about learning (maybe) and moving on. The world has never been a place of greater opportunity, and making a decent living is not terribly hard.
As I've heard said - most of us are standing with one leg in the past (regret) and one leg on the future (anxiety) and pissing on the present.
Let the past go and embrace your choices you make now. And yes, these too can turn our 'wrong' - make other choices.


text:
Acronyms and glossary
I have to add both an acronym list and a glossary to a document. Where should I write the acronyms that I have to define? Let's say I used attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in my document. Should I write ADHD both in the list of acronyms and the glossary?
Thanks in advance for your help.

Put them both in the acronym list and in the glossary. It's not a lot of additional work presumably, and it can only help in making the document clearer.


text:
Copyright for a thesis
In my thesis most illustrations are mine but some of them aren't and all the illustrations that aren't mine are used with permission.
However, my college department has a history of plagiarism. What would be a proper way of writing "unless stated otherwise, every illustration is mine" and "all credited illustrations are used with the explicit owner's permission" on the copyright page?
I didn't sign anything to give the rights and in my country by default I am the legal owner of the work so it would just be a way to make sure they can't say that they didn't know it was protected.

You can just copyright your whole thesis, unless of course, your institution acquires it as a condition of your degree. The latter would be very rare in the US. By just putting in the phrase copyright 2023 Dunno somewhere on the title page you prevent anyone from claiming that they thought it was free.
The problem is more what to do if someone "steals" your illustrations etc. You need to be harmed in order to demand being made good.

Thank you. But would it mean that every not-credited illustration would be made by me?