text:
Should I keep my name on a paper in which I have no important contribution?
Prof. X added me as a coauthor on a paper , although my contribution was minor. I told him so, he insisted and said it was necessary for me (I can't give details). Later my relation with Prof X seriously soured. I asked that he remove my name from the paper: I already have an OK publication record (about 100 citations) and I didn't want to pollute it with an undeserved paper, especially in view of the souring of my relation with Prof X.
I had an essential contribution in all my previous papers. Prof X said it was impossible to remove my name since it was already submitted. I reluctantly accepted. The paper was rejected. Prof X wants to resubmit it to a less prestigious journal. I definitely don't want my name on it. Prof X insists to keep my name, saying that re-submitting the paper without my name might harm his reputation in the community. I can't claim to be white as snow : It's clear that I should never have accepted to have my name on this paper in the first place. I don't want to antagonize him further, but what should I do now ? Is it true that resubmitting without my name can harm his reputation ? Isn't there some way around this ? (My field is Math/Physics/Engineering. I can't give more details).

If he resubmits the paper without your name, it would look like he removed your name solely because of your sour relationship.  This puts him in a bad light.

Some research funding programs award "points" to professors who successfully coached students. A great proof of successful coaching is the names of those students on co-authored publications. This might be Prof X's motivation.

@JoelReyesNoche, sorry, that doesn't resonate with me at all.  First of all, who would know?  Submitted (rejected) papers are not public.  Second, who really would pass judgement on that basis?  I don't know, maybe my personal experience is different, but I don't see anything here that would make me think removing your name is a problem or a big deal.

@D.W. The referees would know. They're in the close community.

Standards (and customs) for coäuthorship depend heavily on your field, but if you contributed to the work reported in the paper, you might first want to consider actually accepting coäuthorship:

Unless you think the work is actually crap, there is no downside (having a few not-so-great papers doesn't actually hurt, even if it doesn't help your career).
If you worked with prof. X, it might be nice to have something (a paper) to show for it.
The relationship may have soured, but are you ready to burn that bridge? If he insists on coäuthorship, a flat refusal will annoy him, probably because it would hurt him for some strategic reason.

Now, on the other hand, it's entirely your choice to make. Nobody can force you: if it comes to that, just flatly state that you do not wish to be a coäuthor on the paper. After that was made clear, and in writing, there is little chance prof. X will submit it with your name behind your back: that would be a very severe breach of ethics, and grounds for immediate retraction of the paper when you find out.
Finally, on the question of whether resubmitting without your name can actually hurt him… yeah, it could be an annoyance. There are a few people (editor and referees for the first paper) who would have knowledge that the same paper was submitted twice with different author lists, which definitely gives a bad impression of the senior author.

+1 for "it's entirely your choice".  If you don't want to be a coauthor, just say no.

Of course there is a downside to having authors on a paper they had no part in: it dilutes the meaning of "authorship". If no work is required to get your name on the list of authors, then being on the list of authors isn't worth its space used on the page. That practice doesn't hurt one publication, but the entire concept and 100+ publications is nothing but an indication that you are cheating. And could you all please stop upvoting an advice that makes the entire discussion superfluous.

Thank you very much for all the replies. To user1129682: I wish I had 100 publications. I have only 5, and most of my citations come from two of them.

I disagree.  If I see that you've written a low-quality paper, I am less likely to hire you.  I may or may not get to read your other, high-quality papers.

Adding to (and emphasizing parts of) the answers by Fx and MaybeAnotherPhD:
First there seems to be two issues: (1) you were added to a paper by the first author where you did (and still do) not think you deserved it and (2) you now are in conflict with the first author and may not want to be associated with him/her.
I think you can approach this from another perspective. Based on the assumption that you pursue an academic career, does this paper hurt you by, for example, it being bad science, or the first author being a persona non grata in the community? If the answer is no to these questions, I would as a general rule say, leave it. To follow up, there is not much you can do without raising a lot of commotion and probably risk being branded yourself even if that is not true.
I can understand your feeling of not being worthy of co-authorship, and my only comment there is that it is of course not good to be part of a paper if you cannot defend its content in some way or another. But, I think many end up being added to papers where their input may be marginal. I see it as a natural part (problem) of the process. Of course to add people left and right as a rule is something to be combatted, so save your energy for those cases.
Then to cap off by the uncomfortable truth, the system we live in pushes us to publish or perish (as was the title in a Science debate article some time ago). With time this paper is just one of many in your list and simply adds to your publication list. If it is good you may benefit from citations and that might be your reward in the end. In other words being a little pragmatic doesn't hurt.

We all know he wouldn't be the first persona non grata in the community, but I feel that's beside the point. With 100+ publications one has no need to be named author for work he didn't contribute to, even when persuing an academic career. Especially when persuing an academic career, you don't want that black spot on your record and somebody you have a sour relationship with knowing about it. You also don't want the article in that lesser journal.

@user1129682 I do not interpret 100 citations in the OP to mean 100 publications so I think there may be a little confusion here.

True. I think I misinterpreted 100 citations to mean publications. (I was wondering why the author has no fixed opinion if he is already that well established.) Still, coauthorship for work one didn't contribute in is flat out wrong. Even more than resubmissions.

@user1129682 I totally agree with you, it is wrong; but this world is far from perfect. I know lab technicians with publication lists seemingly approaching infinity, but nothing in it as first author (important in my field).

You've go to start somewhere and keeping the own publication list clean is what everyone can do. The order of authors on the list is becoming increasingly more important in my field as well. Stupid, if you ask me. I have also seen people adding a footnote "authors in alphabetical order". I think I'll adopt that! My scientific career is a means to an end anyways.

The relationship may have soured, but are you ready to burn that bridge? If he insists on coäuthorship, a flat refusal will annoy him, probably because it would hurt him for some strategic reason.

This happens more than you think (user6114), it is common. Again the choice is yours. A know a few students that had this "offer". Offer to put someone has co-author or offer to be co-author...the decision is 100% yours.. but ... if the paper was alreday submitted you shouldn't ask to take out your name.

Gift authorship is unethical.  At my institution it is explicitly forbidden by policy.  Check if your institution has a similar policy; you may be able to use that as justification for your request.
Also, since you made a minor contribution, I would ask him to simply put your name in the acknowledgments.  If he's worried the editor will view this change badly, you can offer to write a note to the editor explaining that you requested the change.

I wouldn't know if people care for a change in the list of authors as long as its length does not become ridiculous compared to the length of the paper.
If you don't want your name on that paper, have him remove it and go all the way! If he refuses you can always go past him and approach the editors directly. Explicitly stating to the editors "I had no part in this contribution" would hurt his reputation more than anything else by a long shot!

I truncated my answer. I hope the relevant parts are more visible now.

The decision to resubmit or not is indeed out of my control. Also, I have only 5 publications, but about 100 citations.

Your name on that paper means you claim credit for the work leading up to the publication and the publication itself. Don't claim credit if you didn't do the work. If you want/need more publications, do more work and/or publish more of your completed work. And if you don't want to be on a publication, don't be on it. Don't let them scare you. The previous submission did not lead to a publication so it is no problem to take you off that list. Your name, title and publication list is the only thing you can get out of academia. You don't want it to be fraud; not even a little.


text:
Math PhD application process
I expect to be graduating with a maths BSc (with an honours year, in Australia) in the not-too-distant future. I’d like to pursue a PhD in pure maths, with the view of becoming a research mathematician. I’ve found it quite difficult to find information on what exactly the application process entails, and when I need to start worrying about it. I have some specific questions, but what I’m really interested in is if there’s a compiled source of advice and information for math PhD applicants internationally.

It seems that many universities have a specific (December in the USA) deadline, does this mean PhDs have to start at a particular time of year?
I see that occasionally people advertise a particular PhD position they’d like to fill, on some particular research topic. Is this kind of PhD different from the “generic” kind and have a different application process?

Have you asked your local faculty?  In particular, have you asked the faculty that you intend to ask for strong recommendation letters describing your potential for mathematical research?

Jeff, I have not. I don't think my university has a postgraduate advisor, save for our own PhD program. I was hoping to get a more international perspective by asking here. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask some staff I know quite well, for general advice.

There are two main models of organizing doctoral programs:

The American system: graduate students proceed through a combined master's and doctoral program, usually starting with coursework, then taking some sort of "qualifying exam" to become doctoral candidates within the department. Admissions are handled at the department level.
The "German" system: doctoral candidates are employees rather than students. Candidates for a position must apply directly to the group of the professor who is sponsoring the project. There is no coursework phase, as applicants are expected to have already completed their master's degree. (However, they can "audit" courses if needed.)

I would suspect that these represent the "poles" of the spectrum; most other systems I'm aware of fall somewhere in between. [Note that even the German system is adopting some features of the American system, and is thus starting to become a hybrid.]

Thanks aeismail, that's helpful knowledge. I expect an Australian honours year is roughly equivalent to a one-year master's degree, so I expect both types of system would be appropriate for me.

To @Matt and aeismal: US vs Europe? http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/43313/

@JackBauer: No, since some European programs are starting to follow the US model.

It seems that many universities have a specific (December in the USA)
  deadline, does this mean PhDs have to start at a particular time of
  year?

Usually, students apply on December for the Fall entry (August/September of the upcoming year).

2.I see that occasionally people advertise a particular PhD position they’d like to fill, on some particular research topic. Is this kind of PhD different from the “generic” kind and have a different application process?

Really can't ansnwer and it is case specific but usually such advertisements contain information about how to apply, expected time to start, minimum requirements and expected stipend (if there is any).

Thanks. Does that "usually" mean students usually have to start in the Fall, or they usually choose to? That timing is pretty incompatible with the Australian university year that typically ends in November.

Yes students have to start in the Fall. You can ask for starting earlier or defer your starting date after being accepted.

Much of the coursework, planning, and funding is organized on the same cycle, as well, in the U.S.: academic years are Sept-May, applications must be made in Dec-Jan of the preceding year, grad program offers(admission+TA functin)are made in early spring, students' decisions are made by April 15 (there is a nation-wide policy on this), a few offers occur after that date. An orientation program for new grad students (especially from abroad) will run in August, and school starts in September. Most courses are two-semester, and the spring semester has fall semester as prerequisite.

In my experience students at Australian universities who are moving to the US for graduate programs (which do indeed all start in September) often do a short master's program [not sure what the official title is] in the intervening time between graduation and beginning graduate school.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
When should one opt for a one-year master's program in the US?
Some US universities offer a master's program that lasts for just a year. At times the cost of such programs are higher than the regular 2-year MS programs.
When should students opt for a one-year master's? What are the merits involved in such an option? The demerits seem to be many: lack of time for courses or internship opportunities or learning in general, less useful for a research career, etc.

I believe this question is a duplicate of http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/901/546

@scaaahu: I will be happy to delete this but for one reason: the OP is specifically interested in PhD in that question, whereas here I want to know if there is any merit in general in a one-year program.

One-year master's programs in computer science are usually terminal course-based degrees.  They are essentially useless for a future research career, because they do not include time to do research.  (PhD admissions committees care about your research potential much more than your grades.)  Put brutally, professional MS programs exist for the sole purpose of trading tuition for the promise of a higher salary.  The advantage of these programs is that successful graduates (at least from my department) actually do get higher salaries, and the program only takes one year.  Also, if you work for a particularly enlightened employer, they may be willing to (help) pay your tuition.
Two-year master's programs in computer science are more research-based.  In addition to classes, most research master's students write a thesis describing original research; that's why it takes two years instead of just one.  That's also one of the advantages of the program; you have more time to learn outside the formal classroom environment.  You may also be able to secure funding through research or teaching assistantships; these are almost unheard of for professional master's students.  The disadvantage is that if you're not interested in research, the program takes two years instead of one.  On the other hand, a research masters seems to have the same effect on salary as a professional masters, in part because it's impossible to tell from a resume what type of MS you have.

To add on to JeffE's answer, my impression is that most 1 year masters programs are designed for employer paid degrees, international students who know all the material already but don't have a degree from a university that people from the U.S. know of, undergrads from the same university who want to delay their job search for a year, and undergrads who want to switch fields but don't want to waste their time with all the silly courses they'd have to take and all the money they'd have to spend to get a second B.S. degree.

I don't think the length of program should be a direct factor when deciding on a masters program. I think you need to think about what each program gives your for your investment (time and possibly money).

I disagree.  See my answer.

@JeffE I was being pedantic. As you point out in your answer, there are big differences in what you get in 1 and 2 year programs. What I am saying is make your decision on those differences and not the number of years, per se.

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


text:
Perils of making a PhD application merely to get funding
I know many undergraduate students who are often confused whether to make an MS or PhD application when applying to US universities. They often have the credentials required in a PhD application - good grades, UG-level research, good SOP, etc.
In general, whenever there is a conflict of MS versus PhD, reasonably good students deem it safer to apply for a PhD. While there are lesser positions for PhD, an admit ensures funding and tuition waiver. Later many of those students quit PhD midway and graduate with a master's degree.
What are the risks involved when bachelor's students apply to PhD for purely monetary reasons? Will the tuition waiver cancelled and the students be required to pay the entire fees when they quit? Or do universities bear this loss due to admission decisions that did not work out? Are there any other penalties involved?

Lying on your application violates Wheaton's Law.  (Too many violations of Wheaton's Law from the same university tends to bias admissions committees against that university.)

@JeffE: Does changing your preferences and quitting PhD midway constitute "lying"?

Absolutely not!  But applying for a PhD when you actually plan to leave with an MS does.

It can always happen that a PhD student may not complete, and for a wide variety of reasons, so I doubt that you could actually be prosecuted for fraud for a case like this, unless someone could really prove it.  But realise that whether or not fraud could be proven, such an action could be highly unethical.  Tax payers in your host country would be paying for something they didn't get, and supervisors and administrators would be investing time in someone believing they were likely to become a PhD.  It would be taking away funding from someone, possibly multiple people, who really did want a PhD, both because you would have taken money that could have gone to someone else, but also because in the future, an application similar to yours might not be ranked so well if the admissions board was afraid the outcome might be similar.


text:
Updating my CV post-Academia ( UK )
I've got a pretty awesome CV (I think), through hours of trailing through websites and reading tips. However that was back when I'd just finished University and now it needs updating!
I'm 25 and I am into my 3rd job since university and so have quite a bit of experience about these roles.
I have a few questions.

It seems my job experience now out weighs my education. Should I move my Work Experience to page one and my education to page two?
Do I still need my GCSE's on my CV? They don't seem very relevant.
How much detail about my education do I actually need?
Do people still care what A levels I did?
Do people want to know my dissertaiton title and what key subject I learnt, or is my degree title now enough.
Moving onto my work experience. I have had two jobs that are really relevant to what I'm aiming at and the third is less so. What is the minimum I should put for the third job, it's title?

Let's hope someone can help, everything I normally find is for new graduates CV's, bless them but I need some help too!
EDIT
Looking for UK or European answers, the US is too crazy. I don't have a GDP ;-)

Where are you planning on applying with this CV? The format will be quite different depending on whether you're targeting academia jobs or industry positions.

@eykanal It will be industry

I'm curious to see this awesome CV. Link?

@mankoff Sorry for employers eyes only :-) Offer me a job an you've got a deal

To answer some of your questions:

While there's no set guideline, education often comes first. You should include the university where you earned your BS/BA (list major, GPA, and any honors), masters university (field, GPA, and thesis title if applicable), and doctorate university (field, GPA, thesis title). High school and similar degrees (including A-levels) should not be listed. Note that a brief (one to three sentence) explanation of your masters and thesis work may be useful here; most people in industry won't have any idea what "Detailed Sprockification of Remonstrantized Grommits in Hypernormalized Framistans" means, so a short layperson description will show (1) that you can communicate and (2) that you did cool stuff that they can understand.
Work experience should include company, position title, responsibilities. You can summarize responsibilities in bullet points or short (two to three sentence) paragraphs, it makes no difference either way.

To answer some things you left out:

Strongly consider adding an Objective Statement to the beginning of your resume. It should summarize your career goals in a sentence. Check out this website which I found on Google for some discussion of what this is.
Include publications, teaching experience, grants awarded, trainees mentored, and notable community service (awards received, board memberships, etc).

For a CV, I think that it's always best to have educational credentials listed first. It's more tradition than anything else, but sometimes you just have to "go with the flow." Non-traditional CV formats aren't going to win you friends on a search committee or other potential employers!

This answer appears a bit to North America focused to me. I've regularly seen job offers for senior positions asking for A-Levels in English and Maths. Same goes for German speaking jobs asking for a decent Abitur grade. It strongly depends on the type of job, I suppose. If you apply for a young creative start up, your skills matter more than your formal education. If you go for something more corporate with a large organisation, evidence of your formal education route might not hurt.

@Jules - guilty as charged :)  For what it's worth, I updated my profile to indicate I'm from the US. Almost all my answers (and likely everyone elses' as well) will reflect their own regional bias.

@eykanal Sorry, didn't want to sound negative about your reply. It's very sensible advice and I don't know when OP edited his question, to clarify he's from the UK. I think this sort of regional bias will be a problem for this Q&A in general.

If you're living in the US or Canada, an important question to ask yourself is:

Is this a résumé for industry and business, or is this a CV for a research-oriented field?

Pretty much all of the differences between the two boil down to this key difference.

If you are applying for jobs in industry or business—essentially, any non-research-oriented field—your CV should be converted into a résumé format. This format will generally put work experience before education, and will be in general much briefer. A résumé should in general not exceed two pages in length; a CV can be as long as needed. With respect to your questions, you would need to list your high school diploma, although you wouldn't need to go into a whole lot of detail (list the type of degree, plus any major awards). I would list dissertation title if it's relevant to your work. For your job descriptions, I would include key duties and accomplishments in bullet form with active verbs ("Directed X project." "Completed milestone Y.")
If you are applying for further jobs in academia, then you need to maintain the CV format, so education should remain first. Your high school credentials don't really matter anymore, but the dissertation information remains important, and should be in the information section. Your job section doesn't need to be very detailed, even for the previous jobs: just the major areas worked on, and the major skills and accomplishments could be briefly summarized.

If you might go in both directions, you should keep versions of both up-to-date; if you're staying in one side or the other for the foreseeable future, then you can focus on that. But in general, I would recommend keeping it up-to-date at all times!
(Note: if you're living or working in Europe, then as Blundell comments below, and is corroborated by some web sites, you probably only need a CV.)

I thought CV's where English and Resume's American tbh.

@Blundell: Thanks for pointing out that difference. As far as Europeans are concerned, I guess, there's only a CV. However, in North America, the CV is a version of the résumé designed for academia and other research-related fields.


text:
What if my research does not give the expected results?
I'm working on my Computer Science thesis. I have a two solution proposals until this moment, and I've been wondering about the following:
Sometimes you know that if you implement it correctly, it will work (eg. when building a website or a desktop app for some trivial purpose, etc), but some other times you try to solve your problem with some specific solution proposal. A few examples:

I will do some preprocessing, I'll represent the documents that way and use this metric, and then I'll apply this clustering algorithm. Theoretically, it should work.
I will use this computer vision technique for breaking the captchas, and then... In theory, it should work.

but when you implement it, you don't get the expected results (eg. bad text classification in the corpus you're using, low-rate successfuly captchas solved, etc.)
In those cases, is it a valid work? I mean, is it good to publish your work, saying that your solution proposal doesn't seem to be good when solving some specific problem?

There are venues to publish negative work.  See this recent Academia.SE post: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/732/why-dont-people-publish-failures/741#741

If you are sure that you will get results, it's engineering, not research.

Asimov autoresponse: The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'

"In theory, it should work" - welcome to the experimental sciences :-)

XKCD has the answer

I'm not sure what you mean by "theoretically it should work". The examples you refer to are cases where you're positing some kind of model for the data. That the experiments failed suggests that the implied model is wrong. The question then is: what is a good model, and what went wrong with the model you tried.
It's that kind of investigation that will set you on the path to a paper.

In those cases, is it a valid work? I mean, is it good to publish your work, saying that your solution proposal doesn't seem to be good when solving some specific problem?

At least two advice:

Don't worry
Don't succumb to the urge to publish immediately

There is always a venue to report about your work, however little significance it bears. Workshops collocated with conferences are places where you can honestly report your work, including dead ends.
I recognize a more important thing going on here. You embarked on a research, from what you wrote, it seems you are convinced that the problem is sound and worth pursuing, but so far performed an experiment in the field only to find out you reinvented a wheel, or the thing is not good enough. One way of seeing what happened is that it is a kind of a failure. That's what you seem to suggest. Another optics applicable on your situation is that you embarked on something worthwhile, but since it is not an easy problem, the first approach did not yield a result. There are two observation to make here:

your problem is probably a good one. Easy problems, or non-problems yield a result usually very quickly (any approach is good enough);
you are on the right track to discover something. Eventually. Realize that the path from nowhere to the bleeding edge of human knowledge (state of the art) is never an easy one. You started and did not arrive to the edge yet. Expect few more experiments of "reinventing a wheel" flavour. After a while you'll get to the boundary and since you walked the path the hard way, you will have all your weapons sharp and enough insight to push the boundary. That's the positive message about your situation.

Not every solution method is a valid approach for solving every problem. When you believe you have a tool that is universal, then you start running into the "hammer complex": when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail, even if it's actually a screw.
What I mean by this is that this is a reasonable finding. Acknowledging the benefits and disadvantages of your strategy is an important part of open science. It makes it easier for others to follow on, adapt, and adopt your work. If you declare a problem "solved," it makes it much more difficult for others (including yourself) to continue to work in the same "problem space."

Getting unexpected results is not problematic, it happens more times than you think. Note that with these test results you have achieved something, even if different from what you expected, but it is something that may be relevant to your research.

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


text:
Is there an accredited doctorate in gastronomy?
Can someone do research and eventually obtain a PhD in a gastronomy-related field (not approached from the side of chemistry, history or culture but rather from the culinary side) from an accredited university?

Google first answer: http://www.food-culture.org/food-studies-programs/ gave me 6 maybe relevant links (with Ph.D. in them).

At first I thought this was concerning a PhD in gastroenterology, and was curious why you wouldn't pursue the MD route. Cary on.

Thank you, @Zenon. The schools listed offer programs focused more on food chemistry, biochemistry or dietetics. I'm looking for more like a PhD (or rather, a DLA) for chefs program, which focuses on the more artistic view of cooking like flavours and textures (but not strictly from the chemists' point of view).

Aside from the programs/universities mentioned in the link which Zenon gave in a comment, it appears that you may need to tweak a molecular gastronomy program to fit your interests. The Italian University of Gastronomic Sciences looks to have several programs that might fit your desired focus.

Thank you, molecular gastronomy is indeed what I was thinking of (I just didn't know that was its proper name).


text:
Collective PhD by a research group
When being accepted individually in a PhD program, one needs a certain amount of publication work to come up with along with their dissertaition. Are there any rules regarding the number of publications, papers or books created collectively by a research group? If some want-to-be researchers team up, how can they pursue their PhDs together?

If some want-to-be researchers team up, how can they pursue their PhDs together?

This is not generally how it works. One does not "team up" and work on a PhD together in that sense. By definition, a PhD is a proof of an individual's capability to do research. Of course, many PhD students can collaborate a lot, and work on a joint project - but even in that case, each student needs his own research questions, his own papers, and, ultimately, his own thesis.
EDIT: just to clarify a bit more. Collaboration is entirely ok, but when PhD students work together, every research contribution (not necessarily each piece of e.g., code or data) needs to be mappable to exactly one student, and each student needs to have a few of those contributions that clearly were his part in the project. I have seen very bad collaborations, where, essentially, person A was churning out ideas and papers, and person B was writing all the code (because he liked programming). In a company, this model is perfectly fine, in a research context this is highly abusive towards person B.

I see your point here. So you're basically saying that a research group can never have the same dynamics a company has.

@AndrásHummer No, because the incentive systems work differently. A PhD student is not just work force.

Remember: a Ph.D is granted as a certification that an individual can perform independent research and generate novel ideas/insights. A Ph.D is not granted for "work done". That's why a "group effort" doesn't make sense here. Every person being granted a Ph.D has to prove themselves individually.

@xLeitix has done a good job of describing how things usually work. During my PhD I've submitted a paper with four other authors. Even though I'm the first author, I've been told this cannot be a major part of my dissertation and can only be an appendix because it's too collaborative.

Every phd thesis contains of at least two supervisors plus external cooperate sponsors. They are interacting with each other and decide by consensus in which direction the project will go. This results into a much a higher quality than a single researcher can provide. It is not possible to identify individual work contribution.

Its very common in my field to have one indevidual churning out the data and another writing all the code and doing the analysis. What is important is that both have ideas and write papers. Then in one thesis it needs to say "I did experiment X and data was analysed by person Y, the intepretation of the anlysis provide below is my own" and in the other "I analysed data from experiment X provided by person Z, the interpretation of the data below is my own".

What makes you say this is highly abusive towards person B? B will also be a coauthor on all these papers, wouldn't he?

@Allure Sure, but they will never graduate. A large number X of co-authored papers, where the contribution was always "I wrote the code to somebody's idea" do not equal a PhD thesis.


text:
Optimizing conference paper solution to be eligible for Journal article
I have presented recently in one of IEEE computer science conferences. My paper's main contributions was optimizing an algorithm to achieve 3.5X times speed up. Now, I am planning to submit another paper to one of Springer's journals with IF 0.7. However, the only new contribution here is I optimized the gain to be 4.5X in addition to theoretical comparison between the algorithm and other 3 algorithms to justify why I have chosen this algorithm to be improved. The paper has been re-written completely and I am aware of the plagiarism issue. However, I am still concerned, is that contribution sufficient to make my paper qualified?

Let the editors and/or reviewers decide whether the new contribution is sufficient. Mention that you extend previous work. It may be wise to be explicit about the novelties with regards to the previous work in the cover letter.
In case the original paper was published in conference proceedings (e.g. not just a talk), it is very important that you cite it. When you do that, there can be no claim that you are attempting to recycle existing material without anyone noticing (self-plagiarism).

It is possible that your paper be rejected because it is not novel.  This depends on the discipline, the paper, the editors, and the reviewers.  However, extending a conference paper into a journal paper is not uncommon.
If I write a conference paper that I would like to later publish in a peer-reviewed journal, I take a different approach on the conference paper.  I always say in the conference abstract something like "this paper details preliminary results of our analysis", and I make sure to not to provide all the details or all the results in the paper.  I can provide more details in the conference presentation to make a strong story, if they are available at the time of the conference.
In the cover letter when submitting the peer-reviewed paper, I say something like "preliminary results of this study were presented at _____".  And ALWAYS cite the conference paper.  You could also state how the submitted paper is different/improved/expanded/corrected from the conference paper in both the journal article and the cover letter at submission.
Good luck!


text:
How to welcome new PhD students/postdocs to the group during lockdown?
These days several countries (including Germany, where I am situated) are heading towards some kind of lockdown due to the Corona pandemic. Nonetheless, new group members arrive and I have the feeling that I do not have enough good ideas for the question:
How to welcome new PhD students or postdocs to the group during a lockdown?
Many things are not available like meeting in the halls, getting coffee together, going to lunch together… Of course, virtual group meetings work, to some extent, but apart from that?
For the sake of clarity you may consider the following circumstances:

Office spaces may still be used, but only one person per office is allowed.
Many people work from home, some are using offices in a shared fashion to avoid meeting in person.
The new PhD students may have just moved to the city from someplace else.

Very carefully? :-(

Thank you for asking this question! This is also a problem I'm grappling with these days, and while there are no perfect answers we shouldn't ignore it (my original plan was to organize a dinner with the new members of the department, but this has quickly become infeasible among rising cases).

I feel your pain. One of our postdocs started in June and I only met him in person by chance at a shop about a month ago. It's all very strange, but I'm trying not to suggest to the group members meeting in person because they might feel compelled to do it even if they don't feel safe, due to the power imbalance. I hope this is all over soon.

As someoneon that started a Postdoc 3 weeks before it all blew up, and has not gone back to the office since, I feel you. Do make an effort, as it gets quite isolating, particularly if the person joining is from a different place.(My group is very nice, but all this still sucks a lot)

My real suggestion is: be aware that in the current situation, starting a new job is super hard, and its likely that the person starting will underperfor. Its crazy how much coffee chats get research ahead. Just be understanding and expect that.

You could still take after-work walks with them to show them around the city, or have prolonged outside-lunches while chatting and getting to know each other.

It is indeed difficult... in our group, all new postdoc arrivals have an hour-long virtual meeting with all the lecturers in the research group in the week of their arrival. But unfortunately, I find it does little for me to get a "feel" for the new person.

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


text:
How valuable/impressive is a review article written by an undergraduate?
I am the Graduate Coordinator of my department at my state research university.  I am currently evaluating several PhD applications for a prestigious internal fellowship.  The catch is that, while I am in the math department, I am only evaluating applications from other STEM departments.  When it comes to accomplishments in the laboratory sciences, I am often out of my depth, and I usually just admit as much and move on.  However, I've just come to something in which I wonder whether academic cultural differences could give me the wrong idea (rather than no idea).
Namely, an undergraduate student in chemistry has written a review article under the direction of a faculty coauthor. The faculty member says of the student:

[S/he] was
  responsible for assembling the preliminary bibliography and writing the initial summaries of the
  main papers that we reviewed.  [S/he] was primarily responsible for creating the schemes and
  figures used in the paper. While I did have to heavily edit [his/her] writing, which is to be expected, [s/he] really carried a bulk of the work. Consequently, [s/he] is first author on this paper.

(I did look at the article, but I won't violate confidentiality by describing it...and moreover I am completely incapable of meaningfully evaluating it.)
My question: how valuable/impressive is it for an undergraduate in chemistry to be the first author of a review article like this?  By way of comparison, in mathematics there are almost no "review articles." The closest equivalent I know of are long articles published in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, which are more like historically oriented mini-courses on a mathematical subfield written by a leading expert in the field.  This type of review article strikes more as a helpful library tool for a chemist interested in certain types of reactions and procedures. So it looks more like a moderate piece of service to the profession, and being first author sounds like the student carried out the assigned task more independently than not.
Is that accurate?  Or is it a big plus for an undergraduate to have done work like this?

Maybe the title should reflect that you are asking about chemistry? In Computer Science, this would be a plus!

I'm from biology, not chemistry, but I wouldn't say a review article in biology carries a lot of value/impressiveness by itself; prestigious review articles are either those written in top journals, by leaders in a field, or that attract high citation counts. Most likely if the review falls into one of these categories that's more about the supervisor than the student. If you were to read the review for content, it could certainly provide some insight into the student's abilities, but as you mention that may be difficult to do outside the field. I would weight original research much higher.

There are several factors to consider here when evaluating the "significance" of a review article:

The length and scope of the review article: a six-page review of recent literature with 50 references is not as impressive as a 50-page review with hundreds of references.
The publication in which the article appears: is the journal a high-level, review-only journal, such as Reviews of Modern Physics or  Chemical Reviews, or is it a review article in a traditional journal?
Was the review invited or contributed?
Is it part of a special issue? (If so, the standards for acceptance are often a bit laxer than in a "regular" issue.)
Since it's written as an undergraduate, you might try to compare its citation count to similar review articles written around the same time as a proxy for its significance to ongoing research in the field.

Also I would like to add that the description of what the student did is not that impressive. At some point reviewing literature in the same subfield just becomes a mechanical process, almost anybody could do it.

It's impressive for a relatively inexperienced undergraduate.


text:
Thinking about switching to a Masters from a PhD, advisor wants a decision now
Main Question:
Three semesters into a PhD program, I am still unhappy with my project. I am currently in a summer internship where I was offered a job, and as I have enjoyed it so far and they pay well, I am considering finishing a Masters degree and leaving after that.  I emailed my advisor to let him know about the offer, asking his advice about that and about the logistics of switching tracks.  He has now asked me to let him know what I decide so he can give my TA position this coming semester to a different student (only PhD students at my university are guaranteed funding).  I don't want to be misleading and take funding away from students who are committed to a PhD, but I honestly don't know what I want to do yet.  I wonder if there might still be a chance that everything gets better and I do finish a PhD.  But since I am not committed, is it better to officially switch?  I don't know if it is possible to switch back, because my grades have not been the best and my university is very selective.  (But I worry that the department does not look highly upon me at this point anyways - my first year was rough, and I ended up taking leave last fall for personal/health reasons.)
How should I handle this situation?
Possibly relevant background information:
almost 23, US, computer science.  Finishing the requirements for a masters degree will take 2-3 more semesters (five classes and a paper).  I majored in physics in undergrad but added a computer science major my junior year, and then decided to apply to graduate school for that because there were many things I hadn't gotten to learn about yet and found interesting.  So I am now in a highly ranked program doing a project related to AI / NLP, which I had very little experience with prior to grad school.  The project is old, in a language I hate and struggle with, has mostly been bug fixes and reimplementing things that have already been done before.  With the exception of last semester, when another student joined (she has left already) it was just me working on it and three professors giving out tasks.  Entering my third year, I am starting to feel pressure to figure out a topic, but I still feel as if I don't know enough to decide and have no clue what would be acceptable or even what I would want to do.
I miss the excitement of undergrad days when I would write simple AIs or algorithms for my own amusement and edification - I thought grad school would be like that, but I haven't done anything of the sort since.  I've enjoyed my industry internships and class projects far more than any 'research' tasks because I got to build something that actually works.  This is why I am considering not going through with the PhD and just getting a job, although not ruling out the possibility of going back later when I have a more clear idea of what I want to do, after narrowing my interests on my own time.  I am not interested in a job in academia at all but rather I just want to have a high-tech job where I can make something novel and useful - which in some cases might be more accessible with a PhD, but I think is also possible with just a Masters.

You have a very insightful thought floating around in your question. Research is hard and many times things get progressively worse before they get any better. Things break and don't work most of the time. If you already knew the answer to the problem, then it wouldn't be called research now would it?

Even if you decide to continue with the PhD, it sounds like you should switch to a new project/advisor.

I started talking with another professor that I had a class with, so perhaps something will come of that.  My most immediate concern is it sounds like my advisor wants me to decide right now, and I don't know how to answer without seeming deceitful if I change my mind later.. I really would like another semester before committing either way :\

Don't do the Ph.D

To be honest, you can make a lot of money and reputation in the field of CS without any graduate degree. Take the examples of the CEO's of some very big software companies. You don't need a PhD to satisfy your hunger for more and more challenging tasks when you are a computer scientist. CS people generally do a PhD if they want to stay in academia and be a professor or something like that.
If the industry work makes you happy, go with it. Finish your requirements for Masters, graduate, take up a job that you really love and who knows you might be the next 'Gates' or 'Jobs'. PhD won't help if you are not loving what you are doing and it won't bring any exceptional job offer which you otherwise can't get with a MS degree.
Hope you are able to make up your mind soon. I wish you good luck :)

I was reminded of this question when someone commented, and this is what I ended up doing - I spent last year finishing all my classes and job-searching, graduated in May, started a job in June. Don't know about long-term yet (current project isn't as good a fit as I thought, but I'll be rotating soon.. but I really enjoyed HCI classes my last semester.. and I kind of want to get back to physics... etc.), but I am in a position where I can still learn and try new things, so that much is good :)

That is a tough decision, but do you think it's mainly the project or just the whole concept of PhD that isn't appealing? Would it help to switch projects or advisors? It sounds as though you have a good fit with your internship, so perhaps it would be a good to gain that work experience and, if you want later, return to school with a clearer idea of what you want to work with (as you mentioned).
With regards to the type of job you want in the future, have you spoken to other professionals to gauge whether or not a PhD is really necessary? That might help in your decision as well. Good luck!

Your first couple of questions are precisely why I'm having such a hard time making this decision - still a lot of "what if's". The project is definitely unappealing. Ideally, a PhD sounds great, but my actual experience is that it's a long time of drudgery between getting anything done, and I like the faster pace of industry better. For your second point, I'm starting to seek out role models in industry now, and perhaps it would be fine to advance in a job and go back if I find I hit a ceiling.  Thanks for the advice :)


text:
How do universities deal with loss in productivity post tenure?
A tenure from a good university is generally considered to be the pinnacle of academic achievements. It is packed with so many benefits that it is easy to lose direction in one's research career post tenure.

In the event that such a thing happens, i.e., if a professor loses interest in research after obtaining a tenure (due to health, family or whatever), what steps do universities take?
Is there any procedure built into the functioning of universities that helps them minimise productivity loss post tenure?
Are there incentives which universities (could) offer struggling professors?

Side comment: I think that productivity is decreasing after tenure, but I also think that quality is increasing (on average). Indeed, the pressure before the tenure make most researchers to publish more, not to publish stronger results.

@SylvainPeyronnet: To clarify, by productivity I mean some convex combination of factors like quality, quantity and others. I did not refer to the number of papers... :)

We (in France) do lack procedure to help professors loosing their track in research; but I do not think it is about lacking incentives, as the one I know either where hired long ago primarily (or solely) for teaching purposes, or seem to resent their unproductive status. I would think that the problem is how to get one on track again, but I have no good answer to that.

The cynical answer is "nothing". But in truth there are other ways to monitor progress and dole out rewards/lack of reward.

If your productivity drops off a cliff after tenure, you're unlikely to get promoted to full professor (US-specific), and get the associated salary increases etc. You may be comfortable with this (less service is a good thing!)
Some universities do 5-yearly post-tenure review. Doing poorly on such reviews can lead to loss of raises, reduced access to new space and facilities, increased service load (if you're not pulling in funding or teaching well for example), and so on.

but ultimately, the final incentive is your own desire to perform. It's very hard to fire faculty. But administrators can try to kill entire departments.

Even without a formal review process, if your department head (or whoever is in charge of these things) does not think you are doing a good job, you may get no raises, a lousy office, painful teaching and committee work, etc.  This can mean a lot over the decades, but as Suresh's answer points out, the biggest incentives are internal rather than external.  If you don't convince your department that you will remain responsible and hard working indefinitely, you will not receive tenure.

@Suresh: I thought that getting tenure meant that the person concerned would be promoted to "Professor" from "Assistant Professor"... could you please clarify what is a "full professor" in this context - is that a title for a "senior professor" or something like that?

Assistant professor -> associate professor is linked to tenure (although there are some technicalities). Promotion to "professor" is different, and is what I'm referring to. This is all US-centric.

@Suresh: A few US universities decouple tenure from promotion to associate professor.  (Tenure at MIT is between associate and full; only full profs have tenure at Johns Hopkins.)

ah ok. I stand corrected.

At good universities it is very difficult to get tenure if you aren't very much driven to be an academic, that is, self motivated.  There may thus be a little slackening off, but often not much.  I've known of academics who got divorced after tenure because their spouses hadn't realised they just really did love working that way and were never going to change.  I don't recommend that; it does make sense to balance your life a bit more when your job is safe. Organisations that can't allow their employees to age gracefully and live full lives will lose a lot of valuable talent.  But in general, tenured faculty are either still very active or else quite useful for administration.

Wow, I never thought of that divorce issue.

Universities can and do fire tenured faculty who are egregiously derelict in their duties — doing no research, performing no service to the university, and doing no (or only perfunctory) teaching — or how have committed a truly serious ethical or criminal offense.
But even under these circumstances, firing a tenured faculty member requires extensive documentation (in the case of "just not doing their job", covering a period of several years) and a long legal battle that is expensive for both sides.  When faced with the necessary mountain of evidence, I suspect most offending faculty are convinced to resign instead.


text:
How does shifting of jobs affect designation and tenure in academia?
I would like to know how job transfer of faculty members affects their designation. Will they retain their designation (Prof/Assoc/Asst.) in the new institution?
Similarly if a faculty member faces an unavoidable need to shift job after getting his tenure, will his new department recruit him with tenure? Or should a few years pass in the new place before he is evaluated again?

This all depends on what is offered in the new position and on your negotiation skills.
Generally one tries to go up-hill, so to speak, or at least stay on the same level. The new institution hardly will expect you to make the transfer if they offer you a lower position and tenure track when you have tenure already.
If you are forced to move, then you have a weaker bargaining position and might have to take a tenure track position, and go through all the evaluation process again.  But this would probably mean that you have bargained poorly or accepted bad working conditions, or it simply could be because there are so few academic jobs these days.
I have heard of one case where someone traded in a tenured Associate Professor position for an untenured Assistant Professor position at a better institute. (The risk paid off in the end.)

I also have heard of a case where a tenured associate professor gave up tenure for his new job.  He went from tenured associate prof to untenured associate prof (because he had a lot of experience).  In this case also, he eventually got tenure at the new job.

The notion that it is "job transfer" might seem to suggest that it is a thing that can be done at will, whenever one wants. This is not so. Just as one cannot, at will, "transfer" between grad programs. It's always a re-competition.


text:
Having preferred and non-preferred reviewers in journal submissions
IEEE asks journal authors to submit the names of their (non-)preferred reviewers. Given it may not be appropriate to list an acquaintance as a reviewer, how does one judge if an anonymous person will be a good reviewer or not?
Is giving "non-preferred" reviewers akin to the author confiding about his academic relationships to the editor? Do people really need to fill this column up at all?

If you don't know whether someone would be an (in)appropriate reviewer, don't list them.

You can leave the non-preferred blank if there is nobody you are trying to avoid.

It is generally worthwhile to identify people who both should and should not be invited to review a paper. Obviously most journals now require you to suggest names for reviewers—however, the editor is generally under no compulsion to invite these people to review the manuscript, if they feel other people are more suitable (or are more likely to accept the invitation).
The list of "non-preferred" reviewers is meant for "conflicts" rather than "conflicts of interest." If you have a direct competitor, or someone in the past who has been inappropriately hostile to your work, then you should list them here. However, as the original poster suggests, this could also be used to list "obvious" referees who shouldn't be candidates for a given paper if they are also collaborators of the authors (but perhaps not in the present work).

I sometimes referee papers written by people I have collaborated with.  Indeed, in small subfields it is nearly impossible to avoid that.

Just to add an editor’s perspective even though it partially duplicates the other answers:
Having seen the effect of preferred reviewers in the journal where I serve, I am not altogether happy about these options. The non-preferred category is one that I take seriously because conflicts can lead to bad or poor reviews for reasons other than the science. My problem is instead with the preferred reviewers.
When I assign reviewers I basically steer clear of the preferred reviewers as a rule. In the past when I have selected from this list, I have been extremely disappointed. Almost exclusively I have received accept reviews (accompanied by rejects from other reviewers), which I have been forced to deem practically useless and look for additional reviewers. I do not mean to say that all persons put on these lists provide poor reviews, but what I perceive as the original purpose namely to provide examples of names of persons whose objective opinion the author highly values is rapidly being drowned by names of friends. This has led me to stay clear of this list unless I myself recognize a name as somebody with integrity. I will nevertheless scrutinize that review with a hint of suspicion based on the experience I have. One way to avoid this could be to add a line or two stating why you have selected these names as preferred. This would help evaluate the usefulness of such reviewers. Sadly many submission systems do not allow for such comments except in the submission letter.
So I agree with the others answers, provide particularly non-preferred names but feel free to add also preferred but do not count on the preferred names to be used.

A "non-preferred" reviewer is typically someone who may have personal or subjective reasons to react negatively to your work, regardless of its scientific content.  It is not intended to be a disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

An additional reason to list someone as non-preferred may not be a personal conflict or bad quality reviews, but you may suggest to the editor that someone seems to work in the same field, but probably does not have the right focus for reviewing your work. This is not always obvious for someone who isn't that involved in the field and may think that you're works are quite similar.


text:
When does one go for an invited paper?
I have little understanding about invited papers, but as far as I know, I think these are non-peer-reviewed papers presented at a conference.

Now why and when does one go for an invited paper? Is it only to advertise one's work? Is there any other merit in this?
Also, are normal papers and invited papers the same as far as cost is concerned?

Being invited to present a paper or give a keynote is an honour. It shows that the community recognizes your work. Of course, it is also a way to further advertise your work, or to reflect on what you have done. Generally, the audience is larger for invited speakers.
One accepts the invitation if one has time and prestige of the conference matches one's reputation. If you have a small reputation, an invited talk at a workshop is an honour. If you are super-famous, you'll tend to only accept invitations to prestigious events.
The cost may depend on how much money the conference has in its budget, which will often depend on the sponsors. Sometimes the conference will waive the registration fee, often they may provide accommodation also, and sometimes they may even cover airfare. Bigger conferences will be able to cover more of the costs. Small workshops may not be able to cover any of the costs.

Thanks. Also, is there anything like inviting oneself to a conference? That is, is there a way to make conf. people invite you rather than they doing it of their own accord?

@Bravo You can definitely invite yourself to give a talk in a seminar.  I have done this successfully many times.  Most seminar organizers are generally looking for speakers.  The key is to offer, without presuming they will accept.  Be flexible about when you can come.  And when you do get invited, work very hard preparing your talk, to ensure that you'll give a good talk.  The web has lots of great advice on giving talks, but most of it boils down to (1) think hard about who your audience will be and what will benefit them (2) organize your ideas clearly in advance and practice.

It's generally a good idea to get experience giving talks in seminars before you start inviting yourself to speak at conferences.  Getting invitations is also a lot about knowing people.  When you go to conferences, introduce yourself to people.  Ask them about their research and tell them about yours.  If you have common interests, then they are more likely to invite you to speak in their seminar or future conference session.

I've never heard of anyone inviting themselves to talk at a conference. Sure, you can register and go to the conference (at least in my field).

In addition to Dave Clarke's answer:

I get quite a lot of "invitations" from scam journals, which I ignore.
Most of the conferences I attend now publish their "proceedings" as a special issue of one of the relevant journals, and they undergo the usual peer-review.  I'd expect that this is true too for the proceedings paper belonging to an invited talk.
However, many of the invited lectures are actually more lecturing(*) than presenting the very newest work. So the work presented there usually is already published.

(*) I like it if invited and keynote lectures are actually teaching. It's like an oral review paper, and I think it is a good idea to have an overview and common starting level for hearing the more specialized talks that follow.

You asked whether there is any merit to presenting an invited paper other than advertising your work. Yes.  What you really want, more than people getting excited about a particular paper you write, is for them to get excited about you.  You want to be viewed as a valuable member of your community, whatever community you choose that to be.
So partly your talk is an advertisement for your work, but more than that, your talk is an advertisement for you, the helpful guy or gal that you are.  It increases your visibility, but it's your job to follow up on the opportunities this visibility creates for you.  Talk with people.  Listen.  Really listen to what they're saying (and don't just wait for your turn to talk again).  Remember names.  Start building your network.  Sometimes the most useful thing you'll do at a conference is to grab a beer with new friends, after the talks finish for the day.  One key to building a successful network is really trying to help your contacts as much as trying to help yourself.  (If you have more questions on networking, I'll be happy to share my thoughts, but I'll stop now for fear of drifting too far off topic.)

Thanks! Re. networking, please do share your thoughts here: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/726/on-being-a-well-known-phd-student


text:
Tips for faculty members seeking administrative responsibilities
How does a faculty member seek administrative responsibilities in a Department? Do such positions come in a cycle only? Or should the faculty member make his/her willingness known in advance to the Chair? Are there any politics/wrangling involved?
Moreover, for an assistant professor, is there anything that could be done during PhD so that the profile comes out as someone willing to take admin responsibilities?

As a general rule, assistant professors should stay as far as possible from administrative responsibilities.  Get tenure first.

Don't worry, administrative responsibilities will find you unless you flee them, and even then you probably won't avoid them.  At most universities, young faculty are expressly spared administrative responsibilities so that they can focus on research and get tenure.
If you're really looking for them, generally all you need to do is vocally speak your mind on every issue that comes up.  Most of your colleagues will feign apathy in order to avoid being assigned to a committee.

+1 for "vocally speak your mind on every issue that comes up", from direct personal experience.

Administrative duties are considered "service": that is, something that everybody is expected to do. However, that also means that, if you're a junior faculty member under consideration for tenure, having extensive administrative duties won't help advance your case. In many ways, it can, as David says, get in the way of productivity.
That said, you can probably get a sense from your colleagues about the amount of administrative duties you are required to take on. And there is one potential advantage to making your preferences known to the chair (provided he or she is friendly with you, and is working in your best interests): if you have a particular preference for committee duty, then announcing that may make it easier to actually get it!

Contrary to JeffE's comment and David's answer, at four-year institutions, opportunities to engage in administrative duties within and outside your department will usually come up long before tenure. And, at four-year institutions, not engaging in governance activities will usually hurt your tenure application.
The particulars, of course, vary by disciple, department, and institution, but aeismail's advice about following your colleagues' leads is a good way to gauge what you should be doing. If you feel like your department is not the best example, look at others on campus.
Also, as is likely true everywhere in academia, if you voice your "good idea," said idea and the committee developed to implement it will be your for some time.

Generally, though, tenure decisions will begin with an intra-department review, so going well outside the norms of what your department does may be counterproductive as well!

Very true! Though, the norm of my department is active. My department includes the chair of our faculty senate and chairs and members of high level governance committees. To get tenure where I am, you need to have above average ratings in teaching and scholarship and service.


text:
Why do universities place a weight on GRE/TOEFL scores?
This is one question that has been bugging me for a long time now. Why do universities consider GRE/TOEFL scores at all? Perhaps it is fine for master's degrees, where there will be an enormous number of applicants whose language abilities cannot be otherwise established. But what is the necessity for a PhD degree? Why not zero in on a small group of candidates based on their profiles and then conduct a Skype interview? That way the professor gets to know both the verbal and the research potential of the student. Why isn't this the case for PhD admissions?

GRE/TOEFL scores are used in a number of different ways (some of which are alluded to above)

GRE scores are sometimes used as a university-level filter (if your GRE score is < X, then you'll need a strong support letter from your department to get admitted)
TOEFL scores are used as a filter for giving people TA funding (if your TOEFL score is too low, you can't be assigned to be a TA, and if it's lower, you can't even get RA funding)
More informally, the GRE/TOEFL scores are used as a "do you even care' filter: for a CS program, a quantitative score less than 600 might be considered to be a warning that the candidate doesn't even care enough to prep for it.

But for Ph.D programs, the GRE/TOEFL are either used as a high-bar disqualification filters to prune applications (in top schools), or as low-bar disqualification filters to prune the non-serious applications.

On the admissions committees I've been on, GRE scores have been used primarily for one purpose, namely dealing with students from out of the way places.  Every year, we see a number of applications from students at not very prestigious schools but with perfect grades and letters saying they are the best in years.  We suspect that the courses are easy and the competition is not impressive (being the best is meaningless if we doubt the second best is very good), but we don't want to reject someone unfairly.  GRE scores give a simple, consistent way to compare these students with those from other schools.  Most of them have unimpressive GRE scores, but occasionally they do very well on the GRE, and in those cases we investigate further.
TOEFL scores are another case in which consistency is very helpful.  Skype interviews would give more information, but different interviewers would be more or less demanding (plus the interviews would be a lot of work).  If you want to set a consistent cut-off, for example for TA support, then a standardized exam may be the right approach.  Note also that the administration may not trust faculty interviewers not to exaggerate the English abilities of students they want to admit.
If it weren't for its usefulness in screening the applications from out of the way places, I'd be in favor of eliminating the GRE entirely.  However, even making someone jump through a meaningless hoop can actually be a useful filter.  In practice, having a successful career requires occasionally doing things you don't care about, for reasons that may not be clearly explained (and might or might not turn out to be justified if they were explained).  Some students run into serious psychological issues here.  Maybe they can't overcome their disorganization if they don't feel motivated, or maybe they just refuse to participate in anything without a clear justification.  It may be unfair, but these students are not likely to be successful in the long run, and it's a waste of time and energy to prepare them for a career that isn't likely to work out.  Jumping through hoops like the GRE is a mild test in this direction.  If you are too disorganized to sign up for it in time, or if you aren't willing to jump through such a hoop at all, then that's a bad sign for your future career.

My (computer science) department does not require GRE scores at all.  A few faculty still use them to evaluate applicants—there's no accounting for taste—but there is certainly no official cutoff (as Suresh suggests).  In practice, they're only useful if they're really low.
However, by state law, an international student at my university cannot be hired as a teaching assistant if their TOEFL spoken English score is below 24.  (Too many courses were being taught by foreign students with thick accents.)  Since my PhD program has a TAship requirement, we must filter out applicants with low TOEFL scores.  We can still admit applicants with scores below 24 if someone offers them an RAship, but they have to bring their score up to 24 by the end of their first year.  So in practice, you have to have at least a 20 to be considered at all.  (And we do conduct phone interviews with borderline cases.)

exactly. and we have a SEPARATE exam that students have to pass to be eligible (which they can waive IF their TOEFL is high)

In principle, we also have a separate exam that students can take instead, but in practice, the people who run the exam put up artificial administrative hurdles to keep people from taking it (like scheduling it the week before classes start, when people are still moving, and not advertising where the exam will take place until the day before the exam, and only then in a locked filing cabinet in an unlit basement with missing stairs and a sign that reads "Beware of the Leopard".)


text:
Could faculty members earn a degree while being employed?
Is it possible for faculty members to enrol themselves for a degree while being employed? I have seen professors attending classes occasionally, but how about earning a full degree?
I guess this may not be an issue within a university, but what if the professor wants to earn the degree with another university in the same city, for example?

In the first case it would be a question of time. Who has time to do another degree? In the second case one would need to check with one's present department to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

Normally someone who holds the rank of a professor already has an earned doctorate, so there really isn't any need for additional qualifications. It's not really clear to me why a faculty member would then want to go on to pursue an additional degree. To my mind, it would be one of those warning signs that they're not entirely serious about working in their given field, and might choose to move on to "greener pastures" in a few years.
So, in short, I don't think there's any real advantage in a professor obtaining an additional degree.
However, if one is a lecturer or adjunct, then returning for a further degree in the field in which one is working makes sense from a career perspective.

Maybe if the person wants to do some multidisciplinary research.

The best way to get into multidisciplinary research after you have your PhD is to either postdoc in with a group in the second discipline, or if you already have a faculty position, take a sabbatical and do the same thing.

I don't know whether there's any such thing elsewhere, but here in the UK people with full-time jobs sometimes do Open University undergraduate degrees just as a matter of personal interest in a subject. Sure, they could hire a private tutor instead, but the fact of impending assessment does focus the mind. If a tenured Professor of Mathematics wants to enrol in an undergraduate degree in fine arts or medieval literature, you probably don't have to panic about their loyalty to the faculty ;-)

I've seen a few examples of people getting other qualifications in the Australian context:

Some universities require or encourage lecturers to get a qualification (perhaps a diploma) related to higher education teaching. These courses are often provided by the employing university.
Some academics want to expand their skill set; doing a formal qualification is one way of doing this. It really depends on circumstances and personal goals. Often an academic has a choice between self-study or doing a formal qualification.

In general life, many people do a degree part-time while they work full-time. If you are still able to perform your duties at your job, then there typically wont be any issue with the study.
Of course, if you need some time off from your job to attend classes, then in most jobs you would typically want the support of your supervisor.
In an academic context, if the study is related to your research or teaching, then a supervisor (e.g., a Head of Department) is likely to give such support. Furthermore, most academics have a high degree of autonomy in how they spend their time, such that no one is keeping track of when they go off campus, whether that be to attend a colloquium, collaborate with other researchers, or do a little study somewhere else.


text:
Is it alright to skip problem solving sessions during coursework?
During coursework, there are sessions where a problem set is distributed beforehand and a TA works out the solutions in front of the class in a stipulated session.
Given the student works out the problems himself and is confident of the material being covered, is it alright to skip such sessions? Is this viewed adversely during grading, etc?

Is this viewed adversely during grading? — Only your instructor can answer that question!

This question is perfect for this SE new site: undergraduates if you find it useful you can follow it and help us in spreading the word about it.

Yes, skipping the sessions is not only alright, but is in fact advisable. Will it be viewed adversely during grading, you bet yeah. The key thing to remember is that in grad school grades don't matter. If skipping the session means you can put an extra hour into your research, then that is better time spent.
The way it will affect you in grading is you might lose some participation points and the benefit of the doubt for borderline grades. The instructor may be less inclined to write you a letter of recommendation, but ideally your letter writers will be talking about your research.

Burn that on your arm: "In grad school, grades don't matter"

Grades in grad school don't matter if you're staying in academia. If you want to go to a field where someone in HR will review your résumé before a trained person in your field will, your grades can matter. My previous employer, for instance, required at least a 3.5 GPA for master's degrees—even those earned decades ago!

“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.”
Yes, you should do your best to maximize your gain from grad school, including skipping sessions/lectures which are not profitable, unless it is explicitly against the rules (in some institutions, there are mandatory lectures). If that means you skip some lectures, do it. If asked, be polite but direct about it. Some people will take it badly, most probably won't.

I'll reinforce my (and Daniel’s) answer with an anecdote: as a student, the department head welcomed us at the beginning of my first year. He said his institution was a place of science, not of conventions, and independence of great minds mattered above all. “Some people learn best in books, in chats with researchers… not by sleeping in lecture rooms. That's okay.” — Two months later, I went to him a morning because I needed his signature on an application. He gave me hell because I dared skip his own coursework session, which was happening at the same time with a TA from his group.
So, you can skip lectures, you don't have to try to hide it, but don't rub it in either :)

The theoretical difference between theory and practice and the practical difference between theory and practice are more similar in practice than in theory.


text:
Is an emphasis on "novelty" necessary in academic papers?
I often come across papers which have a 'Novel' in their titles. In the content the authors go out of their way to explain how their work is the first to the best of their knowledge to come up with the results.
Isn't novelty a necessity in research papers? Is a separate emphasis really needed? What is the best way to convey novelty without sounding extravagant?

I don't recall seeing a qualifier like “to the best of [one's] knowledge” in such papers, although the phrase “in the literature” gets used as a qualifier.  The former might be taken as an admission of possibly incomplete knowledge, vs. the desired claim of being completely familiar with whatever the topic is.

Another reason for using 'novel' is that it's a lazy way out. I can't say "An algorithm for clustering", and maybe I can't get into the details of what's new in my title, so I just say 'A novel algorithm for clustering'

The authors need to make it clear that the paper makes a contribution and to be explicit about what that contribution is. Otherwise the work is not original and does not deserve to be published. (This excludes survey papers and such things.)
The emphasis on novelty need not, however, be placed so explicitly in the title.
Good ways of emphasizing the novelty are

Include a short discussion at the end of the introduction stating explicitly what the contributions of the paper are.
Back this up with evidence in the body of the paper.
A proper comparison with related work. (As El Cid's answer states.)

Instead of a minor edit, I would strongly emphasize evidence.

I would rather comment on @Dave's points, but since I have no reputation, here goes my comment/answer :-)
I personally was taught not to put "novel" or "to-the-best-of-my-knowledge" or any other weasel words in the papers, so I also do not like the cited examples, if and when I review papers.
What is most often overseen in papers is the "related work" (apart from the discussion section, which I believe belongs more to a journal-type publication), and how the paper makes an advance to the field. The authors should emphasise what the state of the art is, and how the paper advances it. That is what makes me judge for an accept or reject, rather than "incredible results". But it is also true that when you're growing "older" you look for different things in papers, and that "younger" reviewers are more easily captivated by strong claims.

I usually employ the following interpretations:

"best-of-our-knowledge" means that the authors were too lazy to search for existing work.
"novel" and the like in the title means that something very close already exists for ages.

Novelty (a contribution improving on the previous state-of-the-art) is necessary, such emphasis is not.
Regarding how to "convey novelty": It is absolutely required to explain why it is new instead of asserting that it is. This holds for both the title and the body of the article.

Some journals in chemistry now forbid the use of "new", "novel", or "de novo" in titles.

Another interpretation of "to the best of our knowledge" is that the authors are being intellectually honest.


text:
For a student, what is the optimal usage of a solution manual?
During coursework if a solution manual is available for the textbook, it is always a huge bonus for the student. While the student is exposed to a variety of relevant applications and tricks in the problems, the solution manual ensures the student's hard work spent trying out the problems does not go waste. The solution manual's availability is akin to the presence of a "Cheat" button in crossword applets - the earlier you press the less you try, but still the presence of the button is useful as such.
What are some useful tips for a student who wants to utilise the solution manual optimally?

Never use the solution manual before trying everything else; talk to friends, visit the professor, go to class and listen (!), check the internet. Once you use the solution manual for a problem, the potential gain from that problem is significantly and irrecoverably reduced.
Use the solution manual to check your work. (Duh.)
For problems you aren't planning on solving, you can use the solutions manual to create flashcards and other learning aides (if the course material is anemable to such a construct).
If you have a friend/roommate/spouse/trained monkey who can compare your answers to the manual for you, such that you don't actually read through the manual, that may be useful for certain topics.
You can make some good money selling it when the semester is over :)

Ignore it and write a new one.
Looking at the solution manual is not useful; it only gives you answers.  The point of homework isn't the answers, but the struggle to find them.

If the manual only gives answers, then it isn't worth much.  However, if the manual shows how to find the answers, then it can be useful.  If you're really stuck on a problem (and have worked on it for a while), you could try just peaking at the manual to get an idea to help you get unstuck, then try to work out the details on your own (without reading the manual).

There were times during maths class in school that I checked my answer in the back of the book, realised I was wrong & reattempted the problem looking out for where I could've made a miscalculation or misunderstood something. Normally, it ended up giving me a better understanding of the problem space. It also meant that I was able to come to the right answer myself (albeit after being told that I was wrong, but not how I was wrong) — without that I would've been shown the correct method anyway (when the class went over the homework), but I think I would've learned less.

Is believing this a requirement to obtain tenure? That would explain some of my former professors... If the solutions to homework exercises are not important, then why does every good university course provide students  with feedback on their homework in the form of written corrections or tutorials where a TA or professors demonstrates the solutions?

@Peter Solutions can be useful after the students have already struggled to solve them, if for no other reason than to sanity-check their own grades. At least, that's why and when I give my students solutions (and advice on how to find them).

Don't just read the solutions.  This is counterproductive.  Work the problems yourself.
However, after finishing, use the answer (not the worked solution) as a check.  It is psychologically reinforcing to have a feedback loop and know that you did it right.
If you were wrong, rework the problem.  Often the reason will have been a minor calculational mistake (in STEM).  You will usually be able to fix this on your own (without even seeing the detailed solution) just by being more careful.  If not, sometimes the format of the answer will suggest a more conceptual thing that you missed or prompt you to relook at the textbook description/examples.  This is crucial, that you fully redo even "dumb mistake" attempts.  Doing this means you won't make them again.  It's like music or sports.  If you make a mistake, do it over.  Do the entire exercise, not just the part you messed up.
In the few cases where the above is not sufficient, look at the actual worked solution to see how they do it.  But STILL.  Then put the manual down and rework the missed problem yourself.  You need to actually practice the solution process.  Not just read it.  Even though it seems hokey, it will help your learning, versus reading and saying "OK, that was the trick".
I do disagree with other answers that say you should prioritize outreach to friends, Chegg, instructors, SE, before checking the solution manual.  It is a tool for you and is extremely convenient for the disciplined drilling problem solver. I would reserve that sort of personalized outreach for when you are baffled by the written solution itself.  (Keep a written list and then see your instructor with them.)
But absolutely do use the disciplined drill, check, repeat (if wrong) method that I espouse above.

Attempt the problem on your own first.

Use outside resources and your own research to try and answer the question.

If you get stuck and can't do it on your own without a little guidance, use outside resources to read about the problem, look through other examples to get an idea of the general procedure, and get a better grasp of what the final answer should actually look like.
Personally, I don't like asking a professor for help or going to my TA's office hours unless I absolutely cannot figure out the problem on my own. So the next step might deviate from other people's opinions on how to use solutions manuals.

Use the solution manual as a quick hint as to the next step.

If you make it through some of the problem and get stuck somewhere, and you cannot find any kind of answer online or in the textbook, then use the solution manual to give you a quick hint as to how you should proceed. It's sometimes useful to see how the book author approached an integration or some weird algebraic step. If you make it to step three, then step four is the critical part of this method.

Use the hint you just took as an opportunity to further your understanding. Work through similar examples outside of the actual homework problem (in the case of a math problem), use a keyword in the solution to read about that step (in the case of a physics problem), etc. Do further research on that particular step, so that when you encounter a similar problem in the future, you will know exactly what to do.

Don't just write down the solution and move on, learn from it to deepen your understanding of the problem. After using the solutions manual and not making any progress on understanding the problem, or that particular step, then I use the following step.

Go to a professor or your TA's office hours to ask the question and get a one-on-one dialogue going about your misconception, why your attempt failed, and/or why the author of the solution did that particular step.

For a mathematics question, I typically ask them on math.stackexchange.com first, as I usually get a great response within minutes of my post. For a physics or other technical/theoretical questions, I found it best to discuss them with someone.
By going through the steps as I have listed them above, I have found that by the time I go to a professor or TA, I can explain the issue I'm having and convey it without stumbling over myself. It taught me to figure out the issue I'm having exactly and to be able to ask a very specific question, rather than going to a professor and asking some vague question about an assigned homework problem and looking for them to give me the solution.
Apologies for the novel, I hope this helps.


text:
How to find the best journal to submit a paper to (when having written the title, abstact and full text)?
Consider a case of a new researcher that does not know well all possible journals and has no access to human advice (from colleagues). (please do not comment that this is the best - out of scope of the question!)
Or one journal rejected the paper and the author is looking for outside the box candidates.

Possible examples:
1.
E.g., in medicine, one can use this tool (ETBLAST) by submitting full text of the article
http://etest.vbi.vt.edu/etblast3/
Some journals even require top 3 similar papers (found by ETBLAST) to be pasted into a form during submission (making sure authors well addressed related literature).
2.
Or Elsevier JournalFinder service.http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/

Read your own bibliography.  2. Submit to the journal you cited most often.  (Presumably you read lots of papers before you wrote yours.)

I don't fully agree with the above comments. I tend to cite lots of high impact journals but it doesn't imply that my work is that ground-breaking to be accepted by those. Better to be realistic and choose some less prestigious journal for a start.

Not applicable to your current situation, but note that it is often a good idea to decide the journal in advance. This allows you to structure the text as is usual in their articles and additionally stress some points that they seem to value in the text. This is particularly relevant for special issues.

I just tried Elsevier's tool, out of curiosity, and it returned "Journal of Archaelogical Science" and "Archives of Geriatrics and Gerontology" as two of the top five journals to submit an article about theoretical syntax. The moral of the story: check those suggestions with an actual human being that knows the field.

You need to know your field.  Part of knowing your field is reading lots of papers.  This should give you an idea of what kinds of papers each of the major journals publishes, and what journal may be best suited to you.  If you're a good researchers, you ought to already know what are the main journals that publish research in your area.  If you don't already know that, then maybe you need to spend more time reading published work first.
In particular, the best way to figure out if a particular journal is a good fit for your paper is to read a bunch of papers published at that journal.  That will give you a pretty good sense.  You can use the "call for papers" as a further sanity check, but nothing substitutes for reading what else they have published.
There is no shortcut.  If you are a knowledgeable about your field, a random webpage is not going to know your field better than you do.  If you are not knowledgeable about your field, then the first thing you need to do is to fix that.

Presumably you have included references in your article! Just check which journals you tend to cite most (or at least twice each in your article). Those must be good and relevant enough (since you cite the work published there in the context of your own work). Then check their guidelines to be sure (possible length constraints, level of detail, etc.)
If you do not want to go to the most prestigious journals because you fear your work is not groundbreaking enough, or because you want an easy ride, or, as you said, because they rejected your article already, here is a relevant rule-of-thumb: do not publish in a journal which you would never cite for whatever reason.


text:
Neuroscience- NIH-IRTA for a international student
I've finished my bachelor in Cognitive science and mathematics and I'm looking for research opportunities in the US, starting in a half year. Are there any programs for people in my position? The NIH-IRTA only works for citizens and permanent residents. A year ago I've been on exchange to a top American college, but didn't make acquaintances with any of the PI, as the classes were lead by TA's; can I still use my exchange to find an internship somewhere in the US?

Most of the major US founders limited their funding of junior people to US citizens/permanent residents. these same funding bodies (e.g., NIH, NSF) will happily allow PIs to hire international people on grants. Your best bet is probably to find a PI who is willing to hire you directly off a grant.

I figured as much, but wanted to double check. I'm "new to the world of academia", so I don't know if there's a best way to approach PIs with these questions. Should I just send them a message about their research and asking about a job/internship?
PS I'm so surprised someone actually responded to this question, thank you!

@Peter that would make for a good new question (although you should search to make sure it hasn't been asked before).


text:
Applying to grad school where I've been on exchange
I know that many universities in the US and an increasing number in the EU are against taking on their own graduates. Does the same apply to exchange students? I'm wondering if I didn't make a strategic mistake by going there. On the other hand, I did everything to go on exchange to that school because I think they do great research.

Every department is different.  You just have to ask them.

I know that many universities in the US and an increasing number in
  the EU are against taking on their own graduates

I assume you mean for grad-school ? This is the first I've heard of it. We encourage our undergrads to search widely, but I'd love to take my own undergrads for grad school if I could persuade them to stay.
The sentiment you're referring to is more prevalent at the faculty hiring level: namely, universities are less likely to hire their own Ph.D students as faculty (at least not without some time spent elsewhere first)

it definitely happens at the postdoc and higher levels, but I've also read here that there are departments that don't admit their undergrads. Probably I'm worrying too much.

Right. But in any case I doubt this would apply to exchange students. As a general principle, many of the questions on this forum could be answered by "you're worrying too much" :)

I believe Stanford does not admit its own undergraduates into its Computer Science PhD program.


text:
International student loans in the US
I'm weighing all my options before the fall application and I wanted to know if it is possible to take out loans in the US as an international master's degree student.
Any tips where to look?
Best I've seen are private loans with an American cosignatory. Is it really the extent of loan options for an international? Do universities extend loans to their students or help in getting private loans?
Cheers

Yes check with your universities Student Services Department. Most of the universities also give you scholarships provided you have some good scores in GRE/TOEFL or whatever they require. Banks also give Student loans to International students provided you have a credit-worthy US-Citizen as a Co-signer.
But most of the international students are eligible for scholarships.
Good luck.
http://www.edupass.org/finaid/loans.phtml

Try to check (email) with the offices for international students and scholar that in some universities also handle financial issues for foreign students. They will give you the best options. If you're willing to do research or teaching work, I'd suggest you to personally contact Faculties or graduate program secretaries that may have such options for you. In some universities, most national and international grad students are under teaching or research assistantships, have tuition waived and monthly stipend, and this also build up their cv. This may not apply to specific degrees such as MBA, but if you're in science, technology, education or engineer, it is likely that you can find assistantship to support you.
It may be too late to find an assistantship for the fall semester, you can consider to start next spring as well.
good luck!