text:
What are some options to do over the summer that will help me in grad school?
I'm currently finishing up my second year of undergraduate studies and overall I've gotten some pretty average to good grades. Over the summer, I would like to focus a little bit on myself and my health, but I'm worried not using my time to work on some academia would be detrimental when I want to apply to grad school.
What is something I could do that would still leave me with a lot of time to focus on myself?

If you want to do something that will help you get into and succeed in graduate school, I strongly recommend looking for a summer research project with a professor.  Many professors hire students over the summer to work on projects with them, and some institutions even provide internal "student research" support that makes it particularly easy for any professor to do so.
There are many advantages of doing such a project, including:

Getting a taste of research in general and also in a particular area, to see if you really like it
Summer projects let you focus on research in a way that term-time projects do not, yet can still be confined to 9-5 hours.
You will have an opportunity to learn a lot of research-specific skills.
You will get to exercise things you learned in your classes, which may significantly improve both your knowledge and your motivation to learn, since you will tangle with the realities of applying this knowledge, and may improve your future grades.
You will be able to talk about research experience and may be able to get a good recommendation letter from the professor you work with, both of which are extremely valuable for grad school applications.

Now, if you prefer to do other things, self-care, etc., there's no reason that you have to do such a project.  It can, however, be a lovely experience, and if you're choosing between working a research job and working a non-research job, I highly recommend making the research choice!

@Jakebeal has given you one very good option. If you can do this, and it won't take up too much of your time, then you probably should.
Alternatively, if you have no possibilities for joining a research lab, or you need more personal time that that would allow, another option which you might consider is collaborating with a researcher to write a literature review paper in an area that you are interested in.
Before doing this you would need to i) identify what to do with the paper (even publishing it on a blog could work) and ii) someone with publishing experience to collaborate with when doing it.
You need i) and ii) resolved to make this work, but both are doable. For instance you could email, or visit researchers, and ask them to i) suggest a place you could submit a review to, and ii) to supervise you with it.
The benefits (relative to working in a lab) are that this would be less time consuming and freedom restricting (you could work on it when you wanted). You could therefore have a non research job, take a holiday or do whatever. You would still be able to potentially get a reference and would definitely get some research experience. Of course the tradeoff is that you would not gain as much as if you actually worked within a laboratory, or directly within a research team.
Please let me know if you would like any more details/suggestions related to this :)


text:
Which type of paper is best for computer science, journal or conference?
Paper submissions always put weight on our resume, specifically for students who are applying for a Ph.D.  Conference papers are different from journal papers, at least in few cases.  Which one puts more weight on our resume? For example, if two students have same level of qualifications except one student has a journal paper and the other one has a conference paper, which one gets higher priority?
I'm a computer science graduate, very much interested in publishing a paper. I just wanted to know the pros and cons of paper submission, and more specifically the advantages of journal paper vs. conference paper.

That will depend on the quality and reputation of the conference and the journal. (Also, I think this question has been asked several times before on this site?)

Computer science is a bit of a special case, in that high-profile conferences can be even better than high-profile journals.
Here's an in-depth discussion.
But it's still important to get journal publications because the rest of the scientific community (including perhaps the chair of your department) tends to believe they're better.
Now this distinction is only important once you have a few publications already.
Also, one of the advantages of conferences is that they have set deadlines and processing times, constrained by the conference dates, whereas journal submissions can take months and months to be processed.

One of my jobs, as an associate chair of my department (mathematics) is to prepare promotion requests and hiring requests, which go to the dean and executive committee of the college (Literature, Science, and Arts). When the person to be promoted or hired works in theoretical computer science, I include in the cover memo the information that top conferences in that field are at least as prestigious as top journals. After a while, deans learn this, but there's enough turnover on the executive committee to make repeated explanations worthwhile.

My understanding is that, similar to user3780968's answer, CS is a different animal than other areas. But even within CS it may differ. In some of the newer, more applied areas--particularly those in the AI-related fields--conferences are generally better, if only because those fields are evolving so rapidly. In more theoretical work, especially theoretical fields that have been well studied for decades (complexity theory comes to mind here), journals may be a better bet.
Part of the usefulness of conferences is that they generally accept fewer submissions and they allow you to present your work to your colleagues. This is like a PR campaign. In a fast innovating area, even the best ideas can be overshadowed by mediocre ones if they are not picked up on by the community at large (a la VHS and Betamax). In a journal, you may end up on page 945 and nobody will know unless they are looking for your specific topic.
The way I view it is: if your work is novel in a rapidly growing/changing area, conferences are your best bet to get your ideas out there and known now. If that's not the case, then there is nothing wrong with publishing in a prestigious journal. It really just comes down to the circumstances of the topic at hand.
All that being said, it's still important to make sure the conferences you are publishing in are good ones. Otherwise, no matter the field, a top journal should probably take precedence.

n more theoretical work, especially theoretical fields that have been well studied for decades (complexity theory comes to mind here), journals may be a better bet. — [citation needed]

@JeffE Primarily speculation based on conversations with friends in those fields. Based on your profile I presume you have a better idea of the area. I can remove the line

In CS neither is by itself better or worth more than the other. And I think it's sad, if that is the case in other fields (because it implies judgement of content by superficial criteria). What matters is this:

Does the conference/journal fit your topic
How esteemed is the conference in its field (or the field you want to work in long-term, if your paper is cross-field work)
Can you make your paper good enough to get accepted
How well do the journal/conference's technical requirements (number of pages, code to provide, ...) fit for your work
When is the dead-line, can you make a good enough version till then
Can you obtain funding to get to the conference location (journals may win this)
(Are you happy with the publishing rules of the journal/conference?)

Most of those are also taken into account when people assess you and your scientific qualifications. For instance, if you publish a paper in the totally wrong journal for your topic, this may raise some eyebrows, more likely in a negative than positive way: It could potentially be interpreted as trying to dodge the tougher competition in your field; or as indication that you had no clue what you were doing; or that some other contribution from a co-author of that other field was way more important than yours etc.

The only downside to submitting papers is submitting too many. Not only does it require time to write them, if they are of bad quality you will ultimately gain the reputation of a crank or troll.
In terms of journal versus conference, the trade-off is not clear-cut. You want exposure, so you want your paper to be seen, read and cited by as many people as possible.
A good journal (recognizable by a high "impact factor" --- however subjective and error-prone that measure might be) gives you the most exposure. Papers published there also tend to be of higher quality than conference papers because the review process is more thorough.
Conference papers, on the other hand, usually let you present your ideas to an audience that self-selected for interest. Networking opportunities at conferences also increase your exposure and that of your paper.
Bad journals, finally,  (and unfortunately there seem to be more and more of those) can actually damage your reputation. The reviewing is shoddy, nobody reads them, your paper won't get cited, and it will be tainted by association.

There is no such thing as a generic comparison of conference vs. journal in computer science.  Both conferences and journals range across a wide spectrum of quality, and so the individual conference and individual journal is what will make all the difference.  Moreover, the judgement in some cases is likely to be quite subjective by field as well, based on the opinions that particular PIs have of other sub-disciplines.  Bottom line: you can get conferences and journals that are both of very high quality and high respect in a great many parts of computer science.
So, how should you decide?  My main criteria is the nature of the work.  When I have a relatively terse work, it is suitable for a conference, which typically have strict page limits.  When a work is much more lengthy, it should go to a journal instead.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
As a Ph.D. advisor, how do you feel about taking on students with diagnosed depression or bipolar disorder?
Assume a student with diagnosed depression or bipolar disorder has already been admitted to the university, and thus has a resume comparable to their peers.  How do you feel about taking them on?

Are you asking as a student or a PhD adviser? Not 100% clear so my answer below addresses both.

Speaking both as a PhD advisor and as someone with a diagnosed and controlled bipolar disorder, I would definitely consider a student with mental health issues. I would, much like awsoci discusses in their response, insist the student not treat the advisory relationship as a therapeutic outlet, and that the student lean on the available resources inside and outside campus.
My own PhD advisor (back in the day) knew about my issues, and the same holds true for all the PhD students with mental health problems I know right now.
All that said, there are risks with disclosing, and definitely with disclosing widely. There is no guarantee that any given PhD advisor would be fine with the situation, and even if there are anti-discrimination clauses available, the relationship might not work out well in the end if it starts out on a shaky basis.
To summarize: In principle and in theory, advisors should take on qualified students with disabilities. In practice, your mileage most likely will vary, but I personally would not let the disability be a deciding factor in taking on a student.

As it's not 100% clear as to whether you are asking as a PhD student or as a current PhD adviser, this answer (hopefully) addresses both. The theme of this response is understanding the role of boundaries.
Student
As a student, there are a number of options available to you regarding your mental illness to help you succeed. Remaining in treatment and utilising the disability/accommodation services will help you.
Being honest about your mental illness with your supervisor can be beneficial to help you succeed, or detrimental to your success. Unfortunately, as others have said, there are still high levels of discrimination regarding mental illness, and the higher levels of Academia have a bit of a 'if you can't handle it, get out' mentality. It might be worthwhile just seeing how your supervisor is before being honest about your mental state. Depending on the person, it might be more prudent to use third-party services (i.e. Disability accommodations) should you need an extension or deferment throughout your study.
As a student, should you be honest with your supervisor (and they are receptive) to your honesty, it's important to perhaps be mindful of boundaries. One of the most important things I can suggest is that your PhD adviser is, a PhD adviser. Many of them are not trained nor qualified to handle in-depth discussions about mental illness nor provide a space free of 'triggers'/a therapeutic space. Letting them know you have a mental illness and what accommodations you might need (and keep in mind that some of these might not be able to met, this is the nature of academia) are good steps, but you do not necessarily need to be detailed about what's going on, nor should your supervisor be asking you these details. You will, however, might need to substantiate your claims, which is why I strongly, strongly urge that you get registered with your disability services centre.
By being registered, they can help speak on your behalf and verify your claims without having to go into details. On the other side, this means your supervisor is not subjected to conversations they may not be qualified to handle, and protects both their well-being and yours. This keeps the relationship between you professional and perhaps friendly as well.
PhD Advisor
As a honours supervisor (and maybe in a year or two, a PhD one) I am happy to take on students that may have a mental illness, provided that they are utilising treatment services (whether it be therapy, medication, support groups) as well as university services like disability/social justice.
More importantly though, is the maintenance of boundaries. I am not qualified to listen to or help with mental illness, experiences of trauma etc. The best I can offer is directing students to the appropriate on-campus services (I will even walk with them there if they need) but that's the limit.
Students who come to me but refuse to seek any kind of treatment/help, expect me to be their main point of counselling etc, or get registered with the appropriate services I am very hesitant to take on. In my experience, a few of these students have 'gone-off-the-rails' at me, and have lead to some instances of needing to get security and other services (like safer communities) involved. It is sad, because I know that their expressions of hostility and aggression are not because they are bad students, or bad people, but suffering from an untreated mental illness. But I have to protect myself and my safety as well.
If students come to you with a mental illness, it is important to reiterate these boundaries not to be cruel, but to help them understand that you do not have the experience or qualifications to support them effectively should they require more than assessment/etc support. Directing them to register with the disability accommodation services, and working with those services to help students succeed is vital. But under no circumstance is becoming an ad hoc counsellor part of your role, which is for the safety of both the student and yourself.
Many people might disagree with me on this, but there is a trend in the blurring between the professional and the personal in academia, with more students going to professors/lecturers/supervisors with detailed descriptions of their ailments/traumas. Many of us are just not qualified to help, but some of us are more than willing to work with the appropriate services to help students succeed.

Diagnosed and under treatment is better than undiagnosed, actually.  But even without treatment, many folks have developed coping strategies for handling these conditions. The question isn't whether someone has a condition but whether they can do the job with reasonable adaptations. Judge them on their merits, not on your assumptions.

Graduate admissions is different than undergraduate admissions: in order to be admitted to a good graduate school, you already have to have a solid record of sustained good performance in highly technical work.  Graduate school challenges you in new and different ways, but a well-qualified application shows that the person has certainly got effective coping strategies.
Most of the non-functional people I know with such disorders didn't make it through undergraduate, while most of the functional people I know with such disorders have had non-functional periods, but have developed coping strategies that are sustainable long-term.
More to the point, when it comes to mental health, it is important to understand that the line between "disorder" and "normal range of variation" is quite fuzzy and subjective.  Unlike with most physical illnesses, a critical component of the definition of mental illness is that it has a significant impact a person's ability to function.  What this means to me as a potential supervisor is that I would consider a mental illness diagnosis as informative ("if things go wrong mentally for this person, this is type of problem they are likely to have") rather than predictive ("this person will be a problem").
I would consider it entirely reasonable for a person to choose to either disclose or not disclose.  My main concern would be if the person was using their disclosure in a way that felt like they were making excuses for problem in their past as opposed to simply providing information.  That concern has nothing to do with the mental illness diagnosis and instead is about whether the person tends to assume or deflect responsibility, which is much more important to my evaluation of whether I want them working for me.

I will respond here to the general picture formed by several of your posts, in addition to the question you posed here.
My mother once wrote a very convincing article claiming that Richard Feynman was bipolar.  She cited evidence from his books.
People with bipolar disorder can be productive members of society, and of academia.  They can find their work, even academic work, rewarding.
On the other hand, graduate school can be a big time sink.  A body in motion tends to remain in motion.  Being in grad school can be like Charlie on the MTA -- he could never get off the train because he didn't have a nickel, and in that train system, you paid when you got off.  Once you're on that exercise wheel, you tend to just stay on it, just because you're on it and it's still spinning.
Having a PhD is not the only route to professional self-esteem, believe it or not!  (It can be hard to appreciate that while you are in the thick of it, just as it is hard to appreciate the true height of a mountain when you are standing at the foot of it.)
Also note, graduate school can be extremely stressful -- depending on the particular circumstances.  You may at some point decide that at this particular juncture of your life, that kind of extra stress is just not what you need right now, in order to take good care of yourself.
I am saying these things so that you will not feel forced to continue.  It is hard to realize, while you are in grad school, that you have a choice whether to continue or not.  You are surrounded by people who are in grad school, and are continuing.  Being in grad school starts to become part of your definition of yourself.  But if you take a step back, you will find that there is a lot more to you than just your grad studies self.  Then you will be more free to make a choice.
I have a hearing impairment.  I had a great deal of difficulty, when I was in grad school, going to speak with a professor in his office about how hard it was for me to follow the class when he stood smack in front of the equations and sketches he had just made, while talking about them.  I did it, but I was extremely uncomfortable doing it -- largely because of their unsupportive reactions.
That was more than 20 years ago.  Now things are different.  Universities have offices for students with health conditions that can potentially affect their functioning in school.  Could you go to that office and ask them to send someone with you when you want to talk with a professor about something that feels a little touchy to you?  That is what I would have liked for my uncomfortable conversations.  Also, maybe they could help you explore options such as a medical leave of absence.  Even if you don't end up taking one, it could help you resolve your inner tension about your studies if you didn't feel so locked in.
My sixth grade son has Tourette Syndrome (and associated OCD).  Teachers and staff don't know much about this condition -- even when they think they do!  What was extremely helpful was that the Tourette Syndrome Association sent an advocate to his school to educate staff.
I know it's possible to have a 504 plan in college -- but what about grad school?  Can your 504 plan accompany you when you go to a PhD program?  Do you have one?  If not, that might be a good place to start.  Obviously, in the legal sense, you have as much right to an education as anyone who doesn't have bipolar disorder has.
Could you connect with the Students with Disabilities office at your university (if you haven't already) and let us know if that was helpful?
My university had a rule that if you took some time off, you had to come back and resume your PhD studies within 7 years of stepping away.  If you wanted to stay away for more than 7 years and then come back, you either had to re-sit your exams, or apply for special permission.
Bottom line: in theory, telling a potential advisor about a disorder like this shouldn't have any negative effects (ethically or legally speaking).  However, you shouldn't have to face this alone.  I hope you'll give your campus disability office a try.

Your son has ADHD and OCD?

@JackBauer - Yes, but the Tourette Syndrome is the primary diagnosis. It is a spectrum disorder and ADHD and OCD are frequently comorbid.

I am not a PhD advisor, but I think I am a quite experienced doctoral student.
Of course, it really depends on the person, and since you probably can't have an insight in what is going in a particular person's mind, the best you can do is take some common-sense estimate and go from there, taking any specific observations into account.
Most people would think that it would be fair to offer a student with a mental condition equal opportunity as much as possible, but the decision to be a student's PhD advisor is a serious and somewhat personal one, and in that respect most professors would have more or less reluctance to do so.
Most mental conditions are a private matter protected by a number of acts (HIPAA, Privacy Act, etc.), and it would be usually in student's best interest not to disclose having them. I would never disclose any information like that in the school, where I am doing or planning to do a PhD.

In the US, it is federal law that universities (at least those that receive department of education funds, which is essentially all universities) must provide accommodations to students with disabilities and that discrimination against disabled students is not legal.  However, discrimination of this sort continues largely because it can be extremely hard to prove a case.

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


text:
My dissertation is linked to arXiv but its citations are not found in Google Scholar!
My dissertation has been cited in a few good journals, which Google Scholar indexes. I have added my dissertation to Google Scholar and Google Scholar has even linked it to the arXiv version of my dissertation, which I have recently updated. The issue is that none of the citations of my dissertation have shown up in Google Scholar. What could be the cause?

No no, my papers are listed, those citing papers are not counted towards my citation counts, not that my paper is not listed in my citations.

Google Scholar, unfortunately, makes no particular guarantees about either timeliness or accuracy. I find that it is best understood as a byproduct of Google's business model, rather than a proper fully-supported tool.
As such, it is not surprising that in my experience sometimes documents will take months, or even more than a year, in order to get properly sorted out by Google Scholar.
In the meantime, I would suggest to not worry about it too much: Google Scholar is not a definitive index, and should be used only to get a relative impression of the significance of a body of work, not to seriously evaluate bibliometrics.

What other tool would you suggest for counting citations including not-yet-formally-published papers on arXiv?

I wouldn't. Citation-counting is an inherently disputatious and imprecise practice. Google Scholar does a pretty good job eventually, so probably you just need to wait a few more months for its algorithm to sort things out.

I see. I was wondering if there is some alternative. So far, I've used Google Scholar + manual filtering of duplicates, and it wasn't too bad, but I imagine it may get rather tedious in disciplines (or even areas of mathematics) where people publish more.


text:
Why do most U.S. Ph.D. programs accept fewer students with masters degrees?
In the US, most Ph.D. programs accept far fewer students with master degrees compared to students who just graduate from college with a bachelor. Why is that the case since master students are supposed to have more background and maybe more research experience than students who just graduated from college?

Are you sure this is the case? Maybe it is the case for those who wanna be funded through advisors and projects (and not self-funded).

There is a very related post on the advantages and disadvantages of MS before Ph.D but where are you getting your numbers on academia accepting less MS students (some of the programs I looked at required a MS, publication, or related experience)?

For this kind of question, I think whether the majority does it one way or the other is not the right thing to keep your eye on.  Rather, one should look into which programs prefer that incoming students have master's degrees, which do not, and which are indifferent.

Are you comparing total numbers of students accepted in each category, or acceptance rates?  It's quite plausible that a smaller number of students with master's degrees are accepted, because I suspect that a smaller number apply.  Since US PhD programs usually accept students with only a bachelor's, and in fact are usually targeted mainly toward such students, most students who are interested in a PhD will apply immediately after their bachelor's, rather than getting a master's first.  That has nothing to do with how prepared they are.

I'm not sure that your basic premise holds. What you've stated is not common knowledge, and you don't give any particular source for your numbers.  More importantly, you haven't answered @NateEldedge's question about total numbers vs. acceptance rates.
Based on my own anecdotal experiences, however, my guess would be that the actual circumstances are this:

Students with a Masters are more likely to get into a U.S. Ph.D. program than students without a Masters, for exactly the reasons that you suspect.
Most students interested in a Ph.D. program, however, apply directly without bothering to get a Masters first. As a result, it may well be the case that most U.S. Ph.D. students do not have a Masters.

The underlying reason that would cause such an apparently counter-intuitive situation is that in the U.S., it is typically the case that a Ph.D. and a Masters are both terminal degrees that serve different purposes. A Masters is frequently a focused collection of coursework in support of one's profession, whereas a Ph.D. is an apprenticeship into the world of research.  As such, most U.S. Ph.D. programs do not require or expect applicants to have a Masters, and there is often little incentive for students inclined toward a Ph.D. to delay and acquire one, unless they have some particular reason (e.g., they aiming to shift fields, improve on a past poor record, or escape the effects of a poor undergraduate institution).
Note however, that in other parts of the world, like Europe, Ph.D. programs are organized to assume that students have already acquired a Masters, and in such programs it is the case that nearly every Ph.D. student will have a Masters.

I definitely do not agree to this statement. I am in world's top 10 universities in EE. In my department, rarely they accept any international student without Master's degree.

Most of the students in the US who are in Master's programs in the arts and sciences are only in these programs because they failed to be admitted to PhD programs with their Bachelor's degree.  Generally speaking, being in a US Master's program is by itself a sign of weakness.
While some students do become significantly stronger over the course of their Master's programs, generally speaking, students with a Master's degree have less innate ability than students who are admitted directly after a Bachelor's degree.  They may have more knowledge and experience(*), but this is usually easily made up for in a year or two of study.  (There are exceptions, and it's quite easy to spot them from letters of recommendation, but you're asking a statistical question about numbers overall, not about specific individuals.)
Foreign students who might not have had the opportunity to be directly admitted to PhD programs immediately after a Bachelor's are evaluated differently.
(*) Actually, someone with a Master's from my department usually knows about as much as someone with a Bachelor's from a top university, and is significantly less capable.

Do you have anything to substantiate your claims besides personal anecdotes?  You acknowledge that this is a statistical question but you provide no statistics.

I strongly disagree with this answer. Being in a Masters program is definitely NOT a sign of weakness. If only a Masters is required for your career, it may not be wise to get a PhD, and these goals can change. Additionally, this is certainly not true in all disciplines. Comp Sci + Eng Masters are incredibly common, in social work masters are the norm although PhD programs exist. Foreign students often have a masters because the typical progression in Europe is Bachelors, masters, (3-year) PhD, whereas in the US it's  common to do BA -> (5-year) PhD.

@NJMD - Edited to restrict to arts and sciences.  Already the answer is restricted to US.  (I'm aware that even in Canada a Master's is common.)

This varies enormously by field.  I don't think this is how CS master's programs work, but it's how master's programs in pure mathematics work in the U.S.  Basically, most students fall into one of three categories: prospective teachers, students who enjoy math and are trying to put off entering the job market while they figure out what they'd like to do, and prospective Ph.D. students who are trying to make up for inadequate preparation or poor undergraduate performance.  Some master's students do a great job and will make wonderful Ph.D. students, but most will not.

Many students do a masters to further clarify their interests, to gain experience in a slightly different field than their undergrad degree, because they're not sure yet whether they want to do a PhD... or because they don't want or need a PhD for their future career plans, and so they didn't apply to any. To say that most are "only in these programs because they failed to be admitted to PhD programs" just does not ring true to me.

@Anonymous presumably those in the first two categories you mention are not "only in these [masters] programs because they failed to be admitted to PhD programs", then?

@ff524 - prospective teachers are, by and large, in MAT programs (i.e. hybrid education/subject matter) rather than MA/MS programs.  Students who enjoy math and are trying to put off entering the job market generally go into PhD programs (whether they have any intention of finishing or not) unless they can't get into one.  MA/MS degrees in the arts and sciences have very few professional uses.

@Alexander If you're writing about pure mathematics specifically, I suggest you say so. This is certainly not true of "arts and sciences" in general.

@AnonymousMathematician No, this is definitely not how American CS (research) master's programs work. (Professional/terminal/course-based master's degrees are a different beast altogether.)


text:
arXiv Papers vs. Peer Reviewed Papers; How Does Admission Committee Evaluate?
I'm going to apply for PhD at a top university in US. I have two peer reviewed papers already published and 2 unpublished papers.
The last two are ready, but I do not have time to submit them to be reviewed as I want to mention them in my CV in my application and can't wait for notification of acceptance/rejection, so I'm planning to put them on arXiv.
Is there any difference between arXiv papers and refereed ones in admission committee evaluation? Does it make a huge difference if I submit them to a conference/journal instead of arXiv?
(My field is Computer Science-Data Mining)

"a top university in US" Only one?

The end of your question makes it sound like you are confused about something: arXiv and conference/journal submissions are not alternatives.  The arXiv is a preprint server, and posting there is like posting to on a personal webpage in that arXiv postings are not counted as publications and do not preclude you from submitting to a peer-reviewed venue.
As for how a committee would evaluate published verus unpublished papers differently, one gets a preliminary sense of the quality/significance of a published (or accepted) paper from the venue it was accepted to.  For unpublished papers, there is no immediate indicator of this (it could be great, mediocre, or seriously flawed), but they certainly signal you're research active, and since you already have a couple of published papers, assuming they are in reasonable journals, chances are your unpublished papers will be assumed to be of reasonable quality.
But, for both published and unpublished papers, an assessment of the quality should come from your letter writers, who should be able to give more insight than just the reputation of the journals you have published in.
In addition, there is no reason to delay your submission.  On your CV, just list the title of the paper, with the word "submitted."  (If you want, you can make a separate preprint section, but this seems unnecessary with only 4 papers.)  If it is on the arXiv, you can give an arXiv link.  Even for papers not submitted, you can still list them as preprints (though submitted or at least being posted online is better).
Note: I disagree with the other answer about saying what journal you submit to--saying where you submit to gives no indication of the quality of the paper (maybe just your biased perception of its quality), and it leave me personally with a slightly desperate impression, though this may depend on the field.  (In mine, some people do this, but most do not.)

Thank you @Kimball for your comprehensive answer and suggestions!

Having any research done will be a huge help as you are applying for a doctoral program.  Two published papers in respected peer-reviewed venues is fairly impressive.  I would not suggest doing anything differently for your next round of papers than you did for the first ones; that should mean submiting them where they are likely to have the most impact.
As part of your graduate application, you can list where your manuscripts have been submitted to, and for most institutions, you should be able to submit copies of the submitted manuscripts as supplemental material for your graduate application.  That will let the admissions committee look over your work.  If they see that you already have two things published and two more reasonable-looking manuscripts under review, they are likely to be impressed.

+1 @Buzz! Thanks for your answer. I'll keep question open for a while to see if there are other opinions.


text:
Proof error found in accepted conference paper - what to do?
I am a 3rd-year computer science PhD student and I have recently written and submitted a paper to a theoretical conference. It has been accepted; but the reviews were not very in-depth. Usually they were of the form:
"I didn't check the proofs but the statement sounds reasonable."
Now I have to say that we work on a very complicated topic in which there are maybe just a few experts worldwide; and even for those it would have probably taken them a few weeks if they were to check the proofs in depth. In light of this I was not very surprised that most of them just took a quick glance.
While preparing the presentation, however, I myself noticed a mistake which is not easily solvable. I did find a solution, however, that keeps the main proof structure intact, but one of the main definitions has to be changed.
I asked my professor what we should do about the paper, and he said to leave it be and publish the corrected version in a journal later. However, I still feel kind of uneasy pretending as if nothing happened. What would be the ethical approach? I realize that it is probably not possible to "stop the presses", but should I notify the conference organizers about it in any way? Or should I mention it in my talk?

Did you send the camera ready yet, or not?

All is sent, only the conference did not take place yet.

If I was you and discovered the error before the camera ready was sent, I would fix it there. Now, that everything is sent I am not sure what you can do. Preparing a new correct version to upload on arxiv and cite the arxiv version on your future work would be one option. How good is this conference?

Depending on how technical the fix is (the fix, not the mistake), I guess you could mention it in your talk. For example, if you planned to give that definition on a slide anyway, give the fixed one, and maybe mention that it is different from the one in the paper because of a minor mistake in the proof. If it is too technical to go on a slide, don't mention it, the audience won't care anyway. And maybe have a printed sketch of the new proof at hand should one of the experts approach you about this.

This is what errata are for.
I had something like this happen to me with one of my early papers.  For that paper, I knew the result was likely to be significant, so I knew I did not want to let the paper stand with an error in it.  It was too late to correct for the conference proceedings, but I could correct the archival version that ended up in the ACM Digital Library, and I did.
Every (reputable) publisher has its own procedure for dealing with errata; you just need to figure out what it is and follow it.  Following this process is likely to be somewhat long and annoying, but if it's important to you to get it right, there's no reason not to do so.


text:
PhD application form, 1-2 word "relationship to you" for an instructor
I'm working on my PhD applications right now, and I'm on the section where I have to fill in information about recommendation providers.
I have put a Professor that taught one of my related course as a recommendation provider, however I'm not sure what I should put under "relationship to you". Any suggestion? (there's not a lot of space, I can only put in one or two words)

"I was a student in class XXX taught by him"

I can only put in one or two words in the blank


text:
Students not answering emails about plagiarism
I am a PhD student in the US and teaching a lab this semester. The labs have become online and students are provided with data and submit their reports. All communications take place through email. There is also online office hours but relatively few students attend.
Recently I found two groups submitting the exact same drawing in one of their lab reports (this was a significant part of their work for the report). So I emailed them separately and asked whether this report was completely their own work. Or was it created by one of them and shared for others, and if not, where was it taken from. One of them did not reply at all. The other did, offering apologies but saying that we did not plagiarize. But they also didn't reply to my next email in which I told them exactly which part has been found in another group's work. Basically, they didn't say anything in the face of clear evidence.
I should mention that I did have email communications with the same students before and I'm sure they have read my emails.
If it was an in-person class I could just talk to them in the next session to clarify things. But now, they're just ignoring my emails. This has left me with my own speculations. The most probable scenario is that both have used material from the previous semester, and since they neither denied, clarified, or apologized for this, I have lost confidence in their other reports too.
This is making it difficult for me to make an appropriate (proportionate) decision and honestly, I don't know what to make out of this. Are they too stressed/ashamed to reply or are they so relaxed about this that don't even bother to do so?
How should I proceed from here? Is it OK for students to ignore the instructor's emails on such an important issue? And should I continue grading their reports? As I said, I can't trust their works anymore even though I don't have evidence of further plagiarism elsewhere. Would it be appropriate or too much to give a failing grade because of a single verified incidence of plagiarism?

What prevents you from setting deadlines on answers and then proceeding with more grave consequences when your emails aren't answered by the deadline?

What is the policy from your university about this matter?

If there is no official policy, you set the policy. You state that the evidence strongly indicates collusion and you will distribute the available points across all colluding parties. That should motivate at least one of them to talk. If there is an official policy, follow it, e.g. escalate to the official investigators.

Every sensible university in the US (if that's where you are) should have a process for dealing with academic dishonesty, including a central source of information and consultation about it. You aren't the first nor probably even the only teacher facing this problem at your institution within the last 30 days. Perhaps try googling for related keywords and add the site:myschool.edu at the end of the query: it'll limit the results to those on your own school's pages.

Are you the instructor of record, or are you working for the instructor teaching the course? If the latter, the only correct thing is to let them handle it.

Why don't you just ask your supervisors/bosses?

@user541686 I am the instructor of record. I also discussed it with another (more senior) faculty member and I basically should decide myself. I consulted the official policy and it states that I should carefully review this with the student and if plagiarism becomes clear I should apply an academic penalty (reduced grade) and report it to the department.

First, some important caveats:

It is certainly worth checking their other work to see if you find any further evidence of plagiarism. In the absence of such evidence, you must proceed under the assumption that the only case of plagiarism is the one you have evidence for.
You should check your university's regulations; you may be required to proceed in a certain way (e.g., to advise the students of their rights, or to turn this over to a committee rather than handling it yourself).
Since you are a PhD student, speaking with a more experienced professor is probably also a very good idea. In particular, if you are not listed as the "instructor of record," you should speak with the instructor of record before proceeding (different universities will have different policies about whether the grad student who does the "actual work" will be formally listed as the instructor of record).

Still, let us assume for the sake of this question that you can and must handle this yourself. In this case, my advice would be to send an e-mail along the following lines:

Dear Student: it has been over a week, and I have received no response to my below inquiry. If I do not receive a response by Friday, I will assume that your report was indeed plagiarized and will accordingly assign [some appropriate but relatively harsh penalty]. If you believe you are not guilty, or if you have mitigating factors you would like me to consider, please let me know, either by e-mail or by scheduling a virtual meeting. Regards,

As for what penalty would be appropriate, I reiterate my advice to discuss this with someone locally; campus cultures vary, and your department probably faces issues like this with some regularity. Still, my experience is that for something like this, a proportionate response would be to (1) give a zero on the lab report in question, which should cost them about a letter grade overall, and (2) file a report with the college so that they cannot have a new "first offense" in a different class.

It may be worth reiterating in your email (or in a separate email to all course participants) that plagiarism isn't just an academic misstep but a serious breach of research ethics, which is treated harshly in the real world.

In particular for labs, you may look after an experiment or a group (or several of either), and you may be named as such, but there's probably an academic in charge of the whole year's labs who will have the responsibility for this, as well as the experience.  Failing that, there will be an academic with responsibility for all undergrad teaching (Director of Teaching for example).

Thanks. The university policy states that the faculty member should first review the facts with the students to come up with a conclusion (and then report if verified). I just received a reply from one of them saying it was in fact taken from a previous semester but only that diagram was accidentally copied. Am I able to ask them to send me the original document they used to verify their claim? (I mean in terms of things like privacy, etc.)

That's actually a good idea. Ask them for the document. Accidentally copied? Right ... Honestly sounds like a lie. Of course, if they did copy more than that, they won't send you the old work. But wouldn't last years instructor have that?

In the case of suspected plagiarism you have to follow your institution's formal rules. I'm sure your university has those.
This might not seem a helpful answer but it is the only correct one. For example, the course of action outlined in another answer (while perfectly sensible) would violate university policy at my institution and get me in real trouble if I were to follow it.
In any case, given that you're unfamiliar with the process and your institution's policies it is strongly encouraged for you to contact the professor in charge of the course. That's a good idea whenever you're unsure about how to proceed with grading, but many institutional policies on plagiarised student work involve the professor. So this is probably a necessary step in any case.

Thanks. In this case I am the one in charge of the course with my name listed as the actual instructor, not just a grader or TA.

In that case, whoever put you in charge should have provided you with instructions how academic misconduct cases are handled at your university. If they have not, contact them and ask. (While you wait for an answer you can investigate whether your university describes the academic integrity investigation process on their website somewhere. That might give you an idea already, e.g. whether there has to be a meeting with the student!)

To be fair, the "course of action outlined in the other answer" also says to check your university's regulations and talk to more senior colleagues before proceeding unilaterally. :-) But, it is possible that the "institution's formal rules" will still leave considerable discretion to the instructor -- e.g., I was always allowed to assign penalties up to failing the course at my discretion, and needed to pursue a formal judicial process only if I wanted to get a student suspended or expelled. Formal rules are probably becoming more and more common though.

@cag51 I didn't mean to criticize your answer at all! I think it is excellent. The purpose of my answer was to shift the emphasis, i.e. that first and foremost this is about finding out the OP's institutional rules.

The correct course of action is strongly institution-dependent.  The most important things are to remain polite and not indicate you have reached a conclusion when communicating with the students, to keep a paper trail of all communications with the students, and immediately advise to the appropriate authorities.
Where I work there is an official form to fill advising students of any allegation of academic misconduct, and sending this form forces the student to speak with the instructor within a set timeframe (usually 5 working days) to clarify the situation.  If you are not satisfied with the answers, it escalates to the Dean.
I would be very much surprised if a graduate student would bear the burden of dealing with a penalty: it is for one unfair to the graduate student to have this responsibility, and also to have a reasonably uniform policy such sanctions are better handled by someone with a more holistic view of the situation and history of such sanctions.

I dealt with this exact issue in the last fall semester. The best practice likely depends on your institution's rules. At my institution, we have a distinction between academic sanctions and disciplinary sanctions.
Academic sanctions are those applied purely by the instructor, with the effect of lowering grades on a particular assignment or course. The instructor has more authority in this case. If I have strong evidence of plagiarism, then I immediately fail the student on the assignment and inform them of that, without advance conferencing. If they think they have evidence to the contrary, then they can argue it, but it's hardly ever correct (I think maybe once in ten years there was a legitimate defense, barely).
Disciplinary sanctions involve probation or possibly expulsion from the institution; this is not something the instructor can effect, but happens at the Dean level. Here the formal process does require instructor to "review with the student the facts and circumstances of the suspected violation whenever feasible", before filing a report and triggering a further protocol. In my experience from the fall: I had 7 students who clearly plagiarized their online final exams. Only 1 responded to the interview request (and they denied any cheating with me). So after a day or two I assessed the "whenever feasible" clause as negative, turned over all 7 cases with evidence to the academic integrity officer, and within a month she had convinced all of them to confess to cheating and accept academic probation (in lieu of more elaborate proceedings with an investigatory committee).
So my recommendations would be: (a) become very familiar with the details of your school's academic integrity policy, and (b) contact the academic integrity officer or equivalent if you need further guidance. For time purposes, I would not engage in an inquiry or interview unless it's absolutely required by the formal college policy; and I would advise against spending a lot of time cycling with students who have reason to be evasive.

How should I proceed from here?

The other answers address this.

Is it OK for students to ignore the instructor's emails on such an important issue?

Yes, unless your university has a policy saying otherwise.  Normally there is no obligation to defend one's self against accusations.  If the accused is either obviously guilty or obviously innocent, staying silent is often a good strategy.

Not only that, it's often culturally expected, depending on where you come from.

First, all the other responses explaining that you need to check your institution's formal policies about plagiarism apply.
It is possible, if unlikely, that one of the two teams submitted original work and the other team copied that work. In this case, only one of the two teams has plagiarized. (The team who did the work probably should not have let the other team see their documents, but that is a different problem.) This is really the only reason to delay following your institution's process (which may include giving both teams a zero for the assignment and/or other punishment by the institution). The team claiming that they submitted original work should be able to provide process documents, emails in which they discussed the work, etc. They need to understand that because two teams have submitted the same work, they must respond within a fixed period of time or they will be subject to whatever the policy is. Since neither team is responding to your emails, most likely they have both plagiarized work done during a previous term.
I will offer a few suggestions about how to avoid this in the future. The most important thing is to make expectations clear from the beginning, e.g. in the syllabus and in first-session communications with students (whether online or in the classroom).
When I teach statistics online, I assign projects rather than quizzes, and I allow students to communicate about their projects, and even work together on shared topics. (The students choose their own topic and data source-- I define the statistical operation they need to demonstrate.) However, I warn them all in advance that I will compare their answers and I expect them all to be unique. The numbers could be the same, but the text they write to explain their work has to be their own. This has worked well to prevent plagiarism.
Letting students choose their own topics helps, too. I try to make the projects interesting and practical so students will find them worthwhile. This isn't always an option.
I have found that many students are shockingly unaware of what plagiarism is and how serious it is. They also seem unaware of how likely they are to get caught. When I am reading text submitted by a student, it is easy to spot the places where they have copied and pasted from some other source by changes in writing style. There are also tools like TurnItIn that check text against large databases of documents and report similarities. I have found that it is helpful to let students use these tools to check their own work before submitting it to me.
I have also found it helpful to require students to submit early drafts of their work before turning in the final assignment. It makes extra work for me to check these, but it improves the quality of the final result, and most "paper mills" that distribute assignments don't include multiple drafts. I've also found that it helps to improve the student's sense of ownership of the work, so they are somewhat less likely to cheat.
We shouldn't have to start every undergraduate course with an explanation of what "original work" means and the penalties for plagiarism, but I've found it saves a lot of trouble if I do.

How should I proceed from here?

As all the other answers have stated, you should contact an academic to learn what are the appropriate steps in your institution. While no University I know of is really lenient towards plagiarims, the steps (and your freedom to decide them) vary a lot.
Like, where I studied, academic plagiarism was technically a felony - which meant that any teacher/tutor/TA who messed up their part in the process of assessing and punishing plagiarism risked sanctions outside the academical world. I don't know a single case where it happened, but the law was there and everybody who had a say in students' grading was throughly lectured (and scared) on how to behave in order to avoid this.

Is it OK for students to ignore the instructor's emails on such an important issue? And should I continue grading their reports? As I said, I can't trust their works anymore even though I don't have evidence of further plagiarism elsewhere.

Technically, they are under no obligation to answer your emails on any subject but, as you stated in your own question, this can undermine the trust relationship you need with your students in order to grade their work. I think you should raise this issue with your academic superior, even if it's not part of the process for plagiarism.

I would proceed with the following in mind (paraphrasing the Berkeley Course on Physics): Ideally, every part of a course, including exams (and in your case for sure homework), should provide an opportunity for the student to learn something.
In your case, they should learn about the subject matter and about plagiarism: They should do their bloody own research, for both reasons.
For first time offenders, I don't see a need or obligation to pull out the big guns, inform the department, start an investigation because of an ethics breach etc. These kids have simply done what they did in high school all along, where it was accepted: Siphon stuff off of the internet and hand it in as homework, or copy from your neighbor.
Handle this yourself in a sovereign manner: Set a deadline, insist on a video talk with them. Insist that they respond. (A reliable communication channel is a requirement for the course anyway; could be google groups or whatever you and they agree upon — kids these days may not read email daily.) Make clear that if they don't respond, they won't get a grade. But if and when they respond, make clear that they are expected to do their own work so that they learn something, that plagiarism in other situations would be an academic death sentence, and then grade the work they hand in later.

In general (not related to plagiarism specifically, focusing on the "not answering" part), my suggestion is to decide yourself, inform them on the decision, and follow through with it.
As an example: I work in IT, and often I need clarification from some stakeholder about some requirement for a software we are developing. I know from experience that they often don't answer for whatever reasons. So my strategy is to not ask them at all, but succinctly present the problem together with my preferred solution; and a very clear statement that I will proceed with my solution unless I hear otherwise before some deadline.
The same works excellently for superiors when asking for approvals (if allowed by the "process") - acceptance by silence.
It is nice for them, because they don't even need to waste the 3 seconds it takes to reply "yes", and they see that I have thought it through, and know what I'm doing.
In this particular case, I agree with the other answers that you must go by the rules of your institution, as plagiarism is a quite sensitive subject in the world of academia, and simply for the reason that there probably are regulations which it never is a good idea to ignore.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the policy is that if both works are obviously identical, and it is not possible for either party to prove that theirs was not the copy, both are discarded. In this case, you would write them both the same mail roughly along the line of "I have no way to discern which of the two works is the original. If by the time of XYZ nobody can bring light into the issue, I will treat both as not submitted."
If you follow through with this approach, it is of utmost importance that your statement is short, concise and has zero need for interpretation (which is obviously a good guideline in all communication); also without emotions, accusations or anything superfluous. A classic "I" message works best. No accusations or assumptions.
The deadline should be long enough, but not too long. Especially if you have an "upstream" deadline - assume that you get a response minutes before the deadline from your mail runs out; there should be enough time to then follow up with the issue before you have to close the case due to external factors.

Turn it over to the "module convener" "course leader" or whatever it is called at your institution.

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


text:
Multidisciplinary Science & Engineering - Too overwhelming for industry/ academics?
Is being multidisciplinary a bad or under appreciated feature?
I ended up graduating with a solid mechanical engineering (MechE) degree, but made my record extremely multidisciplinary through research and other classes. I claim to have experience at least 3 domains of engineering, including MechE.
I get that some people have one main focus and maybe switched entirely to another, but what if they are like me, with 3 or more disciplines? They’re all interrelated, so I feel like I can bridge seemingly unrelated domains to come up with new ideas.
Do I leave all of this on my resume/CV, OR should I only highlight only a couple expertise on one resume and try not to say too much else?
Thanks!

Of course, some people will feel that it takes full-time commitment to X to be competent at it, so if you also allocate time to Y and Z, and claiming competence in all three, you are making sensational (and not believable) claims about your intellectual powers. Be careful about claims of "expertise" as opposed to "experience". At least in US English the latter seems both more modest and more... accurate. Srsly, a claim of "expertise" is too volatile, unless you really, really are an expert.

Thank you for your comment. I agree. My reasoning for the question is because I genuinely do have experience in them, from different projects that require these areas, I do not claim expertise however. Thanks for the remark that people believe it takes a long time commitment to hone in abilities - this is especially true.

I think that this is easier to accomplish for a senior researcher than a relatively new one. Academia tends to value specialization in research, so at the beginning of a career you may need to focus your efforts, and your applications, on some specialized area.
But many of the big questions can only be answered by taking a broader look, so it is a mistake to think that a multidisciplinary approach isn't valued. But it may be harder for a new researcher to convince people that you can do serious work in more than one area, or that you have sufficiently deep understanding that you can bring those multiple threads of thought together in a coherent way.
The trick is to get a good position (tenure) so that you have the freedom to work to your own muse. Once you have some sort of reputation, people will defer to your ideas more than they will for a new, and possibly misguided, free spirit.
Our education system seems to start out broad, then go narrow and deep. Then you can freely broaden it again from a solid base.
Note that there isn't anything right or wrong here, but it does seem to be a common conception.

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


text:
Is a university that grants me a PhD for $1000 and a copy of my unpublished book fake?
I have paid $1000 for PhD in mathematics. And I have sent them my book to be considered as a PhD thesis.
Now I suspect that I have lost the money.
But as far as I know they are not accredited by the U.S. Department of Education.
So, is it possible that I will find a job requiring a degree, using this (fake?) PhD?
Now they have told me that the U.S. Department of Education will send my diploma to US foreign affairs department and then they will make some "stumps" on my diploma. Do these stamps mean anything? Are these stamps just a formal thing which mean nothing and don't make my degree "official" ("real")? Moreover, to send my diploma to the departments costs additional $1000-$1750 (dependent on whether I pay right now or later).

http://consumerwatchdogbw.blogspot.com/2013/06/and-another-fake-university-grant-town.html

@ff524: I have already read this blog post earlier. It does NOT convince me that GTU is fake, because it says just that they give life-experience degrees (not only degrees based on study in their university)

At best, this sounds like you've paid $1000 for a worthless piece of paper. At worst, this sounds like a scam. No credible university would do this, and listing such a "degree" could even be damaging to your CV. A "life experience degree" is not a University degree.

I have removed the name of the university, because we generally do not answer questions about specific universities; see the [help/on-topic]

@porton what kind of evidence would convince you that this university is "fake" (or not)?

I would not waste any money on a degree that is not conferred by an accredited institution.  You can find accredited (US) schools at the following government site:  http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/

@porton "give life-experience degrees" is the same as "fake". No, this degree (should you ever receive it) will not help you in the slightest when applying for jobs requiring a PhD. I am sorry, but you have certainly been scammed.

I am having trouble believing anyone would actually pay for this.

To put it simply: Any PhD degree that you can get by paying and without spending considerable time and effort doing research will probably be either fake or useless. There are no shortcuts.

@Marc: Scams which no one falls for don't exist for very long.  This particular OP has been trying to do "independent mathematical research" for several years now.  I find the news that he has been exploited in this way truly heartbreaking.  I think that mainstream academics should have more sympathy for people like this -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be a mathematician.  For some people wanting to be a mathematician is a very unrealistic goal, but that does not mean that they deserve to be cheated!

@user2379888 , for porton's sake, I hope so.  However, it sounds real enough not to be discounted.  Even if the whole thing is fictional, it serves as a cautionary tale, as well as an opportunity for "the other side" to come clean about their practices.

@user2379888, Marc: As I've mentioned, I got emails about scams like this 15-20 years ago (at my university email address, no less!). There's clearly enough victims to keep it going.

@PeteL.Clark I am not reveling in the fact the OP got scammed and I genuinely do agree that the basic ambition shown here is a very good thing to have. That said, I am having trouble sympathizing in these circumstances because I consider trying to buy a degree to be a form of cheating as well. To me, such attempts are on an equal level of moral wrongs as cheating exams, if not worse.

@Marc: The document submitted by the OP is longer than most PhD theses in mathematics.  The OP has been working on and trying to publish it for several years: longer than many PhD students spend working on their thesis.  Content issues aside, I believe is 100% sincere.  Further, there is nothing inherently immoral about paying money in pursuit of an academic degree: many of us would be out of a job if that were the case.  Characterizing the OP's behavior as cheating seems to miss many of the heartbreaking nuances of the situation.  I hope you'll reconsider your lack of sympathy.

@Pete L. Clark "I would share your opinion if not for these lines. Albert: I already have the thesis, it is a 300 pages book ... how long will it take you to review my thesis?
Senior Guy: Well it will take us 24 Hours." Anybody who can go for the offer after this either has no idea what mathematics is, or....

@fedja: I believe that that quote was from when another user on this site investigated the matter, and I don't think there is any reason to believe that the original poster had received any similar information.

@fedja Thomas is correct, I will clarify it in the answer.

@PeteL.Clark If he really wants to be a mathematician and has done considerable work in mathematics alone, should he approach a Prof, who may be able to help him. I am a PhD student myself and I think Profs are quite supportive in such cases. What do you think? (I am tagging you since you said that "there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a mathematician" and I see that you are a Prof too :) )

OP: did you pay with a credit card? You might have recourse if so.

@JohnJohnson: Yes, I've paid with VISA. How to get money back?

@porton Call VISA and tell them what happened, that the seller is dishonest, and you want a refund.

@porton how did this turn out? Were you able to get a refund?

@porton So did you get a refund or chargeback? Sounds like possible fraud, depending on what representations they made on website or email.

@PeteL.Clark: I have to agree with Marc. Your statements are correct, but "there is nothing inherently immoral about paying money in pursuit of an academic degree" simplifies things too much in my opinion: There is indeed nothing inherently immoral about paying money when that is an administrative/organisational requirement to get a chance to obtain a PhD based on one's research success. However, paying money in exchange for a guaranteed degree is a whole different story, and at least if the OP was aware that research requirements are replaced by a payment (and maybe some superficial ...

... formal requirements, such as hand in a 150+ pages document that looks like it's professional at first glance), cheating is the right term.

@O.R. Mapper: I agree with everything you say.  In this case, I firmly believe that the OP did not believe that research requirements were being replaced by payment.  As I've said, he's spent many years pursuing mathematical research and has some published papers in generals that academic professionals would regard as predatory.  I really don't think he is trying to cheat or take advantage of anyone.

There was a New York Times article this summer exposing the company that sells degrees through GTU and other "universities."

@MarcClaesen Most people in most country's at one point or another pay large sums for their degree. There are several legit degrees that can be earned based on submitted publications, thesis and so on and does not require attending a school. If someone is not familiar with the system, may believe that such an offer is a legit offer, so your comment is too harsh.

You have lost the money whether or not the "university" gives you the degree.
You have given your money to what is known as a diploma mill. A long time ago (nearly two decades!), I received an email offering degrees from "prestigious, non-accredited universities" based on life experience. This is a complete and total scam. Even if you have a diploma, it will be useless for professional purposes. Anybody responsible for hiring a PhD will see that there is no work resulting from your "graduate career," which will be a tipoff that the degree is worthless, and you will be unlikely to receive a job offer. Worse still, even if you were to get an offer, it could be rescinded when the truth is uncovered.
Disengage now, before you lose any further money on this situation.
Addendum: I should also mention that I am unaware of the US Department of Education doing any certification of diplomas and certificates on an individual basis.

I believe the "stamps" he refers to is notarization of the signature on the diploma (see "apostille")

@ff524: Maybe so. But that would in any case not be the US Department of Education.

More significantly, notarization of the signature on the diploma doesn't signify anything about the degree the diploma is supposed to reflect

Wikipedia has a list of animals with degrees from diploma mills: List of animals with fraudulent diplomas

I don't see why this 'university' won't send him a piece of paper with degree and his name on it. This would help them avoid being sued.

@QuoraFeans: What I meant is that even if the university sends the degree, the money is "lost" in that the degree is worthless. (And given that it doesn't appear to be a US outfit, good luck suing them.)

I'll give you a nice looking full color diploma for only $295.99, plus only 1 hour turnaround after receiving your thesis... BTW, my cat constantly receives credit card offers from CitiBank; perhaps I should get her a degree first?

I have just learned what he was referring to w.r.t. "stamps from the US foreign affairs": http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/world/asia/fake-diplomas-real-cash-pakistani-company-axact-reaps-millions-columbiana-barkley.html ("Such certificates, which help a degree to be recognized abroad..")

In case there was any doubt, I have asked them. This is the conversation I had with them (some irrelevant parts omitted):

Albert: Hello, I have written a book on Mathematics that I would like to turn into a PhD thesis
Albert: what do I have to do?
Their Guy: What is your highest level of education?
Albert: I have a Masters degree in mathematics
Their Guy: Ph.D degree will cost you $1100.00 (USD)
Their Guy:
  • 1 Original Accredited Degree
  • 2 Original Transcripts
  • 1 Award of Excellence
  • 1 Certificate of Distinction
  • 1 Certificate of Membership
  • 4 Education Verification Letters
Albert: how long will it take to complete it?
Albert: I already have the thesis, it is a 300 pages book
Their Guy: When are you planning to enroll?
Albert: as soon as possible
Albert: once the payment and the thesis are sent, how long will it take to have it accepted?
Senior Guy: Alright you have been transferred to senior student counselor
Senior Guy: Shipment Details :-
Senior Guy: 2 set of documents we are going to send you in total in 2 separate shipments.
  -First set of degree documents will be sent in just 15 - 20 working days with all 10 degree documents without attestations.
  -Second set of documents will be sent in only 25 - 30 working days with complete and comprehensive attestations with all above mentioned authorities.
Senior Guy: Total Fee Submission including all registrations would be $1700.00 USD ( $1100 + $600 )
Albert: how long will it take you to review my thesis?
Senior Guy: Well it will take us 24 Hours
Senior Guy: Forward your resume & thesis on sguy@paymeuniversity.com
Albert: thank you, you have been most enlightening

So, they are reviewing 300 pages in 24 h (where it should take like a year). They do no checking whatsoever on what I would be submitting.
I am sorry, but you have lost the money.
Edit:
I have found something funny. The faculty (only visiting faculty seems visible for our university) is the same as, including pictures and order, in another online university and another one and another and yet another one, ¡and even more! (and at least, 5 more, but you get the point); all of them looking equally suspicious.

A thesis shouldn't take a year to review!

@aeismail Perhaps not but it cannot be done in a day either.

Thank you for this public service.  Even if it is fictional (and I hope all the names you used above are), it sounds plausible.  I am certainly not going to pursue such a degree based on this scenario.

@aeismail review the correctness of a 300 pages maths document takes a while. In practice, they are based on articles and one may assume they are correct.

@NotQuiteAnOutsider my name is not Albert, nor my phone number is 555555555, and I don't work on Mathematics. Their part is true.

@aeismail: It depends on what you mean by "reviewing the thesis".  If you mean that a committee member gets a lot less than one year to sit with a thesis before the defense: yes, I have sometimes been given less than three weeks.  However, paperwork aside the vast majority of the reviewing is done by the thesis advisor.  If you count the amount of time the advisor spends discussing and vetting the work with the student: less than a year is not impossible but would be very, very fast.  Anyway, this is probably not the point...

@Davidmh , indeed.  I am worried about the other names appearing as real, especially in these days of web indexing.  I might recommend Representative and Senior Representative.  In any case, the example is instructive, and names should be changed to not embarrass the guilty here.

@NotQuiteAnOutsider I see your point, and it is a good one. Changed now.

Boy, they found some unreasonably fresh-faced and perky visiting professors to clone, didn't they?

The faculty pics are pretty obviously stock photos.

… as can easily be determined using Google image search.

It's not just the same photos, though -- it's also the same names, in the same order.  Either this is one outfit half-assedly pretending to be a bunch of schools, or there's a "scam university" template being passed around.  :P  It certainly doesn't help their case that i can't find a physical address on any of them.

@cHao if you look at their Terms of Service page it's obvious that they use the same document for every site. What's sad is that their search and replace for the university name has an extra space on the end. Example Hill University's where every use of Hill University is missing the space between university and whatever word is to follow.


text:
Why does this US DOI manuscript on archaeological sites have blacked-out text?
While searching for information for a course I'm teaching, I ran into this article from the US Department of the Interior describing some archaeological sites in the Southwest. It has tons of blacked out text. It doesn't seem to serve the purpose of correcting mistakes, as lots of details from the article are hidden. Is this a form of censorship of the information? If so, why would the US DOI have a reason for censoring this information?

The gps coordinates or other similar information is withheld for some sensitive archeological sites to try to minimize vandalism and other issues such as unauthorized "collectors". For example, there is a prehistoric rock quarry not too far from me in New York State, whose exact location is not published.
This seems to be the situation in the paper you cite. Some sites are culturally sensitive. Some are scientifically important. In the age of four wheel off-road vehicles it is too easy to find, contaminate, and even destroy such sites.

If you can access it, there's a LTTE/Commentary in American Antiquity, (28) 3, 394-396 by Jane Holden Kelley, who is cited in this redacted document. Her commentary was titled "Some Thoughts on Amateur Archaeology" and she did not mince words: "I believe it is not excessive to estimate that 50% of the archaeological potential of the South Plains has been destroyed by amateurs, and most of it in the last 15 years" (p. 394). That was written in 1963!

Yes, this is a form of censorship.  However, it is well motivated and is meant to protect important cultural resources.  It is likely that most of the information which has been redacted is related to the location of archaeological resources.  As Buffy suggests, this is done primarily to prevent unauthorized collection—a quick look at eBay should convince you that, for example, Puebloan pottery can sell for hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars.
It may also be worth noting that, while these kinds of documents are produced for the use of Federal land management agencies, they are not, in general, subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.  In fact, information regarding archaeological sites is specifically exempted in FOIA.  Further information may be found on the websites of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the Federal agency responsible for administering resources of historic significance) and the Department of Justice.
The above discussion concerns archaeological records which are kept by Federal agencies (the most significant of these (in the West, anyway) being the DOI Park Service, the DOI Bureau of Land Management, and the USDA Forest Service).  Federal agencies are not the only organizations which conduct archaeological research or keep archaeological records.  State agencies (either directly, or though publicly funded universities and colleges), local/municipal agencies, tribal agencies, and various private concerns (private colleges and universities, landowners, archaeological contractors, etc) may also keep records.  These kinds of records are subject to patchwork of laws and regulations, and may be more or less difficult to obtain, and may be subject to greater or lesser "sunshine" requirements—it is common to exempt archaeological records from such requirements.  Moreover, private landowners and tribal agencies, which are generally not subject to the same kinds of sunshine laws, may be very reluctant to share information, and likely have no requirement to do so.
The question indicates that this is for a course that the asker is teaching, hence it is unlikely that they really need access to the redacted information.  However, the redacted information can almost certainly be obtained by legitimate researchers with a little bit of legwork.  For example, if a researcher is planning on doing limited, non-destructive field work in the area, a couple of polite phone calls to the archaeologists at the appropriate land management agencies (in the case of the records described in the question, the Lincoln National Forest may be an appropriate place to start) may yield the information, and perhaps an invitation to tour the area.
For more intensive work (e.g. if excavation is involved, or if students are coming along), the walls are a little higher, but it again starts with phone calls and email.  As is true with most things, personal relationships matter.  If you really need the access, build trust with folk, and they will almost certainly help you to open doors and get through red tape.

I suspect that the bar you need to leap over to do research in a sensitive area is quite high. Certainly much more than just saying you are a researcher and asking.

@Buffy Slightly more, but not really. Mostly, you have to convince the archaeologist on the ground that you are a legitimate person, and not a pothunter. Build a dialog using your university email address, explain the project and why you need the data, and otherwise build a personal relationship. I'll note that I am speaking from the point of view of someone who worked through my undergrad as an archaeological technician for the Forest Service and BLM in the Great Basin and Southwest. The system runs on trust and personal relationships. Of course, this was 20 years ago, so maybe things change?

If you plan to be in the field, then the bar is slightly higher---you will need to have an archaeologist with you, and might need to fund their time (this is often informal, and many archaeologists will bill their time to some other project code, such a general maintenance and monitoring budget).  The bar is much higher if you plan to excavate, or if you plan to bring students along.  There's tons of paperwork there.

And some sites are sacred to first nations people. Getting permission for pretty much anything on Hopi lands, for example, is probably impossible. There is too much unfortunate history.

@Buffy Indeed, but tribal lands are (semi) sovereign.  If you were to need access to redacted records, it is likely that you would have to work through tribal government and/or the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs).  Tribal records are also not covered by FOIA, again thanks to the sovereign status of tribal land.  In any event, these are again situations where building trust is likely to open up access to data.

By the way, @Buffy, since I seem to have some part of your attention:  I've been lurking an Academia SE for a long time, but rarely feel like I have much to say or contribute.  Typically, when I feel that I do have something to say on a topic, I find that you have already said it, and often better than I could, anyway.  Thank you for your contributions.

There is a ton of valuable information in the comments. Could this be added to the answer itself? Comments are temporary.


text:
How to decline answering details about my thesis?
I am a graduate student studying Education. I am currently working on my thesis, am about half-done with this and I expect to finish in one year. For the research, I am visiting classrooms at various public schools.
Recently, one such public school asked that, in exchange for letting me visit, I share my advice about teaching. Since they welcomed me their classroom, I did not see much of a problem with this and did not think that would present any problems. I prepared an outline for a 90-minute discussion covering some areas, drawing somewhat on my findings related to my research. After sending this off to them before the lecture, I found they are quite disappointed and want far more from me, essentially they want the very core of my thesis.

Is it acceptable practice for graduate students to be guarding of their work? Is this common enough that I can cite it as a reason for wanting to avoid sharing the details?

What is the potential problem here?  For example, are you worried that they will publicize your work in a way that decreases the credit you will get for it later?  If so, you may be able to tell them somthing while explaining "Please keep in mind that this is still tentative work in progress, which I intend to publish next year.  I'll send you the final version of my thesis when it is ready for widespread distribution."  But I would suggest engaging with them somehow: many education grad students would envy the problem that teachers/administrators are too interested in your work...

Agree with Anonymous Mathematician. The entire purpose is to build a name for yourself; I have talked on some occasions about unpublished stuff. If you're afraid someone might steal your work, make the presentation pdf or powerpoint available online, somewhere where the upload date can be seen.

Most universities (at least in the US) require copies of graduate theses to be deposited in the university library.  So as soon you finish, your thesis will be public.  You might be able to put off sharing the details of your research, but you can't avoid it completely.

I'm actually a bit surprised by the harsh comments here. I do come from Computer Science, so the situation might be a bit different.
But still, I know more than one student with advisers that explicitly prohibited presenting ongoing unpublished work. Sometimes it is a bit more relaxed (e.g. it is okay to present it to the people in your team or lab), but in general, it is not uncommon in my area. The explanation I got once is that if a senior researcher with a lot of resources recognized an idea as potentially good and gives it to multiple junior students to work on, he can develop the idea faster than the "original idea holders" (i.e. 1 PhD student + his/her adviser).
On the other hand, I personally believe that the whole point of research is to expand and share knowledge, so I frown upon being too protective of one's work. Also, putting a date on your presentation, and making it available online, diminishes the chances of stealing.
That being said, I think offering a 90-minute presentation, with discussion, based at least partially on your work, is a very nice offer. The only reason I can think of why they would not be pleased is that they expected a talk on some specific topic.
Some suggestions about what you could do as an alternative:

prepare an in-depth exhaustive talk about just one problem/theory from your thesis, preferably something already published in an article
prepare a talk about motivation for your theories, problems that dictated the research direction and reserve some time for a discussion session, where you do offer your own theories as solutions, but other attendees are expected to participate as well.
offer to come back after finishing your thesis, and presenting everything in-depth (possibly over several sessions) when all the work is finished, published and peer reviewed (see both  my points below)
This should give you enough flexibility to avoid talking about any sensitive areas.

Also, some "guarding" explanations that seem quite reasonable to me:

a PhD thesis is a 3+ year long effort, often a compilation of many works and ideas by the author. Even though it is centered around one subject, it probably deals with several issues, approaches, angles...
All in all, it is a lot of material. Explaining everything is something what is expected at a PhD defense: and even then, in that 1+ hour talk, some students can't cover all their work.
Thus, explaining that presenting everything simply requires too much time, and offering the school to choose a issue you deal with that is of particular interest, does not seem bad or disrespectful or overly protective.
if you are against disclosing details of your ongoing work, you should be able to come up with some legitimate reasons. If the work is ongoing and unpublished, you can argue that you do not want to present ideas that did not go through peer-review process.
Peer-review is the process that (should) ensure excellence and relevance of published research. Judging the relevance and correctness of your own work is something not left to the author, and it should be fine if you do not want to present something in detail that is not yet accepted by academic community.
But, even in this case, and after such an explanation, offering to include some of this work as a smaller part of your presentation (e.g. ideas for future work, or discussion), with a beforehand explanation that those are just discussable, underdeveloped ideas and should be treated as such.

Bottom line is, it is not acceptable to guard your research just because others do it. But, if you look at why others do it and understand their reasons, you can decide whether that reasoning applies to you and your work.

The one valid point I can see here(*) for not sharing the state of the thesis:

For the research, I am visiting classrooms at various public schools.

You should not share the preliminary details of your thesis if this could affect the outcome of your study.
As I understood the question, the school (or some teachers or students) may be the subjects you study, so they should be as little influenced by you as possible (that is, don't tell them that they are in the placebo group).
(*) things would be different e.g. if you were in an engineering field and working towards a patent

Is it acceptable practice for graduate students to be guarding of their work?

Without saying acceptable to whom it should be, you won't get any good answer. Is that acceptable to you? Is it acceptable to your adviser? Is such a behaviour acceptable in the context of your "contract" with the subject of your research, namely the school you speak about?

Is this common enough that I can cite it as a reason for wanting to avoid sharing the details?

This would be perhaps a bit field-specific, but as far as I can say, this is not a common practice, nor I would accept it if somebody would use it as an argument.
In my opinion, this stance is very much against the purpose of publicly-funded research.
First of all, realize, doing research has a highly ideal objective: generate, advance and maintain knowledge of humankind. If this does not appeal to you, then ask yourself who pays for your research. If it is general public, i.e., taxpayers of the country you reside in, then they deserve to see your results upon request. If it is so, that includes the officials of the school in question. There is your answer.
Secondly, what is the benefit of you keeping the results private? Are you worried about being scooped? On that, see elsewhere on this site and build an opinion for yourself whether that is a real threat.
Finally, as a graduate student, you should be rather happy that somebody is interested in your research. Most of your peers do not get that kind of attention at all.
To sum up: Unless you are paid from a resource which contractually forbids you to disclose your research results, there is no "objective" reason to refuse sharing your results. It will of course remain your freedom not to share them, but in that case you must stand up to your decision and attribute the refusal to your own personal decision without hiding yourself behind some "common practice". Take responsibility for your decisions!

I wouldn't agree that taxpayers "deserve to see your results upon request" even if that work is 100% funded by government grants: yes for published papers, but not for custom status updates on work in progress.