text:
What are the minimum contributions required for co-authorship
In this answer  it is claimed that authorship is given away for "free" in some fields (e.g., obtaining the funding). The comments to the answer suggest that this is field dependent. I am looking for documentation from a field that suggests that authorship can be given away for "free". For example, the ICMJE has authorship guidelines that put a pretty high bar on authorship. Is there any documentation that suggests that supervising a student or getting funding is enough to warrant authorship?

I think this is a very good question, especially given that we have had a flurry of “supervisor and authorship” questions in the past. I'll link them here for later reference: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7… as well as the [tag:authorship] tag.

Short answer: free authorship, also known as gift authorship, is a clear violation of research and publication ethics. The limit between “small contribution” and “no contribution” is not, however, easily defined; different fields put it at different levels.

I don't think the answer actually states that. It lists a series of contributions that are, in some field, considered important enough to warrant (in some combinations) authorship on resulting papers:

they get grant money, they train you to use the lab, they train you to do statistics... or they might make suggestions for the research design, the main theoretical focus of the presentation / manuscript

All journals (or publishers) have policies or guidelines on how authorship should be determined. In all cases, it involves significant scientific or technical contributions to the work published. Authorship determination has to be weighted in each individual case, as no two situations are identical (and not simple rule of thumb can encompass all possible situations, as Peter Jansson highlights).
There are so many ways in which people can contribute to an intellectual work, such as a research project and academic papers. It happens that different fields of research have different habits in authorship determination, giving more or less weight to different types of contributions. My own background is in physics and chemistry, where authorship tend to be more generous that, say, computer science or mathematics. I'll thus argue two examples of what you (and some fields) may consider dubious basis for authorship, but which in my field would be considered fairly standard:

Getting funding. In this age, getting funding most often requires writing a grant proposal for a specific research program, with good and novel ideas, and convincing a tough crowd of other scientists (in a competitive environment) that your program is a good use of taxpayers' money. Thus, in most cases, the person who provides the funding also provides a clear scientific contribution: they identified an important problem to be solved, and provided a general framework for solving it. That's an important part of research! Identifying the right question to ask yourself is half of the job, it is known. (Yeah, I'm trying my hand at Dothraki style in academic context. By the way, thank you for reading so far down my answer.)
Supervising. Whether or not the supervisor actually provided the student with the research project in the first place, supervision implies guidance of the student, which is definitely a scientific contribution. The supervisor will, in many cases, provide a broader view of the field and ideas for related problems relevant to the research, scientific background, and advice on how to use one's research time most efficiently. All of that is highly valuable, and contributes to the publication.
(I've read somewhere “but the supervisor is paid for this, it's his job, so he shouldn't be awarded authorship” — that's plain stupid, pretty much everyone gets paid to do research, thus by that argument most papers would be authorless.)

In both cases, funding and supervising imply scientific contributions, which are the reason for authorship.

The funding and supervising are NOT the reasons for authorship, it is all the stuff in the supporting statements.

@DanielE.Shub yes, I think that's what I tried to say… funding and supervising imply scientific contributions, which are the reason for authorship. I edited to make it clearer.

I object!  The person who funds a project does not automatically provide a novel and significant scientific contribution to every paper funded by that project.  If the same proposal idea eventually leads to four papers, the PI should not automatically be a coauthor of all four; the contribution was only novel the first time.  Similarly, guidance may or may not be significant enough to merit coauthorship; in particular, generic advice about "how to use one's research time" is not sufficient.  (Or should I be a coauthor on all papers of academia.se users?)

In short, supervisors should not automatically be coauthors.  The decision should be independent for each individual paper.

Also: the supervisor's final product is not the publication;   it's the finished PhD student.

@JeffE I agree that the decision should be independent for each paper, and I wrote so in my answer… but it would really require a particular inept supervisor to have no scientific contribution to his students' work (re: “final product”, I meant  “the final product of interest in this case”… I have now changed the wording)

@JeffE: I don't think there is much discussion about  the (legal) person who just pays: "we thank the XYZ for funding under project number 2013/123456.", there is no authorship discussion with that. Discussions in my experience start when it comes to the questions of how much contribution a given supervision actually is. I've never met a situation where having written the grant (and then not being project supervisor) would have lead to a claim of authorship. And IMHO, novelty is not needed for all contributions: the "sanity check" by a supervisor is an important scientific contribution, too.

@F'x: As I have stated elsewhere, I am not a coauthor on all of my students' papers, even though I fund them, and even though I give them advice and suggestions, sometimes including the topic of the paper.  I don't consider those contributions sufficient for coauthorship, and I don't appreciate your assumption that that makes me "particularly inept".

I would argue that the Vancouver Protocol is something most people understand but traditions, peer pressure etc. is what makes co-authorship a sometimes fuzzy decision. So as for documentation, I doubt any exists that is accepted by all. That said, I know that in large consortias such as in physics, for example, accelerator work, one signs a contract that automatically adds your name to all papers produced within a given time frame depedning on your time period involved in the project. Such consortia-authorships usually use the consortia name as author with a separate listing of individuals. The consortia-authorship is something I do not think the writers of the Vancouver Protocol had in mind.
EDIT:
Here is an example from from CERN.
In the case of large research groups this type of "contract" (specific in each case) could be a way to officially outline the policy accepted by participants.

Interesting side note regarding consortium authorship, but I doubt that's the issue Daniel had in mind…

True but the question referred to documentation and my point is that it will be hard to find.

@F'x it wasn't what I had in mind, but it is very welcome. Consortium authorship is definitely an important edge condition.

This is going to depend on the field. For most fields, the norm is that an author has made "intellectual contributions" to the work. ICMJE updates this requirement to "substantive" intellectual contributions, but most conferences and journals have a written or implied cut-off for how substantive an intellectual contribution is. Many journals and conferences now ask for detailed list of contributions by the authors to combat vanity authorships.
In some fields, for example my own field of Chemistry, the norm is that the individual who has secured the funding has written one or more grant proposals specific to this project. These proposals may have been written with or without the assistance of the students working on the project. They may have even been written before the student joined the project. In chemistry, the proposal needs to be pretty specific about what types of problems will be examined and what methods will be used. Writing the proposal to get the funding is a substantive intellectual contribution counting as "substantial contributions to conception and design" as far as the ICMJE is concerned.
Funding does not necessarily happen this way in every field. As Peter Jansson suggests, a National Lab, consortium, or other funded research center or institute may have a budget process that is separate from the conception and design of experiments. In such a case, the director of the center, whose duties likely include making sure the center is funded, is probably not an author.
Normal behavior for whether the supervisor is an author has been established in every field. Ask your colleagues. Consult your journals/conferences. For example, the American Chemical Society has the following description in their Publication Ethics (Page 3) (emphasis mine):

The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Authors should appropriately recognize the contributions of technical staff and data professionals. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. An administrative relationship to the investigation does not of itself qualify a person for co - authorship (but occasionally it may be appropriate to acknowledge major administrative assistance). Deceased persons who meet the criterion for inclusion as co-authors should be so included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as an author or coauthor. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate. The submitting author should have sent each living co-author a draft copy of the manuscript and have obtained the co-author’s assent to co-authorship of it.

To the ACS, the individual who takes responsibility for the validity of the data and the work (usually the student's supervisor in chemistry) is an author, even if that person did not design the experiments, collect the data, interpret the results, or write the manuscript. The supervisor has a more permanent position than the student and is likely to be easier to reach with questions five years from now than the student.

I think as written this answer is misleading. The norm is not that the person who got the funding is an author, although this is frequent. The norm is that the person who got the funding made a significant scientific contribution and is therefore an author.

About your last part: the ACS policy clear says “all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions and who share responsibility and accountability”, not or. I think scientific contribution is still required…

Conversely, all authors are responsible for the validity of the data and the work, not just the supervisor.

@JeffE I think that is a field specific/dated view. Work published by a research consortium or requiring specialized help (suitable for authorship) no longer requires all authors to be responsible for all sections.

Field-specific, perhaps; certainly the assumption that every author is responsible/accountable for the entire paper applies to every paper in my field.  But dated?  Conversely, how can anyone claim actual responsibility (including ethical oversight) for research done by a consortium of over 500 people?

@JeffE in my field over the past 5-10 years it has become common to bring in a stats specialist. They provide input that "we" cannot vouch for and we provide data that they cannot vouch for.

In my field over the last 5-10 years it has become common to learn some statistics.


text:
How many reference letters to submit?
My question is related to, but not a duplicate of How many recommendation letters are enough?
In that question the job requires 4 letters and the applicant has 5 good letters. I am applying for a TT faculty job that requires 3 letters of reference and allows up to 5 letters of reference. I have 5 people who have and would be willing to write letters for me. While I have never seen the letters written by my references, I believe that 3 of them write much better letters than the other two. My question is how many letters do I submit?
Potentially useful is that my three "primary" references know my research and teaching inside and out. They are also excellent writers with effusive personalities and well respected within the field (and department) that I am applying to.
My secondary references also know my research, but not my teaching. Their writing and personalities are less effusive. I have never collaborated with them or worked directly with or under them. I feel like they have less "invested" in me and that this probably reduces the quality of the letter. They are also in a "competing" field and would potentially sell me as the "wrong" thing. I wouldn't expect their letters to be bad or saying anything negative. I am just worried that they will not be positive enough.

For purposes of counting: do you have a separate letter just about teaching?

@BenWebster I guess I could. I could ask my "primary" references to focus on my research and then have a secondary reference focus on my teaching.

I only know my experience from the US in mathematics at research universities; there, the standard practice is to have one letter which is only about teaching from a colleague who has seen you in the classroom and gone over any teaching dossier you have, and then all other letters are specifically about research, and only peripherally mention teaching (actually a lot of discussion of teaching in one of these letters might be read as trying to avoid discussing the person's weak research record).

For example, the TT job ad up for my department (The University of Virginia) says "The applicant must also have at least four letters of recommendation submitted, of which one must support the applicant's effectiveness as a teacher."

Definitely, having more recommendation letters can prove the popularity of applicant among his/her colleagues in workplace, but just a  negative (or even less positive) recommendation letter can destroy a possible recruitment, as it can strongly affect the impression and judgment of search committees.
A negative (or not-positive) recommendation letter can attract the attention of review committee to weak points (even if they are imaginary induced by the recommendation letter).
It is not bad that a recommendation letter emphasizes on teaching or research only. This is somehow the reason that several recommendation letters are needed (by people who knows the applicant from different perspectives).
Just keep in mind that a search committee always try to foresee any drawback in prospective recruitment. If a recommendation letter states negative points, then, the search committee must consider this risk (for bad recruitment), as there is an evidence for that in the application under review.
NOTE that recommendation letters normally should assist search committee to discover what they have NOT already found in resume. A tiny negative point has more effect on search committee rather than many recommendation letters stating an evident point, they already knew from resume.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Publishing an 'ok paper' to arxiv
I worked on an interesting project as a PHD student. It was rejected from a top conference with all but 1 reviewer agreeing that it was an ok paper but not good enough for that conference, because more work was required. The other reviewer said it was in top 15% papers. Do the reviewers mean "trash paper" when they say "ok paper" ?
 I don't have the time to finish it because I have switched my research area. In the project, I also collected and processed a large amount of data which would be useful for the computer vision community. Should I just put the paper and associated data/code on my website? Or should I put it on arxiv? In either cases, I wanted to acknowledge and include a link to the reviews from the conference. Is that a bad idea? The review process was double blind and hence the reviews are anonymous.

The reviews could be confidential.  See, for example, http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/545/what-happens-to-the-reviews-that-people-write-for-journal-articles-after-theyre and http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/647/can-i-publish-the-reviews-i-write

In a blind review, if the reviewer feels like the paper is bad, he will often make his dislike abundantly clear. "OK" probably means "OK", not top tier, but not trash.

@JoelReyesNoche: Not so fast.  Confidentiality of reviews applies to the referees, but not necessarily to the authors receiving the reports.  (Read the questions you point to carefully!)  I don't see any ethical problem with an author publishing reviews of their own paper.  It might be in bad taste, but that's a different issue.

@JeffE, at http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/550/64, Lars Kotthoff said "I think publishing reviews for your papers would in general be frowned upon, even if there's no explicit rule saying that you can't." Also, at http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/648/64, Lars Kotthoff commented "I would also assume that the confidentiality extends to everybody involved in the process."  (But your view is represented at http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/546/64, where Kieran said "The author can show them to whomever they like.")

Thanks @JoelReyesNoche . After reading the discussions you linked to, I thought it's better to be on the safe side by asking the program chairs. They said I can publish the reviews. Legalities aside, I still don't completely see why people should should NOT include available sound reviews, specially when they are submitting exclusively to places which do not explicitly require peer approval for acceptance

You should post everything to the ArXiv! If you are worried about what the "smallest result" is then check this question.

Do the reviewers mean "trash paper" when they say "ok paper" ?

Definitely no. As Luke points out, since the reviews are blind, reviewers tend to be honest, if not leaning to the negative side. If they were explicit that the paper is fine, though still somewhat preliminary, understand it as a positive feedback.

Should I just put the paper and associated data/code on my website?

I think the answer is yes, unless you want to "hide" the paper from the public.
I think about these things this way: the public (through taxes, NGO's, etc. and the subsequent redistribution to higher education and research) is paying us to do research with the hope that something good and beneficial will come out. Once you do the work, regardless of whether top-notch, or only somewhat significant, as far as it is a result of a serious effort and of reasonable quality (workmanship-wise), the public deserves reporting back on our work, as well as deserves the results. It is up to others to decide whether our work is useful to the society, or not.

Or should I put it on arxiv?

Do both. Yes, going for arXiv is a good idea in such a case. If you feel so, you can prepend the paper with explanation of why you publish it as it is.
Either way, my advice is to publish the work. Actually, your situation is quite common. What many people do in a situation you describe, is to publish and present the work in a workshop associated with the (major) relevant conference. Or re-submit it as a poster, or short paper, if the conference has such a track. Those are definitely for quality, but still somewhat preliminary results.

In either cases, I wanted to acknowledge and include a link to the reviews from the conference. Is that a bad idea?

No. I think you idea is good. Honest and open. How about including the reviews in  an appendix of the arXiv submission?

I agree with this answer apart from the last point. I wouldn't publish or link to the reviews.

Have you considered submission to a journal? As reviewers are not identified, it is reasonable to trust their judgement that the paper is "okay", and of course "okay" at a top conference in CS could still be quite good, especially as it's within the top 15%. Although perhaps the top-tier journals would render a similar judgement, there may be a venue where it is appropriate (I'm not familiar with the computer vision area), and you could publish without an excess of additional work.
Alongside this you can (usually) always put a preprint on ArXiv, few journals or conferences take issue with this now, which allows you to make it available in the meantime, regardless of what else you decide to do with it in the future.
However I would definitely not include the reviews. Although there is no rule against doing so, particularly as the reviewers shouldn't be identifiable, it contributes nothing to your research - the reader should be assessing the value themselves. The inclusion of reviews would only indicate that you want to boast about your work, or that you want people to accept it because someone else said it was good.

Thanks Luke. I'll clear some misunderstanding. I don't have much to gain from the paper. I have changed my area completely and this paper is so unrelated now that I cannot include it in my theis. But I think the ideas and data might be useful for the vision community. When I put a footnote saying the paper was rejected and put not-so-positive reviews, my intention isn't to boast. My reason is that when I buy a product on Amazon, it helps to see unbiased third party reviews. Similarly, If someone wants to build up on my work, the reviews might be useful(esp. as I don't have time to address them

Never underestimate the utility of an extra publication on the CV, even in a different area - it demonstrates your productivity and ability to engage in publishable research. Having said that, it's really up to you to judge whether the effort would be worth it (but definitely make it available, that's the real point of research!). With regards to the reviews, I didn't expect you wanted to boast, but to someone from the "outside" this is one possible inferred intention, which you undoubtedly wouldn't want.

I don't have much to gain from the paper. — I don't believe you.  If that were really true, why did you waste your time submitting it?

because i worked on it for 1 year and i had an emotional attachment to it. I was very very passionate about it when i submitted it 5+ months ago. Few months after submission, I have permanently changed my area, and I guess in 5 months, some of that emotional attachment has waned. Also, many people I talked to suggested that publishing a rejected paper might hurt my career. But I agree with @LukeMathieson and walkmanyi that I should make it available to the public

Don't feel bad if your paper was rejected, if you really want to publish, you could always submit it to another conference in its current form trying to address some of the concerns of the reviewers.
The problem with conferences (most) is that you don't get a second chance to submit it. There is nothing wrong with putting your paper out there in Arxiv, but remember that if it has not been published before, you could always suffer the danger of  being plagiarized to certain extent.
Like Luke mentions, reviewers are most of the time a toss in the air.

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


text:
Is there such a thing called native speaker bias when publishing?
This has been a subject that has occupied my thoughts for the past years but haven't really managed to formulate it completely for myself. I have this feeling (and I can't say it's more than a feeling at this point) that native speakers of English have an easier time with getting their article published.
I should make it clear, right away, that I don't mean just because you are a native speaker you can get whatever published, but given a particular project, if the main author is a native speaker the article is more likely to get accepted, or at least draw more positive reviews. I motivate the potential existence of such a bias on the fact that it's likely that a native speaker does a better job in writing than someone who has English as a foreign language.
Since I do not have any data to back this theory up, I would like to ask if you have come across any numbers/facts regarding any such bias in the publication/acceptance rates in general, as well as high-IF journals specifically.
EDIT: I should perhaps rephrase and add a bit more details to the question here. I do not refer to small grammatical mistakes, misspellings or anything of that nature. What I am referring to here, is the wider vocabulary a native-speaker has in his/her disposal, the phrases and expressions that they use that might not be readily and easily available to non-native speaker. I could perhaps summarise it the differences as the metaphorical chocolate chips that a native speaker can and most likely will bake into the cookie that is the manuscript.
I am clear on the point that the clearness criteria is still the most important and that's why I did not talk about the rejections (it's natural that non-native speakers get their papers rejected based on language more often compared to native speakers). As a non-native speaker myself, it is beyond any doubt that I need to write my manuscripts with a clearly understandable language in order for them to get published, but again that's not really what I am asking here. I am more interested in whether or not articles written by native speakers come across as "better quality" based on the fact that they are more likely to utilise their edge with the language.
There are of course other factors at play, but it would be interesting to see if there are any stats involved.

The question asks about data and hard numbers/facts, not personal views. I am downvoting all answers given up to now, because they seem to give unsubstantiated opinions.

Nobody is a native speaker in the International English. I also met Englishmen, who otherwise speak almost Queens English, and who received review comments like "let a native speaker proof-read your manuscript". And I guess many of us have experience that when a native speaker enters an international English discussion, either the guy ends up misunderstood quite often, or is forced to "downgrade" the complexity and sophistication of her/his own language. So much to an advantage of native speakers in academic publishing :-).

Since this is a personal example, I'm just posting it as a comment, but: I have a friend, who, as a native speaker got two set of opposite reviews on his article. First set said that the science was impeccable, but he should find somebody to help him improve his language. The second set complimented him on his language usage while saying that the science is not good enough for publication.

"Other factors"? You want numbers but do not know on what? I am sure there might be an editor who, for example, do not like Swedes or whatever and hence there may be a bias due to prejudice there. But from such cases to a general bias is difficult to assess without grounds.

@PeterJansson The "other factors" I was referring to was mostly personal relationships between authors and editors, but that's outside the scope of this question (not to mention very subjective). So to answer your question; I do know what I want numbers on, it's whether or not native speakers have a higher percentage of acceptance than their non-native speaker counterparts in general, AND for high-rep journals in particular. I am sorry I couldn't make myself clear enough.

Thanks, I see. It will be interesting to see if anyone has been able to distinguish reject due to some true bias from reject due to lower standard manuscripts. I think that would be difficult at best and quite subjective.

@PeterJansson well, the basic assumption there would be that a native speaker is just as likely to submit a manuscript that is based on "bad/inadequate science" as a non-native speaker. Thus if you look at a large enough number of submissions, if the percentage of acceptance differ significantly then you might start speculating whether or not there is some bias based on language skills, regardless any such bias is on a conscious level or not.

If the effect is due to native speakers writing better in that language --- whether that's due to fewer grammatical errors, larger vocabulary, it's not really a native-speaker bias as such.  You could say that native speakers have an "unfair advantage" in the sense that they have a leg up in using the language, but I think it's incorrect to call that a bias.  Tall players may have an advantage in basketball, but that on its own doesn't mean that there is a "tallness bias" in player selection.
In addition, it's not clear how reviewers (or anyone else who hadn't met the author personally) could know that the author was a native speaker, as opposed to just a good writer in the language.  I'd say that to argue it was a native speaker bias specifically, you'd have to show that native speakers as a whole were given preferential treatment over non-native speakers, independent of their writing ability.
A different question, though, would be whether there's a writing quality bias.  I think it's possible that articles with a "better" writing style (whatever that may mean) get an edge over articles that are competently but not so eloquently written.  It could be argued that this is a bias, if it means that interesting and important results are less likely to be published due to writing-quality issues at the top end of the scale.  Everyone agrees that some minimum level of writing quality is needed for the article to be readable and useful, but if excellent writing "above and beyond" that minimum gives an article an undue boost over others with equally important findings, that could be a bias.  Again, though, it would be a bias in the relative evaluation of characteristics of the articles themselves, not a bias related to the author's status as a native or non-native speaker.  In particular, this would mean that native speakers who aren't very good writers would also be adversely affected by the bias.
I don't know of any data on this issue, but I'd be skeptical that there is a bias towards native speakers per se.  I could believe there is a bias towards better writing (even when extra-good writing "doesn't matter" in terms of the scientific value of the article).

Isn't there quite obviously a tallness bias in basketball player selection?  Or are we understanding different things under "bias"?

I think you are getting stuck on the semantics of the wording I have used in the question. What I am asking is exactly what you are referring to in paragraph 3 of your answer. In order words, whether or not more elaborate and eloquent wording qualifies the article for more/better judgement, beyond what is scientifically interesting in that manuscript. Oh and I totally agree with @gerrit I think you are gravely mistaken if you think athletes are not evaluated and filtered on their physical characteristics.

@posdef: That may be, but the comments on Peter Jansson's answer suggest I'm not the only one.  You asked about a native speaker bias, not a writing quality bias.  Also, again, I don't see it as a "bias" if it's just a preference for qualities that are overtly valued.  That is, selecting things that are closer to what you say you're looking for isn't a bias, it's just following your own rules.  So if a journal says it wants well-written papers and then accepts the best-written papers, that's not a bias.  Likewise, picking tall b-ball players isn't bias unless tallness is unduly weighted.

I also interpreted the question the way BrenBarn did.  It seems now that the question is meant to be "Is the sheer quality of the writing of a paper taken into account when deciding whether to accept the paper?"  That is really not the question that was asked, however.

The answer is yes but the issue is not as clear as you state it. To publish a paper, it must meet certain criteria which include form, clarity and of course scientific contribution. If you are a native speaker it will be easier to meet these criteria and particularly those that deal with language issues. The disadvantage we, who are non-native speakers, meet is to be good enough with regards to these criteria. The point is not that grammatical errors as such may make acceptance less likely but if the language makes understanding the paper difficult or even make one misunderstand the paper, then it becomes a problem.
So the problem can be called bias but it can also be seen as not meeting the standards required. From the latter point it is not clearly a matter of native vs. non-native speakers but a matter of being able to express the science in an intelligible way. I am chief editor of an international journal, albeit not with the IF of Nature, and out of all papers we reject (50% of all submitted) a small part is based on the above problem. In most cases it is due to poor science and then with no particular emphasis on native or not speakers.

Thanks for the reply, but the criteria in writing clear and understandable English wasn't really what I was asking about. Please see the edits.

Thanks, I see your point, but my point is that I do not see much of a bias outside those problems and their impact on readability and the possibility to correctly understand a paper.

I think this answer does directly answer the question. The question really seems to be "do native writers have and advantage since they have a greater vocablary and understanding of idioms." This is not an issue of bias but a preference for "richer" writing.

To the down-voters: Please leave a comment so it is possible to either improve the post or to understand the reason for the down-vote. Note the help text on down-voting: "...voting down a post signals [the opposite]: that the post contains wrong information, is poorly researched, or fails to communicate information."

I have already stated the reason for my downvotes to these answers in a comment to the original question, to avoid clutter.

Thank you, so one more to go. I could go through all the papers published in the international journals I am editor edit to support my point with numbers but I will let my "personal view" reign.

@PeterJansson I did not vote for any answer one way or another, yet. I am still waiting for more answers, seeing as there seems to be a little bit of a discussion around what the question is actually asking for, and how to answer it. I suppose I have not done a good enough job explaining what I was going after... I will wait a bit more and see if more clarification is necessary.

@posdef Sorry, no indirect "blame" intended.

@PeterJansson no worries, just wanted to clarify :)


text:
Approaching researchers about collaboration?
This question is quite premature for the current state of my studies, but I already have a few people in mind to which this question applies.
In Academia, would it be considered normal to approach a researcher you respect (who's work has great personal value or interest to you) and suggest that you would be interested in assisting with their future research efforts? In this case, I'm speaking less about full collaboration/co-authorship, and more about being willing to assist with the 'grunt work' of a given research project, purely out of interest in the subject matter.
Would this be construed as insulting to the researcher?
Is this sort of offer commonplace?
Is there an expectation of credential equality in this situation? For example, would it be inappropriate for an Undergraduate student to make such an offer to a PhD?

Welcome to Academia.SE. Have you checked out the cother collaboration questions? There are a lot of good [tag:collaboration] posts already here. Perhaps this one will be helpful http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2707/how-should-a-phd-student-approach-a-collaboration

@BenNorris - Thanks! I did check out a lot of the collaboration questions, including the one you pointed out :)  I was thinking that, perhaps, my specific question was distinct enough that it may have a different answer, in that it concerns less of an equal-footed official academic collaboration, and more of a personal academic interest.
Perhaps I'm overthinking the difference between the two situations?

To show interest is never wrong so from that point, I think such an approach would be fair. What complicates the issue is the picture of prerequisites. When you approach someone, does not matter at what level, you need to show how you can be of interest. What that entails is showing you have the background (courses and scientific literature) that allows you to be efficient help. I think this is where the plan is most likely to fail because the recipient of the request will not likely be interested in taking on help that needs much coaching to function. If your request is within the department where you study, matters might be easier but if you contact someone in another university of perhaps even department the difficulties may arise.
So, I cannot see anyone being offended by a request such as this. The problem lies in seeing how you can fit in and be a contributor without to much costs (in terms of e.g. time) for the researcher or research group. However, a personal visit is far more likely to lead somewhere than a letter or E-mail.
Requests such as these are not uncommon but in my experience have most often been very uninteresting. Again, some have visited which has provided a very good possibility to assess the common interests and in what way a possible "collaboration" would work.
As for the last question, I cannot see a problem except that a PhD student may not be in a position to bring in an external person into a project that in essence is run by their advisor. A PhD student, on the other hand, may be a good way into a research group since they may be open to a meeting more readily than a busy project leader.
So, showing interest is good but you need to be able to show clearly what you bring to the table to wet the appetite of the person you target.


text:
When should ideas be shared on stackexchange?
I get exciting ideas about math a lot, and I was wondering if it is a bad idea to share them in question form to vet them, expand them, or show their lack of novelty. I know free exchange of ideas is good, but is it wise to exchange so broadly so early? If someone uses my idea from SE I know they are supposed to cite me, but could they take the career credit despite my having "The Idea"? Would I be a coauthor to the first paper from the idea?

Another issue is the psychology of doing a project and finding out someone else finished it before you.


text:
Are there any accredited universities in the world offering students the option of acquiring a BA/BSc in psychology completely online?
I travel a lot and I'm interested in getting a psychology degree but after researching online I still haven't been able to find a good university that offers the choice to complete a psych degree by distance education.  I'm a Canadian citizen so programs that accept Canadians is vital.  With all the current online offerings I'm shocked that I can't find a quality university offering a BA or BSc in psychology online or by distance offline.  Any suggestions? I'm interested in CPA accredited degrees otherwise it's worth nothing in Canada.  And, I'm open to programs with a few on-campus requirements if an accredited degree is unavailable fully online.  I want to be able to pursue a MA or a PhD in Canada after completing the undergraduate program.

I don't know if they offer a programme in English, but the Dutch Open University is high-quality and focusses on distance education http://www.ou.nl/web/english

Are there any accredited universities in the world offering students the option of acquiring a BA/BSc in psychology completely online?

Yes
There are likely hundreds of programs. How well they meet your needs will be determined by 1) What you mean by 'accredited', and 2) residency restrictions.

Accreditation

Are you interested in accredited institutions or accredited programs? Institutions are accredited by organizations recognized at the government level as being able to guarantee that all programs at the institution meet some minimum standards. In the US, regional accreditation is king, while the more prestigious sounding national accreditation is generally viewed as easier to get and less rigorous. In Canada, accreditation appears to be handled through membership in the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
Again, in the US, many of the large flagship state institutions have an online campus to accompany their bricks-and-mortar traditional campuses. For example Univerity of Maryland University College appears to offer an online BS in Psychology. UMUC is regionally accredited in the US by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, just like the the bricks-and-mortar campuses of the University of Maryland system. Certainly, some of the larger schools in Canada also have a similar online presence.
The on-line for-profit schools in the US tend to be nationally accredited, with the notable exception of the much maligned University of Phoenix, which offers an online program in psychology. University of Phoenix is regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission as part of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.
Individual programs may also be accredited or certified by various professional organizations. If you are looking for an online psychology program certified by a professional psychology association, try starting at the website of the association and look for lists of certified programs.

Residency

Attending an online only institution should not have residency restrictions based on your country of citizenship, but it probably does. For example, I would imagine you would need to have a US education visa in order to be admitted into some US institutions, even if the program is entirely online and you never need to step foot on campus.

I think the OP is looking for something along the lines of APA, BPS, or CPA accreditation so he/she can practice psychology.

Is this really possible? That sounds fishy. What prevents me from signing up my dog for an online course, taking the exams for him, and having him registered as an accredited psychologist?

@FedericoPoloni, well in the US, you need to prove you are human to enroll in a degree-granting program, even an online-only program.

@DanielE.Shub - The APA has this to say about online-only programs. However, an APA/BPS/CPA certified program does guarantee that the recipient of the degree will be able to practice. These are not regulatory bodies. You still have to pass a license exam. A good showing an an accredited school with a non-APA-accredited program will probably be better preparation for the exam than a mediocre showing at an APA-accredited program.

@FedericoPoloni there is little that prevents dishonest people from scamming the system. Online courses might be easier to scam than brick-and-mortar courses, but they can all be scammed.

@BenNorris A degree from a accredited program can be a requirement for licensure in the US (http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/program-choice.aspx?item=4). In the UK, I don't think licensure is required, only an accredited degree. There are a number of programs that offer "conversion" diplomas for people who want to move into the field.

I work in distance education and often work with canadian researchers.  I have a very high respect for the quality of the distance offerings up north (I'm in the US).  You have good options at home.  The one that jumps out is Athabasca University.  Fully online and internationally recognized as a research institution.
http://psych.athabascau.ca/
http://www.athabascau.ca/programs/ba4psyc/

American Public University System (APUS) has both Masters and Bachelors level programs and accepts international students. They are regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission.
http://www.ncahlc.org/
http://www.apu.apus.edu/admissions/program-requirements/psychology.htm
http://www.apu.apus.edu/admissions/general-information/international-students/

Full Disclosure: I'm an institutional researcher at APUS.

APUS?  Also, Athabasca is not accredited by anyone.

@verve Here's the accreditation page for Athabasca.  It's a public university so they are accredited by the Canada government.  They are also the first Canadian public university to be accredited by a US body, the Middle States.  http://www.athabascau.ca/aboutau/accreditation.php

The University of London has a distance learning programme. You will basically sit the same exam as an internal student at the respective constituent college would sit, and this will be conducted at some GRE / GMAT etc. facilities to guarantee proper exam conditions. In the end you will get a University of London degree just like any other internal student would.
University of London International Programmes
Accreditation should hardly be a problem in the case of the University of London I would think as it's one of the most prestigious UK institutions with members such as University College, the London School of Economics and King's College London.

I would be surprised if the University of London had Canadian accreditation (and it is not listed on the CPA website). Getting a degree form a properly accredited department is critical for students who with to go into clinical practice.

If that is true then essentially you cannot go into clinical practice with a UK degree in Canada as there is no higher degree of official recognition attainable for a UK institution then that being enjoyed by the UoL. It's of course possible but I think it's unlikely. Unfortunately I am not an expert on agreements for mutual recognition of degrees between Canada and the UK :(

I don't see a psych degree in the above link.  How do you know that I will sit the same exam as an internal student?

it's only the one by Birkbeck if organisational psych is relevant. The college is entirely responsible for all academic aspects incl. exam and the UoL is the degree awarding body. Open University has a pure psych BSc ( the OU is recognised in the UK but in that case reputation may be more of an issue ! )

The CPA has a list of all accredit universities and departments. The list is of a size that you should be able to check what the online offerings are.

I think this list just contains institutions that are accredited AND Canadian. I know Canada has high standards, but I'm sure they will recognise at least some non Canadian qualifications, so it may be worth doing a bit more digging :)

Hmmm...the CPA doesn't accredit ANY foreign schools?

@verve that is what it looks like. This doesn't surprise me at all. The BPS also doesn't accredit any foreign schools. There is a push right now to get BPS accreditation for international campuses (think China and SE Asia) of UK schools.

@Beltrame no they won't. CPA and BPS (and I think APA) accredit programs not individuals so they don't really need to deal with it. Getting a license to practice is easier with a accredited degree, but you don't need an accredited degree. Some jobs naively ask for people to have accredited degrees and do not consider international candidates. The OP asked for a CPA accredited program. One could easily produce the lists of APA and BPS accredited programs. I am not familiar with the Australian system or other English speaking systems, but I bet there are lists.


text:
When is a research question "closed"?
I am in Computer Science. I read a survey today. The author gave such a good result by the end of the article that I think the research question can be called "closed": the result performance is ideal and I think the problem is not worth researching any more; future developers can simply use the algorithms proposed and things should be fine. However, the author of the survey did not say so -- they did not say that the problem is solved, nor did they said anything about future work.
I believe (in this specific case), that the problem is solved:

The research goal is to reduce network latency. By the time the survey was written (year 2008), the result latency was 100ms. With such latency, human users won't notice a network delay, because that only happens when the latency exceeds 150ms.
The authors of the survey did not publish any paper on optimizing the algorithms after that survey.

Does these mean that the problem is safely closed? If so, why didn't the survey authors say that? If not, why didn't they continue working on it? How would I know whether a research question is solved or not?

In your example, there is still room for improvement until the latency is equal to the distance between the two endpoints, divided by the speed of light. The difference might not be noticible for humans, but for other purposes it may matter. High-frequency trading comes to mind.

they did not say that the problem is solved, nor did they said anything about future work. — Bad survey author.  No biscuit.

I don't think a research question is every “closed”, as you say, though it's of course a matter of vocabulary. In the example you mention, it seems clearly that there is no current incentive to design better solutions, but unless it is actually proven that there can be none, it's not a solved-and-closed question, it's a “we don't actually need to do better” question. This makes all the difference in the world.

Some research questions can be closed, by the method you describe, proving that there is no better solution. This has indeed happened many times for mathematical research questions, such as the optimal close-packing of equal spheres.

@PeterOlson yeah, mathematics is one field were you might say such things. I thought about writing an additional paragraph about that, but it's not my field so I was worried to say stupid things. Here goes anyway: In mathematics, you can indeed prove a theorem, but it's rarely ends up all work on a give “question” in the broader sense: what happens with less strict hypothesis? can a shorter proof be found? is there proof that doesn't rely on a given axiom? what happens in neighboring situations? In your example of sphere packing, I believe the question is still open for larger dimensions…

@F'x: but in an applied field, how much should we care about a solution we don't need?

I'd like to expand on Pieter Naaijkens's answer, because your question and his answer bear on a more general problem: when is a problem worth solving? Or viceversa, should one care about a paper solving this problem? I'll present the answer I've grown up with (as a PhD student), though I've seen wildly different opinions on this, so I don't think there's a fully objective view (though characterizing the spectrum of opinions is what matters here).
I've learned that it's up to the author to motivate the reader to care about the paper ("sell one's research"), though others might disagree; nowadays this is necessary because of the research-literature overload we live in. In applied fields, a common motivation is a set of (possibly indirect) applications. Different kind of motivations exist, but I'll conjecture that even good theoretical work should matter to other theoretical work to be good, and then leave other motivation out of scope.
Would you accept a paper (1) solving this latency problem for websites interacting with users? By your reasoning, I wouldn't (at least, not at a top venue). But let's assume that again Pieter Naaijkens submits a paper (2) on the topic. It first convinces readers that better latency matters by describing some application (say high-frequency trading, assuming this actually applies). Then, paper (2) solves the problem exactly like paper (1) above. The second paper could get past the same reviewers. I might even argue that with that motivation (assuming it's good), he might create a research question. And in some cases, simply motivating well a research question might be enough for a paper.
To demonstrate that wildly different opinions exist, I'll offer two opposite examples.

I've seen a reviewer explain that a paper was good research but he wasn't sure whether it addressed any relevant problem; the reviewer concluded with a strong accept judgement. (Of course I won't share details).
On the other hand, Tanenbaum's Modern Operating Systems book explains that some research had the only point of keeping otherwise unemployed graph theorists off the streets, because (it is hinted) the problem lacked actual applications.

Other examples of researchers questioning the motivation of other research abound, but I won't add further anecdotical evidence.


text:
Mentor trying to be first author?
I was on an internship with professor A at University B in China. We were working on a computer science project. During the internship I implemented professor A's idea and got some results. Three weeks ago I finished a paper draft and left University B for a new internship. Me and professor A were planning to submit the paper draft to a conference (deadline: May 20).
Until yesterday (May 17), the order of authors was: me, professor A, other students & collaborators in the lab... And professor A had no objection with that. However, last night I received an email from him. He said he wants to be the first author... His reason was for intellectual properties and patent issues. My understanding is that because I was merely an intern at University B, if the first author was me, it would cause IP troubles for him?
I feel deceived. But, should I feel like this? I was counting on a first-author paper because I'm planning to apply for a PhD program in the US. One paper may not mean a lot to someone who's published a lot. But for someone who hasn't published yet, it means something.
Looking on the Internet, I found something that might explain professor A's motivations:
In China specifically, corresponding authors are often underappreciated by universities and research institues. This might be the case for University B. Given professor A is relatively young, he may want first authorship for promotion.
Summary of my questions:

Should I go discuss with professor A and try to persuade him to let me be the first author?
If I want to apply for a PhD program in the US, would being the first author be more helpful or being the second author is as well helpful?

Edit:

My affiliation for the paper has always been University B. I didn't mention my current university or internship in any sense.
I emailed back to professor A yesterday, saying I think I should be the first author, because I did most of the work; because the idea was originated from him he should be the corresponding author. He replied this morning, saying he agree with what I said. He explained that because I was doing an internship in his lab and not a student of University B, putting me as the first author could cause IP and patent troubles for University B... So this problem is fixed now.

This is why you should always talk about author order before starting to write the paper (ideally before doing the research).

Surely any IP issues can be solved by making a separate declaration, if necessary?

@DanielE.Shub  But as a student, it is quite difficult to claim to be the 1st author to the mentors... How should we address this before writing and meanwhile be nice?

@perfectionm1ng that is a great new question. Ask it and I will try and come up with an answer.

@DanielE.Shub  As suggested: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12264/how-should-a-student-defend-his-1st-authorship-in-front-of-his-advisor-politely  Thanks! :)

@DanielE.Shub Before doing research? Sometimes it later turns out that one's contribution was great (or non-existing).

I don't really understand what the motivation here for the professor is. Since you did all of the work for this paper at University B, you should not list your new affiliation (whether it's an internship or another school) as an "active" affiliation for this paper. It can be listed as a "current address," but not as an active address for this paper. In that way, the professor still gets credit for your work, with your affiliation showing as being part of his group. (I suspect that the professor's concern is that, if you are at another institution and list that as your address, he won't get credit for his work.)
Another issue is that if you are not going to present the paper at the conference, he may have felt it was in his interests to list himself as a first author. How appropriate this is I have to leave to the CS community to judge.
In general, however, the first author should be the person who has made the largest contributions to both the research and the writing of the paper. Deviations from this need to have a very good foundation.

I saw no mention of University A.

@FaheemMitha: That was a slight misreading on my part. But the main point still stands: the new address shouldn't appear in the list of affiliations.

My answer to whether you should feel deceived is yes and no. Strictly speaking, if you have an agreement, it should stand. That is the easy part of the answer. Then comes different traditions and personalities, which makes the territory almost impossible to negotiate.
You could simply send a reply stating you disagree with the reordering. The point of having intellectual property involved is certainly true and merits co-authorship. The problem is of course the weight between your work and the original idea. If you have worked on this on your own without any help or assistance, first authorship seems clear. If you have had help through discussions etc. through the process it becomes less clear.
In the end the matter will be up to you, if you think you will gain much from taking the fight. You can ask to add something in the acknowledgement to make clear who contributed what. Another possibility, if the paper is mostly about your work, is to add yourself as corresponding author (which can be different from first).

Should I go discuss with professor A and try to persuade him to let me be the first author?

I think so.
At least you would like him to explain to you why he changed his mind. He had no objection with you being the first author in the first place. Then he sent you e-mail saying he wants to be the first author a few days before the submission deadline. There must be some important reason for that.
The intellectual properties and patent issues make some sense to me since you are no longer with University B. They might cause some trouble for Prof. A.
I am not convinced the corresponding authorship in your case makes a difference. First authorship does matter in China if you are also a professor at the same level, say both of you are assistant professors. He could be looked down because you made more contribution than he did. But, you are an intern. He can explain to others that you did all these under his supervision. I think he would actually earn extra credits by helping interns/students to publish papers.
I have the same suspicion as aeismall does. Your active affiliation may be an issue for Prof. A. Which institute will you represent when the paper is presented at the conference? Who will present the paper? I think these questions are his concerns.
Edit
After talking to some researchers knowledgeable about the corresponding authorship in China, I learned more about the issue. Some authors don't want to be the corresponding author because they are busy with other research interests. Some are just shy away because English writing is hard for them. Some are interested in the role because they would be more widely known in his area. In most cases, the first author or the one who makes the most contribution to the paper is the corresponding author. So far, no one is able to explain to me why corresponding authors are underappreciated. It seems to have little to do with your issue.
End of edit

@CherryQu I updated my answer about the corresponding author issue.

Thanks! My affiliation on the paper has always been University B. See my recent edit to the question.

@CherryQu Glad to know your problem is fixed.

It is possible the professor is trying to take advantage of you, but it would help to clarify things if you would expand on your answer to include the following.
It is implied that the paper is based on Professor A's idea. What this a full-blown idea, or just the kernel of something. Or, putting it differently, did he just point you in the general direction of something, or was this a relatively finished idea that just needed to be worked out in detail? Was this an idea you expanded on, or significantly improved? Did he provide significant intellectual input while the project was ongoing, or did he leave you to your own devices?
Also, you talked about implementation. Does this mean code, or something else? Did Professor A participate in the implementation in any way? If not, did he look at the implementation?
What about the paper itself? Did he participate in a substantial way in the writing of it?
If the answer is that you did most or all of the work, and did much of the working out of the idea, then it sounds like you should be first author. If he contributed substantially, it is less clear.
However, the paradigm in general is that the junior person gets the first authorship, because they need it for career reasons. Most people are willing to abide by this. I know someone whose PhD adviser put himself as first author on his (the students) papers, and the person in question regrets it now. If you go along with this, you may also regret it.
If you don't work for this person, the question is whether you have to do what he says for some reason. If you are hoping for a good reference, a first authorship on a paper might be worth more than a reference. Does he have any other hold on you? Do you need his further input on the project, or are you hoping to publish further papers with him? Also (perhaps not very important but serves to indicate tone) was the email polite or not? Personally, I think a conversation would have been more appropriate than an email in the circumstances.
For the record, I find the argument about intellectual properties and patent issues less than compelling, but it would also help if you could say more about how these things work in your university.


text:
École Normale Supérieure's students' class rankings and ranking on the national concours exam for agregation?
Are the École Normale Supérieure's academic records publicly available anywhere?
Specifically, I would like to know what class rankings were historically there, as well as its students' rankings on the national concours exam for agrégation.
thanks

I found half the answer:
Here's the link to records for rankings in the concours exams for aggrégation:
Les agrégés de l'enseignement secondaire
Répertoire 1809-1950


text:
What is done about academics who do not do research anymore, or who teach badly?
There are two loosely related questions here:

What is done about academics who do not do any research anymore?
What is done about academics who teach badly enough that it shows up?

I insist that I am asking what is done, in your department or institution (or in your country if it is uniform). I'll ask a separate question about what should be done. I would also like to distinguish between status (e.g. if you are talking about tenured faculty, please say so), and I am mostly but not only interested in tenured faculty.
Added: implicit in the question, as was mentioned in an answer, is the way an institution measures the research and teaching activities. Answers are welcome to describe the way these are measured to decide whether to take action, but please stick to what is actually done.
To give a little context, from 2009 there are recurring discussions about the teaching duty of academics in France, and whether it should be adapted to their achievements. I would like to have a broader view of the various answers actually given around the world to this issue.

Related:http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1478/how-do-universities-deal-with-loss-in-productivity-post-tenure

Before quibbling with some of the implicit hypotheses of the question: In my observation in the U.S. at top-20 places over the last 30+ years, official steps are rarely taken against post-tenure faculty on grounds that their "research" is in decline, much less that their "teaching/mentoring" may be in decline (if it ever was good).
In a few cases, teaching loads have been informally increased, or service loads informally increased, but often the dynamic that led to decline in research or teaching causes people to be unable to take up other responsibilities reliably.
In principle, in many places in the U.S. now there is "post-tenure review", pushed onto faculty by administration. But this is viewed by faculty as unsavory and contrary to the spirit of things. In particular, short of gross malfeasance, an excellent research and teaching record for some decades is viewed as earning a spot until one chooses to retire, rather than being forced out either unofficially or officially.
This does partly return me to questioning some implicit hypotheses of the question, namely, the short-term measurability of "research" and/or "teaching", and even the desirability of taking short-term samples. For that matter, foolishly idealistic though it may be, isn't the idea of "tenure" that one has indeed earned a spot, and one now has license to exercise one's own judgement, rather than be constantly and indefinitely concerned about external critiques?
Nevertheless, of course, administrations do tend to create ever-greater pressure to do more with fewer resources, thus indirectly pressuring faculty to "do something about" the (relatively few) faculty who are "not helpful". But I think most of us recognize that this is a potentially dangerously subjective question...
In the U.S., again, even faculty acknowledged to be "unhelpful" are not railroaded out, somewhat on the same grounds that we think of "free speech" as including, as a matter of principle, speech that we disagree with, etc.

The answer to both your questions will, from my perspective, be "not much". So this answer describes the view from my local point.
As a basis, university positions in my realm are teaching positions, 70% teaching and 30% for admin, personal development and research. The 30% is very quickly consumed by everything but research. On top of that one can "buy" oneself out of teaching so that the research time essentially is based on soft money. If you do not do research well, then no money comes in and your teaching load increases towards the 70%. So as long as you do your job in some way there is no mechanism for "correcting" a lack of research. On the other hand senior academics often get involved in higher and higher level administrative work at university, governmental, etc. level so a lack of research as such may be replaced by benefits gained in other ways. But, basically, a lack of research simply means teaching more.
If your teaching is very poor there is not much that can be done. Employment laws are very strong. The only way to sack a person would be if they, for example, drink at work, or blatantly refuse to accept orders from the "boss" (head of department etc.). It is also possible to remove someone if it can be shown that there is no need for whatever profile the person was employed under. I really cannot provide a detailed description of employment laws here but they make sacking people a difficult way out. Persons failing with teaching will most likely first be placed to do other duties. I have experience with one such person and it is hard to find tasks where this person can function and contribute.
So the "not much" is largely explained by employment laws in "my" case. The problem cases, which do not easily contribute in alternative ways, will cause lots of work for the department to find ways in which they can be made productive to the department. This will be successful in most cases but not so in the odd case.

"Employment laws are very strong." I assume this is a local statement. What area does this reference?

The question asks for local information so, yes, the answer is local.

Ok, but it would be useful to specify what location is being referred to.

@FaheemMitha: there's a good chance his local is Sweden.

It is true that it's very difficult to fire someone based on "bad" teaching or "bad scientific results". However, in some countries and institutions, an evaluation/audit by an external comitee is done on the level of institutes, departments, but for each person seperately as well. If this comittee concludes that a person is not worth the position, the head of the institute can fire him.
However, this applies only to a small number of places, and even then people don't get fired as much as they should, IMHO.


text:
math job market statistics
Looking around online, there are some statistics that foretell doom for PhD students; some examples of this:

the number of faculty to retire in the next 10 years is at the lowest in 30 years.
the number of PhDs awarded is around 100,000, while the number of professor positions open is around 16,000.
there has been approximately 40% budget cut for math between 2008-2011 (but there was a hiring freeze put on most state universities in 2009-2010, if I remember correctly, so this may not be entirely accurate).

For more statistics, see this:
http://marccortez.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/phd-job-crisis-640x4627.gif
The creator of this argues that the number of grad students and postdocs is way too high, while the number of professors is on the decline.
I think that this is not true for math. Postdocs are considered to be a mandatory part in our career (and postdoc positions are quite competitive!), and while many people do a second postdoc, I rarely see people with more than two postdoc experiences. Also, there aren't so many adjunct positions; some postdoc positions are called adjuncts, but these usually expire in 1-3 years. So I would like to know the real statistics. In particular, I want to know these figures for last year (percentages with respect to the number of PhDs will also do):

the number of PhDs awarded (all figures from here onwards applying just to the US)
the number of PhDs hired as postdocs at PhD-producing institutions
the number of PhDs hired as tenure-track professors at liberal arts colleges
the number of postdocs finishing
the number of postdocs hired as tenure-track professors at PhD-producing institutions
the number of postdocs hired as tenure-track professors at liberal arts colleges
the number of postdocs hired as postdocs at PhD-producing institutions

To summarize, I would like to know how harsh the funneling process is in math; I know from experience that many grad students leave academia without obtaining a job as a postdoc. Is the same true of postdocs? How about the tenure-track level?

Different locations may have different statistics. Do you want to specify the location and add tag to your question?

One solution: look for jobs in other countries where spending on higher education has increased by as much as 100% in the last four years.

@DavidKetcheson Some people really do move to the Middle East, where people seem more generous with supporting educational costs. However, many more people are stuck in the US for reasons beyond their control, which is precisely why I am asking this question.

Not everyone who get a PhD wants a post doc or TT position and even those that do who do not get one, still can have very nice careers that they are happy with.

@DavidKetcheson Well, moving to Saudi Arabia has its own issues, especially if you are a woman, or have a woman in your life you would like to convince to come with you.  Even if I decided I was OK with going to Saudi Arabia, I don't think I would ever convince my wife.

@BenWebster I certainly don't think it's the solution for everyone.!  That said, after 5 years here my wife doesn't want to leave.  But KAUST is a unique place.  And now we're way off-topic...

Almost certainly the best information you'll find is from the AMS Annual Survey: http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/annual-survey.  I don't know that it will answer all your questions (in particular, it's mostly focused on newly graduating Ph.D.'s; it doesn't track where people end up after postdocs), but if the data isn't in there, probably nobody has it.

It seems that they do have pretty good data on the new PhD's, since they are easier to track or gather data from. I suppose getting similar kind of data transitioning between a postdoc and tenure-track is more difficult. So: in your opinion, was it just as hard to move from a postdoc to tenure-track faculty, as it was moving from a new PhD to a postdoc position?

@user45756 That is a very hard question to answer, especially because the job market can vary so much from year to year.  I got my Ph.D. in 2007, which (using unemployment rate of new Ph.D.s as a rough proxy) was the best market since the late 80's; I finished my postdoc in 2010, which was the worst market anyone had seen since the late 90's.  I think right now, the situation is pretty tough for both transitions, but no one knows if this a "new normal," if things are just going to keep getting worse, or if some new source of jobs and funding will relieve the pressure.

@user45756 Anecdotally, I think math is in a better position than many other fields; I don't know many people consistently did good research and teaching, were flexible about where they would take a job, and didn't end up with an OK permanent position.  The question is exactly how consistently good you have to be, how much you have to flex, and how long it will take to find that position.  The bars have definitely gotten higher on all of those in recent years.

@Ben Webster: How high has the bar gotten for tenure-track positions?

@Gradstudent I’m not sure how to answer that question.  There is no one bar, and no systematic way of studying where it is.  I feel like the past couple of years, I’ve seen talented young people struggle a bit more to find a permanent position, and I feel like second postdocs have gone from relatively rare when I first went on the job market to close to obligatory.   But I don’t have a very broad sample, so it’s hard for me to really say.

To add to Ben Webster's answer, the most recent Notices of the AMS issue has a Report on Academic Recruitment and Hiring.  It doesn't exactly answer your questions either, but it provides information on how many tenure-track versus non-tenure-track positions were listed and filled, which I believe is not in the Annual Survey (last I checked, this does tell you how many new PhDs get hired as postdocs versus tenure-tracks).
Putting this data together with what's in the Annual Survey suggests that if you get a PhD in math, you have a good chance of getting an academic job (immediate from the Annual Survey), and eventually if not immediately a tenure-track job.  (Note these surveys don't tell you how many tenure-track positions are filled by foreign candidates or new PhDs, or how many US PhDs get permanent foreign academic positions--so there's not enough information to get precise estimates for some of the things you asked about, but I think enough to be comforting.)

This isn't an answer, but it's too lengthy to fit in the margin...
I'm going to adopt a deliberately contrarian point of view here and criticize the assumptions underlying the question from a quantitative perspective.  Since we're both mathematicians, I hope you won't mind.
Just to make the point, you might go a step further back and compare the ratio
(# of Master's graduates each year)/(# of admitted Doctoral students each year)
to see how "harsh" the funneling process is at that step.  But that's clearly ludicrous, since the majority of students getting master's degrees don't want to get a Ph.D.
I think the analysis you're proposing has the same problem.  A very large fraction of graduating Ph.D.'s don't want a university post-doc position.  Many of them want industry jobs -- a mathematician friend of mine from grad school chose a position at Google over academic opportunities and is very happy.  Others take government research jobs -- in applied math, named DOE lab post-docs can be much more competitive than university post-docs.
The other big issue is that the academic job market is a global one, and increasingly so with each new year.  Very many of the positions within the US are filled by foreigners, and very many individuals from the US happily take jobs in other countries.  I know one individual who was offered an NSF post-doc and a named term assistant professorship at a top-three US university in his field, but turned them both down (along with multiple other offers) to take his dream job -- outside of the US.  Your analysis would count all of these people as failure stories.

Yes, all of your comments are valid, with the exception of comparing # masters students versus # PhD students, since most students in the US do not get a master's degree before their PhD. But we might as well make the simplifying assumption that the number of American PhDs leaving America is roughly the same as the foreign PhDs entering America.

This is not meant to be offensive, but yes, I would count the people leaving academia as having failed to obtain an academic position (it could be voluntary, but it makes no difference from the perspective of someone who wants to gauge their chances of obtaining a tenure-track position straight out of a postdoc position).

@user45756: The word "failure" often implies having tried.  There's a big psychological difference between asking "What percentage of Ph.D. recipients take a non-academic position?" and "What percentage of Ph.D. recipients fail to obtain an academic position?"  Also, whether people leave voluntarily could make a big difference in the amount of competition.  If 1000 people are competing for 500 jobs, then that's very different than if 600 people are competing for 500 jobs while 400 people have chosen another path.

This isn't quite accurate either.  Most of the people who "choose" to go into industry did so not because they preferred industry over academia but because they preferred the industry jobs they could get over the academic jobs they could get.  If the academic job market had been less competitive, they might have ended up in academia.

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


text:
Asking about the status of paper you refereed?
I refereed a paper after a skim-through and a careful examination of about (1/3) of it after a couple of weeks, and then sent it back due to expository issues, a few gripes about certain things not being correct, about a dozen notes, and suggestions on what needs cleaning so that I could rigorously go through all the arguments to check everything and give a better assessment of the paper. I gave it a gut feeling of about what level of quality the paper seemed to be, relating it to another paper in the close literature. In the report, I said I would be happy to referee the paper more fully after these preliminary edits are made.
Almost a month has gone by and the editor has not acknowledged my emailing of the referee report to him. Do I wait to see if he acknowledges my report or does this get stuck in the ether without me knowing the result of the paper? Do I email him asking if he received my referee report? Was I wrong in sending it back to the authors so quickly to ask for more clarity? Or should I be taking a back seat to this and only responding when prompted and going along my merry way?

My experience has been that a review acknowledgement should come immediately---usually via an automated system, but quite rapidly even when there isn't one.  This is sensible: otherwise, how do you know that your review was actually received?  You should feel free to query the editor on this matter.
Your assessment of the paper sounds a bit unconventional, but essentially boils down to a recommendation for major revision.  It's possible you haven't heard back because the editor doesn't have all the reviews in, and some journals never actually tell you what the final result is.
Do check, however, that the journal is really a reasonable that you want to be associated with... review by informal email with a non-communicative editor would be a very bad sign in my field...

If you send in a review by e-mail, not through an automated system which will most likely spit out an automatic mail in response, common decency would dictate you should get an acknowledgement of receipt. But, this does not mean you receive one in all cases. What seems a good way forward is to simply send an e-mail to the editor (or to whom you sent the review) inquiring whether or not the review arrived safely since you did not hear back. There is no guarantee this will be credited with a response either and then you should probably just drop it and I would also argue the journal/journal editor is not very careful with their correspondence. This does not reflect well on the journal so as already suggested elsewhere, the journal may not be worthwhile any future efforts for reviews or publishing.


text:
Can I publish a technical paper on more than one publishing sites?
Can I publish my technical paper on more than one publishing sites? The paper content is the same while only the formats differ. I am the author of the paper.

Sounds like self-plagiarism to me, so no.

@dgraziotin good point, but since the OP talks about changing formats I'm guessing academic journals are implied.

To expand on @dgraziotin's comment, sites like the arXiv would be considered repositories in this sense.  It's completely fine to post to several of them (if you're in a field like math/physics/CS in which posting to repositories is generally allowed by publishers).  As for academic journals, there are rare occasions in which a journal paper may be reprinted by another journal, but only with the knowledge and permission of everyone involved, and it's pretty rare.

Short answer : No.
Long answer: Only under certain circumstances where you have explicit permission to do so. Be aware that even if you have permission to do so, there are many folks who take an extremely dim view of multiple publishing.

ok. Thanks @JohnPercivalHackworth for your comments.

The only formal process that I'm aware of is the reprint mechanism. You publish a piece of work. Sometime later, editors of a compendium or collection wish to take your article and reprint it. In that case, the original publishers have to approve this (as well as you of course).
More commonly, papers published in a peer-reviewed venue might also appear in a Ph.D dissertation in some form. Here again, there's some form of copyright approval needed for it to happen.


text:
Should I round up or down my GPA on a resume?
My current cumulative GPA is 3.875. When filling in my information on an online job-site, I can only choose between entering 3.9 or 3.8. In this case, should I round up to 3.9 or round down to 3.8?

I don't know about your grading system (or your country which you did not disclose) but is there so much of a difference between those two values? 3.9 sounds more.logical to me (don't know if it is better or worse)

Although rounding down seems safe you are losing a lot of the score. This may not help you during the filtering process.

Does this answer your question? Ethical GPA rounding

There are no formal requirements on how GPA is calculated and reported in one's CV unless you are filing an application to a particular company that has articulated such rules (which I have not heard of). Such rules usually exist during the admission process to the universities (especially many caveats and intricacies are present for grades conversion in the case of international applications), some academic awards, and other legal matters (for example, immigration procedures).
Thus, the decision is on you. Rounding 3.875 to 3.9 seems to me fairer when the exact rules are not specified. So, in your particular case you need to round to an available value, and I suggest using "Round to the nearest standard value" without any "ups" and "downs".

An interesting edge case would be if the rounded grade looks like a perfect score. For example, if 4.0 is the highest grade and you get 3.96, would it be correct to say you got a 4.0? I suppose some may consider it slightly deceptive.

@GoodDeeds any time something is not reported exactly, some may consider it deceptive. Here, we have a list of available values, and reporting the exact GPA is not an option; thus, some level of deception is inevitable.

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


text:
Switch majors in pure math masters in order to apply for a PhD in statistics?
I have finished the first year of my Masters in Mathematics from a German university. The area that I intended to write my masters thesis in was in Differential Geometry. However, I have decided that I would not want to pursue a career in academia in the future, or at least not one in pure mathematics.
I want to get a PhD in statistics from a top US university.
Is it a good decision for me to switch my major to Probability Theory and Stochastics? This would involve another year of coursework, thus making my masters 3 years instead of 2 years. Will this be reflected negatively on my grad school application? Will they think that if I couldn't complete my masters in 2 years, how can I complete my PhD in 4-5 years?
I have done well in a rigorous Stochastic Processes course in my first year of masters and I did well in 3 statistics courses and a couple of baby probability courses in my undergrad. I might also get to be a TA for the stochastic processes course next year.
The other alternative is that I start my thesis in Differential Geometry and then apply for a PhD in statistics. When doing so, I'm afraid that I won't be getting recommendation letters for a statistics program from my pure math professors. Are my fears valid?

It’s worth noting, if you don’t have it in mind, that a majority of US PhD students will not have any master’s degree at all, though a substantial proportion will have a statistics-focused bachelor’s degree.

There are a lot of issues here. Whether you get good letters from maths professors is up to them and your relationship with them. Only they can answer that, so you might pose the question to them. Not writing the thesis may impact on that, but only they can say.
As to whether a switch gives you any advantage in application to a US doctoral program, it also depends on that program. Every US university is different in that regard and you can, really, only learn the answer by making application. But I can guess, at least, that you can make it work either way. Math is a good foundation for statistics and the details may matter less than your insight.
But you can plan for both outcomes, at least, by applying now for doctoral programs based on your two year degree while still considering the three year switch. You have a year to figure it out and don't need to make a final decision at this point, I think.
And don't define "top" US universities too narrowly. If you do, you are likely to not get offers. Cast a wide net. There are lots of great US institutions that aren't in the top 10, or even 30, or ...


text:
Recommendation Letter: How to properly mention the grade and the rank of a student in multiple courses?
I am writing a letter of recommendation for my student as he is applying for a master's degree to study in the UK. The GUIDANCE FOR REFEREES states that I should mention the grades of the applicant in the courses I taught him, as well as his rank in each one in comparison with other students (i.e., with how many students am I comparing the applicant?). If fact, I taught him five courses, and I need an example of how to properly state the required information without repeating the same sentence multiple times.

X attended with me class A (grade A), class B (grade B), [...] and class
E (grade E).

Or your preferred variation of the above. However, you can also repeat the grade statement several times, possibly adding for each class details about the student's participation.

What about his rank in comparison with x students in each class?

@catfour Within the parentheses as well.

@catfour class A (grade A, rank/total), etc etc? I think you're overcomplicating this.

Honestly, I was not sure if, e.g., Statistics (92%, 2nd/31) is the formal/conventional way to write such details. Also, do you think it is a good idea to mention such details to any other university/scholarship who may ask me to submit a letter of recommendation about an outstanding student, even if they did not ask for such details (especially the rank in each course)? Thank you.

Given that most places will also have transcripts for the student, it seems to be redundant generally. I'd only provide the information if asked.

@Buffy I agree that it's redundant, but the OP says "GUIDANCE FOR REFEREES states that I should mention the grades of the applicant in the courses I taught him".


text:
Grad student protecing ideas in a research paper for futher development
I am working on a graduate school research paper in finance/accounting. My adviser is really excited about my paper and this professor is a prolific publisher. The paper has progressed enough to hand in for the course. I want to develop this paper further after the course is over. However, after meeting with my adviser, (her student assistance's desk is in the professor's office) three other graduate students are doing their papers on the same subject. How can I turn in the paper but protect the work so I can develop it further on my own time? I put a qualifier (not to use without my permission) on the paper but the professor wants it removed. I explained that I wanted to further develop it but she said it is for others to use.

Are you and your advisor planning to publish this paper on a journal? If yes you should always assume that someone else would work on the idea without your permission.

I had hoped that she would offer that because she obviously has the foundation to give the paper more strength with her knowledge but she has not offered and I get the impression she just wants me to turn it in and walk away. Other professors in the department have also heard about my paper and stopped to talk to me so I am not sure I even understand the true value of the paper.

I think I will let this rest a day or two. I may water down the paper to the original version presented to her and hand that in.  It lacks the strength/data support of the most recent version. Thank you for responding.

If anyone knows of a site where I can post this paper and it results in a time stamp please let me know.  I can post it with the qualifier not to use which would give me time to develop and verify all data and citations. Thank you.

arxiv? I do not know if it has anything about finance though

Before posting it online "with the qualifier not to use", it's worth thinking about exactly what you mean by that.  If you mean "don't copy my text", copyright already covers that.  If you mean "don't use my ideas without attributing them to me", that's already part of academic ethics.  In those cases adding a note will be redundant and seem hostile.  But if you mean "don't use my ideas at all (even if you credit them to me and cite my paper)", then you shouldn't post it online.  You can't circulate a paper to establish priority while trying to prevent anyone from building on it.

That makes sense. I wasn't thinking about the qualifier as a means of protection. I just wanted time to verify everything before anyone might use it.  There is a huge amount of data and citations that I had wanted to double-check. Just out of curiosity, if I post it as is without any qualifier and someone repeats the study or uses it before I can verify all info, that is going to be just as bad, yes?

On the face of it this sounds very serious. Of course there may be information that can explain some of the aspects that are unknown to me and also you. So with that in mind.
If you have come up with the idea on your own, the work you have done is certainly yours. Often the basic idea is given by, for example, the adviser, in which case some (how much can differ widely) of the intellectual input is shared. You will, through your work still have some degree of ownership. If the adviser has given a similar basic idea to several students the situation can become really messy. It is not clear from your post if the other students started their work, once they got wind of your success or if they were given earlier input to start along the same lines. In any case, I would argue that the adviser has a responsibility to also protect your possible ownership but unfortunately what is ethically correct and what happens in real life can deviate significantly.
So what can be done? The first thing to do is to talk to the advisor and say you want to work this up to a publication (I have to assume here that you know or have had indications it can be published). In other fields it is possible to post work online to get a time stamp on your work, what possibilities exist for you I will leave to others who may know such possibilities to comment upon.
The comment that "it is for others to use" seems ridiculous. Unless there is a policy or local rule that states that anything produced within a course belongs to the school or course responsible or does not belong to the student, it appears quite unethical to take such a stance. Laws on immaterial rights or intellectual property are usually quite strong. It may therefore be useful to take the matter up with someone in the department who is either there to handle the graduate studies or some form of counsellor at the university level. You must know what structures are in place for possible grievances. the important point is that you need to figure out where you stand based on the details that are known. This is also why a very black or white answer cannot be given here, the information is too weak. But, based on what you have made known the situation sounds problematic from an ethical point of view.

Her assistant is in the same course and is a foreign student AND is one of the students who used my idea. Student changed labels/category of data, used a different formula but essentially it is the same work, the same idea. Other two students who used the same idea come from the same country.  When I presented my idea to the professor, I had already completed a great deal of research and compiled supporting data. The professor responded: "You are now teaching me, so I want you to develop this further, it is a really good paper!"

The comment that "it is for others to use" seems ridiculous. - I am not sure I am missing something in the question, but isn't rather the opposite - that research results are not for others to use - ridiculous? After all, the entire point of publishing research results, and the procedures required to repeat them, is so further research (irrespective of who conducts that research) can verify and build upon those results. Publishing papers that expand upon something developed by students is common practice at least in CS, as long as the students are acknowledged in the paper.

Agree. I felt a little queasy when she said my paper was for others to use but she is also refusing to accept the paper for the course until I remove the the qualifier. I don't know what to do at this point.  She has not reviewed the recent version, so she doesn't realize how much I have already developed the paper. I don't want to post it (form of copyright) until I completely verify citations/data. I have a really bad feeling about this situation.

My impression is that the student's work is for other's to use and not the student's "property" to, for example, publish. I am sorry if that was not expressed clearly. So I agree with your comments seen from the perspective you mention.