text:
How should the multiplication symbol be written in the mathematical formula of a research paper? *? or x?
How should the multiplication symbol be written in the mathematical formula of a research paper?  *? or x?
The field is computer science and I am multiplying integers.

There is no general rule - it depends on the specific context of your paper and the conventions in your subsubsubfield.  Generally you'll be fine with whatever you find least confusing to the reader.

The only context in which the asterisk would be appropriate is in samples of code in a programming language in twhich it represents the numerical operation. For the mathematical operation itself (not the computational approximation thereto), asterisk would never be used. As others have pointed out, you could use × or · nothing. The usage of the asterisk for multiplication derives from its presence on typical keyboards (and the absence of any more suitable character).

In code use * or whatever the language demands, otherwise for humans an appropriate mathematical symbol for multiplication as in the answer of @Arno. Also, though you didn't ask, don't write 'the p value was less than 1e-2'; standard scientific notation instead.

What you write is $\times$, which LaTeX then renders as the proper multiplication symbol. This looks similar to the letter x, but is readily distinguishable from it.

Or $\cdot$. Or (most often) nothing. Depends on the context.

@AdamPřenosil Well, agreed, the vast majority of multiplications in my papers are denoted by the absence of any symbol. And if I do need one, I am indeed quite likely to pick $\cdot$ over $\times$ (which instead I predominately use for the cartesian product). But $\times$ is THE multiplication symbol.

I thought it might be useful to give an edge-case answer: first, sure, if it's "multiplication" of standard algebraic things (numbers, matrices, ...) simply juxtaposition, or a "cdot", or "times" in TeX. Still, if it's composition of operators of some sort, a TeX "circ" (all these things with leading backslash, of course) might be good.
Even further, in C++ and others, it is possible to "overload" an operator. Sure, often, this overloading merely amounts to extending multiplication of integers to multiplication of Gaussian integers, etc.  But not always. In the more extreme cases, where your operation is really an overloading of a/the more elementary idea of multiplication, definitely use a little-bit-special symbol to alert the reader that it's "not just the usual".
But, for "plain" multiplication, as opposed to literal computer code (or maybe pseudo-code), do not use an asterisk. :)

In Microsoft Word, type 00d7 and then Alt-X. This gives the multiplication symbol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_sign
However, it is probably better to put nothing. See comments.


text:
People with at least four PhDs
This is a question of pure curiosity: just like there exists polyglots who speak dozens of languages, are there any cases of people obtaining at least four PhDs? (It is okay if topics are fairly close, e.g. Maths, stats, cs, theor phys).
Note, I am specifically not asking about whether doing multiple PhDs is advisible.

Not at all the same thing, but I once knew a Chiropractor who also held both MD and DO (osteopathy) credentials. A bit odd, perhaps.

If you discount honorary degrees, probably no one who was or is a serious researcher. It’s certainly not unheard of to have people do interdisciplinary research across a number of fields, but to document this through obtaining Ph.D.s in those other fields as well would be a waste of time. Someone who would go for this would probably be a collector deriving satisfaction from being able to show them off to people not realizing how weird that is.

Related, possible duplicate: Is doing two PhDs a good path?; note in particular the first answer, which is excellent.

@cag51: thanks but this is not a duplicate as I'm surely not asking whether this a good path, just if some people did, in the spirit of polyglotism (this is aboit learning topics with experts).

@Archie What the links and commenters are saying is that a smart "polyglot" would not approach this by earning multiple PhDs. It's not necessary to enroll in a PhD program to learn a topic from experts. It's especially not necessary for someone respected as a researcher in another area. Professors in interdisciplinary fields learn related topics from other experts all day every day as part of their normal job.

Maybe a misunderstanding of what a PhD is about? A PhD is awarded for a highly specialized research effort in a certain field. A polyglot approach would probably be more about gaining broad foundational (BSc-level) knowledge in several fields.

@DanielHatton Why would such a person even bother with attaining the formal requirements for a PhD in four different disciplines?

According to this 2009 newspaper article, there is at least one person, a retired professor from India, who holds five PhDs.

In German-speaking countries, or at least in Austria, the abbreviation DDr. mult. is used to denote people who have more than two doctorates. Googling for DDr. mult. allows one to identify some persons, but I cannot quickly verify whether they received just three or even four+ such titles.
However, note that some of them should actually be labelled DDr. h.c. mult., whereby h.c. (honoris causa) suggests that the doctorates are honorary titles. In other words, oftentimes they did not start PhD programs from the beginning to the final defense of their dissertation multiple times, but perhaps just once, whereafter they received some honorary titles for some public service.

How does this anwer the question?

In any case, DDr is Austrian - in Germany, Dr. mult. is being used, AFAIK.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Could it hurt my grad school application if I state a secondary research interest in which I have little experience?
Background: CS Undergrad applying to CS PhD USA.
I am interested in this 'X' domain but have not really invested time to do 'research' in it because it is computationally very demanding and I do not have access to such resources.
I have covered a good amount of theory in the topic but that doesn't add up to much unless I can show some form of practical implementation. That's just how the domain is.
I would really love to explore/research in the domain during my graduate tenure.
Question: Will it make me look bad if I say so while applying to graduate programs?
Note: I have good amount of research done in my current domain 'Y' and I will be mentioning that I will want to primarily want to work on that during my graduate tenure. But this domain 'X' has few avenues I would like to explore because it has shown to be beneficial when applied in 'Y'. Apart from that, the field on its own is extremely interesting to me.

I assume X is deep learning and the resources are GPUs?

Yup! I am aware of cloud GPUs but I don't have any form of financial backing!

For sure, the charges for cloud GPUs add up fast. For learning purposes, you can always choose a small dataset and run just a few epochs on CPU -- that's a good way to learn PyTorch and so forth. But I agree it'll be hard to get publication-quality results that way.

Yeah, that's exactly what I do. I try to manage my work load between colab and Kaggle. Another issue is that in my country we don't have access to "colab pro" :/.

I seriously doubt it will make much difference. You say you primarily want to work on Y, and your research experience is in Y, so you'll be judged as "a prospective Y student." If applying X to Y is a reasonable thing to do, then saying you're interested in X shouldn't hurt you at all. But without any real background in X, it also probably won't help you much.

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


text:
When citing a foreign-language article, do I need to translate the journal name?
Internet sources seem to agree that, in the list of references,  the title of an article written in a non-Latin script should be transliterated and also translated. Similarly, the title of the journal should be transliterated if necessary. My question is: should non-English journal names should also be translated in the references?

Many journals have official English name. Do you have this in the given situation?

Note, answers to this related question discuss how to deal with the title of the article, but do not address the journal name.

I'm just guessing here, but have the following suggestion. If the journal, itself, provides a translation then use that. But otherwise, use the formal name that the journal uses no matter the script or language. The name is likely trademarked and also likely known worldwide by its official name. So use that name.
A journal regularly publishing in several languages, of course, might, theoretically at least, have official translations of its name. But otherwise, use the same form that they use.

There is no single way to do references. There are many different formats (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) -- some publishers will specify a required format, others will not. Further, in many contexts, anything reasonably close to a standard format will not raise eyebrows.
Both APA and MLA conventions seem to say no, however. Both of these seem to give the article title in the (1) original, (2) transliteration, and (3) translation, but give the journal title in transliteration only. If you are citing a translation of an original article, there are separate rules for that.

I believe the best ways to find out which journal name you should use in your citations are:

open the article PDF/fulltext and check if it has a "How to cite" or similar section. If it does, then use that!
if you have time: write to the journal contact email address and ask. They are the most interested to be correctly cited.
if you're in a hurry, use the journal name that appears on the bibliographic legend, usually found in the article pages headers or footers.


text:
First author doesn't want a co-author to read the whole paper
First author is a PhD student, as am I. All of the other co-authors are our supervisors. The first author doesn't want me to read the paper, because we are both PhD students and I might plagiarize (?!) her work. Can I report this person for unprofessional conduct to the University committee? Or how should I behave?
More details/Update: My supervisors are having huge issues with this student also because now she doesn't want them as co-authors of other chapters of her PhD. As for me, the supervisors sent me a copy of the manuscript so that I could read it, but she discovered it and overreacted. She submitted that paper to a good journal but didn't keep me in the loop so I had no idea about the reviews until our supervisors told me (again against her will). Now, she doesn't want to acknowledge my contribution for another paper. Because of this latter my supervisors and I decided to collect evidence of her unprofessional conduct in the present and in the past.

The only solutions are not either you behave or report the student. There are middle ground cases where you can have a conversation with everyone involved and convince them that letting you read the paper is the correct way forward. You can convince them, e.g. by making sure that all the information is shared via writing (email) and with other important people (supervisors/academics) cc'd, thus putting you in a situation where you would be caught cheating if you were trying to plagiarize it.

And then they'll try to convince me about how intelectually honest academia is compared to business

@AnderBiguri That probably ought to be an answer. If putting that information on record is able to allay First Author's worries about plagiarism, then that seems like a good solution for everybody.

Just to give you context/orientation: such a demand/situation is extremely bizarre... Nonsensical. So do not get sucked-in to thinking that there is any way that this can be interpreted as reasonable. It is nonsense.

My supervisors are having huge issues with this student also because now she doesn't want them as co-authors of other chapters of her PhD. Is ist normal for a PhD thesis to have multiple authors?

My response would be, “If I don’t read it, you may not put my name on it.  And if my name is not on it, nothing I wrote can be in it.”

@smcs I've seen a number of so-called "sandwich thesis", where each chapter is actually a published (or at least submitted) paper. So in that sense, one could have (different) co-authors for every chapter in their thesis.

I'll re-iterate the last points of my answers, especially after this update: you do have power over your own work. Adding you as an author on a paper without your permission, or submitting without the agreement of all the co-authors, is grounds for revoking the paper: if you write to the EiC and explain this, they are likely to revoke the paper. Her not acknowledging your contribution in another paper (i.e. not attributing) is plagiarism: passing somebody else's work as yours, and is an even stronger case for retracting the paper any reasonable EiC shoud accept.

There is a golden standard (codified in the Vancouver Recommendations on authorship) that every author individually vouches for the correctness of the entire paper. In other words, you can't ask a co-author to only read and write part of the paper, because they need the whole paper to vouch for its correctness. They wouldn't satisfy the criteria to be allowed to be authors. It also suggests a broken collaboration culture if there isn't even enough trust among co-authors to let each other read everything that's happening in a collaboration.
But beyond that, the idea to not let the co-authors read parts of the paper just doesn't make any sense: A paper is intended to be published, at which point it becomes available to everyone, not just the co-authors.

Do you know, by any chance, if the last author (and main supervisor in this case) has got the last word on the paper since the first author is a student? This person doesn't want to acknowledge my contribution for another paper while my supervisors think she should. Can they push her to add my name on her paper?

@GiudittaBonetti I think that would be a separate question.

Regarding the second paragraph: publication takes a finite (and often long) time.  A misguided PhD student worried about the OP plagiarising their work may be banking on the OP having to submit their thesis before the paper is published.  But it's also possible that the journal sends a copy to all authors.

+1 for naming the Vancouver Recommendations, viewable from https://www.etikkom.no/en/library/practical-information/legal-statutes-and-guidelines/the-vancouver-recommendations/ Note though that these are a golden standard, not binding and stem from the medicine research, whereby (speculating here) the specifics of some recommendations may not fit any other research field equally well

To me "it suggests a broken collaboration culture" might be a bit too harsh as we are talking about a PhD student, though I definitely see the reasons for you writing that. But it seems to me that it hints more at and undeveloped collaboration culture and possibly misguided supervision, at least regarding this particular topic.

@penelope -- that's fair. Either way, that collaboration's way of working together needs to change :-)

Oh we absolutely agree on that :)

The authors do not have to vouch for the entire paper, just that if there are claims of accuracy or integrity that they will follow up. This allows the stats person not to be responsible for academic misconduct in the data collection phase.

The advisors should be dealing with the 1st student's authorship mistakes and it might be best to let that play out first.   (Yes - it is unacceptable to not let coauthors read and come to consensus on the full paper before submission - she should have been mentored about that). It sounds as if the pressure they have already applied has put the 1st author student on the defensive and she is reacting poorly in a way that only escalates the issue by an order of magnitude (unilaterally threatening to drop all coauthors and still submit the same paper --- is a really really big deal)

Can I report this person for unprofessional conduct to the University committee?

Whoa, there! That would be a huge escalation. Talk to the person concerned, first. If that doesn't work, talk to your advisor. If that doesn't work, consider going higher. But don't start with the nuclear option, ever.

Yes. The other PhD student is probably acting out of ignorance of academic practices, not malice.

Talk to your advisor.
Dealing with this sort of thing is what they’re there for. They’ll probably tell you that it’s fine, and maybe have a word with your colleague and/or said colleague’s advisor.
In general, though, if you’re going to be putting your name on a paper, it’d be a good idea to have read it first - if it’s poorly written, it’ll tarnish your name as well as theirs, after all, and you might be able to see areas where you can improve it.

Your advisor should insist that you see it all and agree to it all. If you haven't seen something in a paper your name shouldn't be on it. Likewise if you object to anything in it. The other student is a bit paranoid as well as insulting.

My samples and my analysis are on that paper. I was asked to write results and discussion of my data without having access to the paper. That is crazy. Supervisors are on my side but they feel like they have got no power over her and this paper. Now, she doesn't want to acknowledge my contribution for another paper and so I'm collecting evidence to report her.

@GiudittaBonetti You have the power to not transfer your copyright on what you wrote or give permission for it to be published.

@GiudittaBonetti your advisors need to make it very clear to her that academic conduct demands that (A) all authors have read and agree with the entire paper, (B) everybody that contributed substantially (and nobody else) is an author. So unless she removes all your content, she can't publish it. (C) plagiarism is primarily a problem with people that are unrelated; for her PhD her advisor has supposedly an email/commit history that shows what is her work, and what is yours. You can't plagiarize her without your supervisor noticing, that would backfire badly. She ought to trust co-authors...

While I agree with the major advice in guests's answer (you do not have to allow publishing a paper you have not seen), I feel as it could be more concise (and I do not agree that you should agree with publication of anything 'passing' a very low quality bar).
I agree with you that your situation is highly unusual and not good academic practice. I understand that you have discussed with your situation with your advisers and they are generally supportive, however I do not understand why you or your advisers feel like you have no power over this student or the publication?
You have power over every publication containing your work, data which you have not made public, results of your experiments or your analysis: you have power to allow re-usage of your materials under your terms, and you have the power to demand proper attribution. As others have correctly noted, you vouch for every publication you put your name on, and you should not allow something you have not read to be published under your name.
While I agree that reporting this behaviour as unethical to the University committee is very much over the top, and would suggest escalating it is small steps, but know that you do have a nuclear option available to you if all else fails. I would recommend going through the next general steps:

Talk to your advisers (you seem to have already done that).
Explain that you are happy to share your data and contribute with your analysis of the experiments/results in a collaborative effort to publish. Explain that you are not happy to share your data, experimental setup or results outside of a collaboration before you publish them. Get their support for your opinions.
Talk to the PhD student in question.
Explain the same as above: you are happy to collaborate. As the data is not yet published, you can not share it with researchers you are not collaborating with. Explain that your potential contribution (data, experiments, analysis) is substantial and why you think it warrants an authorship.
Then, explain that every paper a researcher vouches for every paper they author. Explain that a sloppily written paper, or even worse, an erroneous one, will potentially damage your academic career as well. Explain that if there are any interpretations or conclusions in the paper discussion, you need to be sure you agree with them and support them before you attach your name to those claims.
Finally, say that you are happy to collaborate on those terms, and those terms only. Explain that you can not in good faith put your name on a paper which you have not seen, and do not give the permission this person to re-use your materials (data, experimental setup - those do not have to be attributed, but still need to be legally obtained). Hope that the other PhD student agrees to those terms.
Talk to the PhD student in question more formally, involving your and their advisers.
Repeat everything from above. Make it clear that you do not give permission to reuse your data, but are happy to collaborate (on regular terms, where your work is attributed and you are able to approve of the manuscript and suggest changes before submission).
If, at this point, the PhD student still does not agree, make it clear that using your data without permission, or worse, your work, analysis or conclusions without attribution, would be grounds to request retraction if the work got published.
You have just given the PhD student three choices: proceed to work in a proper collaboration with you; proceed their work on their own, not relying on your data, results or input; proceed to submit their manuscript relying on your data and input, getting involved in unethical academic practices, which will give you grounds to request retraction of that paper and potentially damage their reputation.
(if the paper gets published but not under the above terms) You may now consider first going through the University channels (with the support of your advisers), but if it has come to this, you now have the power to start biting back.
This could be either the situation where the paper got published without your name but still using the data you did not give the permission for, or with your name but without your prior knowledge.
Say that your next steps are to contact the Editor in Chief of the journal where the paper was submitted, explain the situation and ask the paper be retracted. At this point, the University might mediate somewhat (e.g. allow the person to attempt to retract the paper themselves to save face?), or there might be not much they can do.
Finally, get in touch with the Editor in Chief of the journal in question.
Explain the situation. Either that your data has been used without your permission, or that you never approved (or have seen) the manuscript on which you are a coauthor and do not approve of its submission and publication. Provide some proof (This will have required you to keep an e-mail trail of all the crucial points of this process. Especially the part where you explicitly tell the student that you will not share your data unless you enter a proper collaboration, as well as where you ask for access to the manuscript before the submission).

Hopefully, it does not come to this, and you find an agreement through one of the earlier steps I propose, even if that agreement is potentially not to collaborate. Even more hopefully, the PhD student in question realises how to work with other people and changes her opinion.
Be friendly, be nice and be open. Behave. But do all of that with the knowledge that you do have power over your own work, and be firm on exercising that power if needed

My advice is to get a read of the paper or take your name off (and ask them not to use any of your work (tests, samples, etc.)
NOTE: this does NOT mean setting yourself up as an editor or nitpicker or gatekeeper or the like.  Just make sure the parts that are your work are accurate.  As for the rest of the paper, just make sure that it is not so scientifically crazy you don't want your name on it (pretty low hurdle).  Other than that, let the first author do her thing in terms of describing work, structure, wording, journal choice, etc.
Obviously get your advisor involved.  But if you don't see the paper, don't let your name be used (even if they are OK with that for them).

"As for the rest of the paper, just make sure that it is not so scientifically crazy you don't want your name on it (pretty low hurdle)" No! NO!!! The whole paper will have the asker's name on it. They must make sure that the rest of the paper is of a standard that they are satisfied with. I agree that, from an interpersonal point of view, it's probably a good idea not to insist on minor stylistic changes when working with an awkward co-author, but one must be happy with the scientific content.

How can you check all your contributions have been removed from the paper if you are not allowed to read it? The reason the first author is so paranoic about plagiarism might not be a good one...

It's not reasonable to expect a review of papers which you are not on.  You could be proactive and list your contributions (what data, samples, text).

Some journals now require or permit an authorship statement, which appears online alongside the paper.  Writing one (honestly of course) stating who did what would then make it harder for you to later claim work that you'd agreed in writing was someone else's.  Whether this would satisfy a seemingly paranoid first author is another matter, but it may provide a route to a resolution, especially if driven by the supervisors. Encouraged by my examiners I included such a statement in a list of publications in my thesis for all papers on which I was an author, though clearly this wasn't signed off by the other authors of the papers.

Making my comment an answer :
The only solutions are not either you behave or report the student.
There are middle ground cases where you can have a conversation with everyone involved and convince them that letting you read the paper is the correct way forward.
You can convince them, e.g. by making sure that all the information is shared via writing (email) and with other important people (supervisors/academics) cc'd, thus putting you in a situation where you would be caught cheating if you were trying to plagiarize it.
Hopefully that would convince the first author that you do not plan to act maliciously and gives them proof to react in case you do.

This is not normal. Your lead author is displaying multiple behaviors associated with mental illness and/or an attempt to cover up malfeasance. There needs to be an intervention and she ought to be encouraged to seek counseling.
Graduate school can be very stressful. People can crack.
You and the other authors should act both to protect your interests and to get her some help, rather than pursue a punitive course, if at all possible.
I did an intervention as an undergrad, completely different situation, but the end result was the person got help and no official punishment, although the officials were very helpful and assisted in said intervention.  YMMV.

The academic staff need to take responsibility for appropriate behaviours.
Yes, basic expectations should be simply part of the PhD program training.
However, sounds like there may be a need for "coaching", or behavioural management for other staff involved. Academic staff should be reaching out to the University for support on this.
At worst, there is a mental health issue here that similarly requires appropriate support.
Bottom line: This is at root an HR issue, not one as to processes and procedures.


text:
How to pursue an MD/PhD in France after BS from the US?
I am currently pursuing a bachelor's degree in biochemistry in the US. I would love to pursue an MD/PhD, but I want to move to France as soon as possible. I have never lived there, but have the nationality, speak the language natively, and have passed the bac.
What is the best way to do this? Should  finish my bachelor's degree? I have not been able to find any useful information. (I would also be open to exploring other options in Europe.)

What does MD stand for? Medical Doctor (as @cag51 seems to assume) or Master Degree? In the latter case, in France (and probably in most of Europe because of the Bologna Process), students have to do a Master Degree before their PhD (there may be exceptions due to experience in the private sector). Google "systeme LMD" (the French implementation of the Bologna Process) for more information. In the former case, note that medical studies in France are quite distinct from other domains and it is not easy to get equivalence to enter a medical university.

Since you can speak French, you can find more concrete information on the website of the Ministry of Higher Education and Research: https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/pid24759/venir-etudier-en-france.html  It seems that your should contact the cultural services of the French embassy.

I know very little about the French system, but am surprised you could not find anything online. I did a little poking and found what seems like the answer; perhaps you or other users can correct me if this is overly simplistic.
From FrenchDistrict.com:

[Si] Vous avez obtenu un diplôme aux Etats-Unis, et vous désirez rentrer au pays (France), dans ce cas : Vous devez contacter le Centre ENIC NARIC de Paris, en leur demandant une Attestation de Comparabilité du diplôme étranger avec un « équivalent » Français. Cette Attestation est délivrée au cas par cas, après étude suivant une grille d’analyse très précise établie par le Centre.

My rough translation:

[If] you have obtained a US degree and you desire to return to France, in this case: you should contact the ENIC NARIC Center in Paris, and ask for a Certification of Equivalence between the foreign degree and a French one. This Certification is granted on a case-by-case basis, after a very precise, point-by-point analysis as established by the Center.

So, it seems like if you finish your degree in the US and get this Statement of Equivalence, then you should be able to continue your studies in France as if you had obtained the equivalent French degree.
Note, however, that French doctors have to undergo substantial retraining before they can practice in the US. So, your decision is, at least, difficult to reverse. Given that you've never lived in France but suddenly want to move there "as soon as possible," I would urge you not to make any rash decisions.


text:
Not able to find peers to publish with. Will publishing alone affect the credibility of the paper?
I am a Master's student, and I'm nearly done with my first paper draft. Although the paper I am currently working on will be published with my advisor, I want to work in research areas that my advisor is not interested in. I can publish on my own but most papers I have reviewed have multiple authors. Will submission of a paper with only my name on it affect the chances of the paper being accepted? How can I go about finding like-minded people to work with?

If you do succeed in publishing a single-author paper, this will be more impressive to future recruiters than a multiple-authors paper, so this may be worth the effort.

Will submission of a paper with only my name on it affect the chances of the paper being accepted?

No.  Reputable journals do not intentionally make publication decisions based on who the author(s) are.
That said, getting feedback from colleagues can help you improve your work before you submit it.

Reputable journals do not intentionally make publication decisions based on who the author(s) are. That's what everyone wants to believe, but is not true in general. Most of the time it's subconscious bias, but there are even some journals that make it explicit that they're considering the author's identity, e.g. PNAS.

@Allure You may have missed the word "intentionally."  PNAS may be an exception, I haven't published there.

https://www.pnas.org/page/authors/journal-policies "A member of the National Academy of Sciences may contribute up to 4 of her or his own manuscripts for publication in PNAS each year ..." which isn't skipping peer review, but is a fast track. Also, there are definitely papers for which the editor thinks "I'm not sure about this, but if [big name scientist] is willing to put his/her name on this paper I'll err on the side of publication". Schon scandal papers are an example, the recent LB-1 paper probably falls into this category as well.


text:
Is this psychological abuse? Should I switch supervisors?
I am in the third year of my four year PhD, which is funded by the department. My supervisor a week and a half ago called a meeting with me, after an email complaining about sending off an updated version of a manuscript to a conference without full approval. During the course of this meeting, when two others were present, he said a lot of things. However in this meeting he stated that I was on a "final warning" to be kicked out of the university (I had not received any previous warnings, and I'm not sure he has the capability to do this) and also his research group. He also said that he was engaging in a 'strategy of intimidation' so that I would be scared to make similar same mistakes in the future. I found this to be very worrying.
Following on from this he was especially nice via email, asking whether I would like to collaborate with a prestigious professor abroad. Indeed, the next day he spent 2 hours helping me prepare this manuscript, along with a postdoc.
This is part of a pattern of behaviour from this gentleman. Two months previously, after he said I shouldn't apply for IRB approval only weeks before, he had stated that I had committed severe ethical violations and that I should scrap the paper that I had worked on for the previous 7 months due to these violations. He also asked me whether I would like to go to jail for these violations.
Apart from this, my publication output has been relatively good. I got into a top journal in my field in my second year as first author.
I am very close to trying to switch supervisors and am just wondering, is this a stupid idea? Am I being overly sensitive? Is this psychological abuse?
Clarifications:

My aim here is not to raise a stink, I would be subtly switching supervisor, not reporting this to anyone, giving vague excuse of differences. I still have a lot of respect for the advisor as a scientist and fear of him.
If not clear enough in the initial question, part of my problem is that I was told not to go through the ethics process, then latterly reprimanded for not applying for ethics and committing unethical research. There may be a point here with regards to ethics in the first place.
I am thankful for some of the more hostile responses here, as they have made me aware of things that I may not have considered . Indeed they have made me aware of how this would be likely to be perceived. It has also made me slightly more cognizant of my own role in this.
I am a native speaker and have copied the quotes verbatim.

One final clarification:
Being asked too many questions here, will leave thread as is and not reply further. Thanks for all replies.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Please see this FAQ before posting a comment below this one.

I am very close to trying to switch supervisors

Since you do not trust your advisor, switch.
Your descriptions show your advisor was dishonest, rude, and made counterproductive remarks.  The definition of abuse seems to hinge on what the abuse did to the victim's mental state; making you worried does not seem to fit the definition to me.  I'd suggest that instead of asking "Is this psychological abuse?" ask "Is this good supervision?" to which the answer is "No."

I do not see any dishonesty and rudeness. Can you explain?

@Louic Declaring 'strategy of intimidation' is probably neither dishonesty nor rudeness in the strict sense of the word. It is worse. It is a threat.

@CaptainEmacs A threat and a (final) warning are very different. This is not a threat: it is a last chance for OP to correct their mistakes. Very different from "psychological abuse". It is only fair to inform people that they have reached the limit of what is acceptable, and will be fired if it occurs again.

@Louic If what OP reports is correct, explicitly saying "strategy of intimidation", that sounds like a threat, not a warning, sorry. If you really wish to warn somebody, you do not meta-strategize in front of that person. That's something you do in a humorous context (which doesn't fit the bill here), or if you wish to display utter cynicism (which speaks for a ruthless supervisor). Of course, OP may underreport other parts of the occurrences, and that may sway my opinion, but we need more information for that.

@Louic You claim it's a warning, but the thing the asker is being warned about is very probably not something that can happen.  So it's not a warning.

@Louic I recently watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq-LWnNRLVA.  How is this any different than a shark attack?

@CaptainEmacs I think the announced "meta strategy" makes perfect sense in this situation that is clearly nowhere near a humorous context: if nothing else has worked in previous conversations, the professor gives a final warning. The professor feels bad about having to resort to this strategy, and therefore explains that they had to do so in the same conversation where they are using it.

@Louic Even if that were so, actually explaining a strategy of intimidation is prone to reduce the actual effect. Once you explain it, you either reduce its effect, or it can be construed as a form of bullying rather than what it is supposed to effect, namely delineating strict red lines. In top politics, you practical never get meta-strategies presented publicly - there's a reason for that. Anyway, OP needs to let us know more about the context for better advice.

@emory Having both worked in a lab and worked my way through boot camp, nothing that happened to him is likely to qualify as a boot camp "shark attack".  In the boot camp "shark attack" multiple DIs coordinate to increase confusion and fear, and the relative novelty of not being in the military or understanding terminology add a layer of disorientation.  It is a designed plan to create stress.  The professor's plan might also create stress, but he's not trying to disorient, confuse, and panic his audience.  Some of that happens anyway, but the prof is trying to explain, not disorient.

You write that your advisor said that you "committed severe ethical violations."  But you don't say anything about what specifically you did, whether the accusations are true, or how you responded to that accusation.  We simply cannot give you good advice without knowing more about these violations.  Honestly it sounds like you don't understand what the accusations were, which is extremely worrisome!
It's sadly common that there are advisors who are abusive bosses, but this is not one of those common situations!  Either your advisor is completely disconnected from reality and is making up ethical violations, or you are a serious danger to your research group because you commit bad ethical lapses and don't bother to understand what you did or how to avoid it in the future.

It sounds to me like your professor has noticed a pattern of poor decisions on your side, and they cannot handle another one. Professors are human beings, and this one seems to have reached their limit. Whether they are being reasonable or overreacting is hard to judge without knowing all the details of your interactions and collaboration.
But your professor is acting very professionally by not letting their serious warnings affect the way they collaborate with you directly afterwards: being nice and supportive after a serious warning is an excellent way to try and remedy the situation and give you all the possible chances to succeed.
An important question is whether the professor is right or not, and if the stern warnings are reasonable, or an overreaction. Again, this is impossible to tell without having been there and having seen all your past interactions, but to me it sounds like they may indeed have a point in the two cases you describe:

It is true (but rare) that people go to jail for violating ethics: the professor is asking you, in no uncertain terms, to take ethics more seriously. Violating ethics is serious academic misconduct and could indeed be a valid reason for being kicked out of a university.

submitting an "artefact" (do you mean abstract?) without explicit approval of all co-authors is generally considered very bad from, and depending on the exact circumstances even bordering on academic misconduct (associating your professor's name with ethically questionable research, for example). The professor is telling you clearly that this is not done, and that you should take more care next time.

If you think you can prevent the (serious!) mistakes the professor has warned you about, and they are indeed being nice towards you outside of the warnings you have received, I would recommend trusting your supervisor and learning from your mistakes.
However, I do want to emphasise again that without knowing the details of the interaction between you and your professor, it is hard to judge if a line was crossed during these interactions: you, and possibly your colleagues are the only ones who can judge this. If you have a colleague you trust, and who knows the professor, it may be helpful to ask their opinion on this matter.

"contacting an ethics committee only a few weeks in advance"  That is not what the question said.  It said the supervisor said not to apply weeks before the supervisor's subsequent statement.

Can you explain where you see the pattern of poor decisions? Or are you inferring this from the profs behavior? I can only see two instances of differences of opinion.

downvote, you are making excuses for an abusive person. Would you pursue a "strategy of intimidation" in any of your dealings with any other human? What kind person not only does that but tells the victim to their face that they are doing it knowingly and calculatedly? This is not a hard-done-by kindly professor at the end of their tether, they are a calculating pathological user. To the OP: supervisors that make you feel confident and good about yourself as their "strategy" for "helping" you succeed do exist. You deserve one of those.

@henning--reinstateMonica  The question gives two examples of poor decisions. I am inferring that either (1) the professor thinks that these decisions are so poor that they constitute a pattern, or (2) that other, possibly smaller, mistakes have been made that lead the professor to give a "final warning". I also clearly state (3 times) that this is hard to judge without having been there, but these mistakes are serious and I can totally understand that the professor is angry.  Furthermore, I see no evidence of abusive behaviour: the risk of losing a job over the given "mistakes" is realistic.

OP's post suggests that the advisor's mood/attitudes are swinging wildly which is definitely indicative of the advisor being potentially unstable

The present question makes the (unsaid) assumption that OP has not presented the full context of the situation. Instead of giving an answer based on this premise (yes, it is kept as a question mark, but I think this needs really better clarification), I think OP should be asked concretely if there is more to the situation with the ethics approval and the artefact than they have let on.

@benxyzzy Would you pursue a "strategy of intimidation" in any of your dealings with any other human?  If I had tried a positive strategy and failed, it is not unthinkable that I might say something like, "I have tried many times to use a supportive approach with you, but have failed.  So now, regrettably, I have to try intimidation instead.  If you (do X) one more time, (you will face consequence Y)." This seems unreasonable in the current climate only because so many people deliberately feign extreme emotional fragility in naked ploys to seek advantage.

@tbrookside sounds a lot like reversing victim and offender to me. You just called literal intimidation reasonable if the target isn't playing ball, while framing the target's complaints as the truly malevolent wielding of power

The only answer this site can give to this type of questions. Plus 1.

I can't comment on the academic issues, as it's out of my domain of knowledge, but I cannot imagine ever saying "I will pursue a strategy of intimidation". If the relationship has devolved to that point, better to terminate it than say something like that. Wow. So there may be two issues here, but problems on OP's side don't excuse bad behavior on the part of the professor.

@benxyzzy If a toddler is doing something about to get themselves killed, a good parent will raise their response to whatever level necessary to prevent that from happening, including yelling at them, even if ordinarily yelling at a toddler isn't a great parenting strategy. The phrasing in OP's question about a "strategy" sounds a bit odd to me, but we don't really have the whole story. If OP is facing serious consequences if they don't change behavior, their advisor would be doing a disservice if they didn't pull out all the stops.

@BryanKrause but OP is not a toddler, they're not going to get themselves killed, and their supervisor is not their parent...

@henning--reinstateMonica The 'pattern of poor decisions' can be inferred by both the 'final warning' (usually given after many other warnings) and the OP's own words "This is part of a pattern of behaviour from this gentleman."

How can one go in jail for breaking ethics in computer Science research??? I never hears of this.

@benxyzzy It seems OP could be participating in ethical lapses that could get them kicked out of the program or result in sanctions on the lab or university (they are frustratingly vague about it but it sounds like they failed to get approval prior to doing human subjects research). In this context, their advisor is the closest thing to a parent they have and they're about to have their academic career killed. If this is all true, and the message isn't getting through, it's time to get their attention.

@BryanKrause sounds a bit machismo to me, which I don't think comes off so impressive when it's a superior bearing down on an entry-level subordinate. I repeat: supportive and secure atmosphere is generally and widely understood to be a better way to get optimal behaviour out of people than throwing your weight around and pressurising

@benxyzzy It sounds like the supervisor has already said this is a problem in a lesser way without change. Now they felt they needed to escalate to make clear the severity. Calling out the "strategy of intimidation" may have been intended to soften the blow a bit by preparing for what's coming next: you aren't getting it, so I need to make sure you are clear of the consequences which include expulsion and legal issues. They aren't threatening to gain something for themselves, but to protect the student from harm. That's not "throwing weight around".

OP isn't the "victim" if their own ethical lapses are at issue. An advisor would be turning them into one, though, if they didn't make clear how serious these issues are and let them continue to stumble into trouble.

@looktook, i suppose you can commit fraud doing federally funded research.

@Daniel Hatton OP said it is CS

A more important question is whether or not you can actually switch, and what the consequences, if any, will be for doing so. You say you are in your third year and graduating next year - I interpret as meaning you are graduating spring 2022, which is 1 year away. Does your program even allow switching advisors so late? If you did switch advisors will your current advisor still have to be on your committee, considering you have done a considerable amount of work with them? How will switching advisors impact the letters of recommendations you receive when you are applying for your next position after graduating? More importantly, who would actually be your new potential advisor?
If you had another 3 or even 2 years before graduation, switching advisors should be pretty easy. When you only have 1 year left? Your priority right now should be to wrap up your dissertation research and prepare your applications for the coming hiring cycle.
You should consider that you will only have to endure this situation for 1 more year before you will move on to something bigger and better. Just putting some distance between you and your advisor could be a feasible solution.

Enduring bad behavior is often the same as enabling it.

@AnonymousPhysicist It is cheaper to expect others to pay the price for standing up to principles.

I am not sure that OP has as much time to finish their PhD. If the supervisor has kicked in his new strategy now, he has OP in the crosshairs and can be easily triggered.

@CaptainEmacs Sure, but in this case the price of doing nothing is already pretty high.

@AnonymousPhysicist I am not sure which of my comments you respond to. My comments are to be read separately. One is directed to you, the other to Taw. Your response seems to address a combination of my comments?

@CaptainEmacs I did not read your second comment.

@AnonymousPhysicist Well, then it does not really address the issue. You talk about "enabling" - this is putting the burden of the bad behaviour on OP. As if they are responsible and they have to sort it out. If it's indeed the supervisor's fault, then getting through the last year may indeed be the more plausible strategy. It's not about enabling.

@CaptainEmacs "Enduring" bad behavior is often enabling.  The asker wants to know if they should do that; I say don't do it.  I have no comment on what the asker might have done in the past, as no information was provided.  Promptly finishing the degree and leaving is neither enabling nor enduring.

@AnonymousPhysicist I do not so much like the word "enabling", because I would say that the word "enabling" implies a real choice. (I do not consider choices here that amount to self-destruction).

@CaptainEmacs Well, the question claims there is a choice.

Another important question is, even if possible, would another advisor pick up the student?

@ScottSeidman exactly

Before dealing with your professor, who did cross a line by stating he'd be using intimidation as a tool, you must ask and answer (to the best of your ability) how honest are you with yourself?
Most professors don't take this approach unless there were prior incidents which indicate that you have ignored earlier problems and corrective feedback.  It is always possible you have a professor that is a horrible person; but, it is far, FAR, more likely that you have a professor that has formed an idea that you are not manageable.  This idea might be supported by facts; but, even if it isn't, you need to provide evidence through your actions that you can work with him.
Your work in a lab under his name is not independent because everything you do carries his name on it, whether your or he likes it or not.  If you present something with a flaw in it, it will reflect on his lab long after you've graduated or dropped out.  You must understand his point of view, or you will not be able to work with him.  You submitted work to a conference without review, work that is expected to require some review because you're not an experienced, independently vetted, professor.
Maybe the work was excellent; but, there's a high chance that extra sets of eyes could have improved upon it.  Odds are the work wasn't that great, and you may know that, as you decided it couldn't stand up to review and submitted it without his review or knowledge.
So yes, you can use his wording to point out he's crossing a line; but, these investigations don't stop at what you submit.  They will see if you have "unclean hands" or in lay terms, "if you threw the first punch."   I doubt you would have enough of a stand to overturn that he should discipline you, and by your going public, there's a great chance that the discipline will have to be converted from "your prof being very angry with you" to real consequences (academic probation, reassignment to a different PI who has been warned of your prior conduct, likely resetting your research efforts to day one, and possibly dismissal from the school).
Play carefully, because every brilliant move is less brilliant when you don't consider the obvious responses which lead to you losing more than you would ever gain.  When you come to your decision on how to proceed, again ask yourself, "how honest are you with yourself" because you'll be inclined (as we all are) to think you're playing out a master move when in result you're just giving away every opportunity to win.

The situation you describe is an uncomfortable one, and for what it's worth, I am sorry that you are going through it.  I tolerated similar behavior during my master's degree and tried to be more proactive during my doctorate.
The first thing that stuck me was your advisor having others present while reprimanding you.  "Praise in public, punish in private."  In my opinion, what they did was wrong.  Perhaps they were having a bad day, but unless your advisor specifically apologized for having done that, they may feel that it's acceptable behavior.  His admission that he was engaging in a form of intimidation is evidence that they think it is acceptable, and that statement, word for word, is something your should write down and share with anyone with whom you raise your concern.  Intimidation is bad, openly admitting to doing it because they think they are allowed:  people have lost tenure for that.
Now, all of the above assumes you were at fault in the first place, and it doesn't seem to me like you did anything wrong at all.  You mention that you were being given a "final warning."  I would take a moment and go back to the other times you advisor had "warned" you and see if there is any common thread among them.  I'm not defending your advisor here, I'm suggesting that you may want to have this information handy for the next part.  Collect up emails, notes from meetings, etc. as your evidence to show this pattern of behavior in black and white.
And the next part, is to approach your department's graduate program head; the person who oversees the overall progress of graduate students in your department to ensure they are making progress, and to be the first person to get involved in any advisor-student disputes.  A short email requesting a meeting to discuss the most recent reprimand, and then going over prior times to establish a pattern of behavior on the part of your advisor.  From there you can show that this was not a one time thing, that your advisor is handling things inappropriately, and that it is adversely affecting you ability to move smoothly through your doctoral program.  Say those words, because that point falls clearly within their purview.
The times when you advisor seems to have tried to make up for their behavior with nice emails and kind behavior after the fact is akin to other types of abuse.  It's not ok, because all your advisor is doing is covering their backside.  It's also a sign of guilt on their part, because they know they are being abusive and hoping they can wallpaper over the damage with niceties.  Don't fall for it.
After you've spoken with your grad program head, it's time to reach out to the department head, and repeat everything you discussed with the head of the grad program.
When you meet with the department head, in addition to everything you bring to the prior meeting, come with the suggestion of at least one other advisor that you would be comfortable switch to.  If you can have an off-the-record conversation with a prospective advisor asking if they could take you on as a student, that will help clear the way.  You department head will appreciate your boiling everything down to them making a decision, rather than asking them find a solution.  Department heads, are executives, and the job of an executive is to make a decision.  Give them one or more well-thought out options for them to choose from.  Otherwise, you risk them saying "I'll look into this, andget back to you," which may never happen.
Hopefully by this point, you'll have more than enough evidence to show a pattern of unacceptable behavior on your advisor's part, and a path to graduation by having an alternate advisor identified.  As long as you are being moved to another advisor, your advisor's behavior is not your problem, let the department head deal with it.  Your only responsibility is to provide any evidence you've collected from your experiences.
If none of this works, some universities have a Graduate College, whose job it is to oversee all graduate programs across the campus, covering all departments.  There should a Dean, or many Deans whose job it is to address issues like these when the department can't or won't take care of their own issues internally.  If it comes to this, make sure you've also collected emails and notes from conversations with your grad program head, and department head to show that you've gone through the proper channels.
It's a not a fun process.  I've been through a form of it, but I am nonetheless glad that I did.  I stood up for myself and in the end graduated.  There was no retribution from anyone, I was able to find employment without issue, and can tell you with confidence that your own moral compass is something worth listening to in times like these.

"Intimidation is bad" - I agree. "it doesn't seem to me like you did anything wrong at all" - emphatically not clear: OP says that they submitted an artefact without approval by other authors, and mentions irregularity on ethics approval. Maybe the infringements are minor, but the scope is wide and the latter can cost the PI their grants or more. So, while a fair advice to an innocent OP, the situation may be more involved than it seems.

You state "...having others present while reprimanding you. 'Praise in public, punish in private.' In my opinion, what they did was wrong."  My response: The post contains one side of the story.  I actually think the presence of witnesses contradicts the narrative being given by OP.  At my institution it is common to ask witnesses, such as the department chair or student liaison, to be present for a student/faculty meeting where a serious infraction will be discussed.  Those witnesses are there to protect the faculty member from potential charges of abusive behavior.

@CaptainEmacs I have to plead ignorance on this because I don't know what an "artefact" is, at least not spelled that way.  If by artefact they meant "abstract" then yes, that is unprofessional.

@pjs I agree with you in principle, but literally every post on SE tells one side of the story.  We can only give feedback (if we give any at all) based on what we have.  I may be interpreting the OP's statement wrong, but when I read "two others", I read that as "two other students", not "two other people who might be faculty, staff, or administration."  So on that I fully admit my read of the situation could be wrong.

@iwantmyphd I took "artefact" as "something" or "widget" - yes, it could be an "abstract". I would expect a 3rd year PhD student to know what an "abstract" is, so mentioning it twice in the question means it's something else. If they did not know it's called an abstract, this would be a warning flag to themselves that they may be seriously out of touch as to what is appropriate as member of a research group and they may want to revisit the situation as a whole.

@iwantmyphd While every post on SE presents their side of the story, we're certainly justified to note inconsistencies or consider and discuss alternate explanations based on our own life experiences.  If the faculty member overstepped, there are witnesses.  If the wording was not as stated by OP, again, there are witnesses.

@iwantmyphd The tactic of punishing in public typically (I don't know about this case) only comes after punish in private fails.  The hope is that after a few private reprimands, a public one will help prepare the team for what is likely to follow (or at least make them aware of the issues, so they are not surprised).  I think the Prof's language he used was bad; but, if the evidence supports the same course of action, the same outcome would be proscribed regardless of the language.

The "other people" make this feel like an intervention to me.

he had stated that I had committed severe ethical violations and that
I should scrap the paper that I had worked on for the previous 7
months due to these violations

If this is accurate, it really seems to me like you've been accused of Research Misconduct, and this is a big deal.  I could be very wrong, but you're not providing any form of clarification, so this answer relies on this assumption.
Research misconduct is a big deal;  a potential career ender for you, as the offender, and for your supervisor, if they knowingly let any findings involved with the misconduct out the door.
This would certainly take a supervisor way out of their comfort zone.  Protecting their career may be their first impulse.  There is a strong possibility that there has been discussion of this situation with your chair and your Dean.  If not, there probably should have been.
The meeting with "others" strikes me as an intervention to attempt to correct your behavior, or perhaps your advisor wanted witnesses around to confirm the details of the meeting.  Of course, it would help if you could share who the "others" are, but I understand your reticence.
So, if you did commit research misconduct, I think your adviser's actions, in which he finds a way to prevent further misconduct and provide you with interesting educational opportunities ending with you getting a degree, while possibly not perfect, might be acceptable  (people don't tend to have much practice responding to such situations).  I would certainly believe him when he says this is your last chance.
Also, if you did commit misconduct, your realistic choices might be limited, as it is unlikely another supervisor would pick you up.
Again, I could be entirely wrong here, because you won't share details, but this is my "between the lines" read on your situation.  Only you can gauge how close your actions come to misconduct.

Usually a good practice with dealing problems that could endanger a project, intellectual property, etc, is the use of rules (you should be given those rules from the start or at the first violation) and escalation (there should not be no radical step or measure at the first violation), eg., 1 warning + informations (what was done, the consequences, the reasons for which is it wrong), 2 warning + light measure(s) , 3 fire + measure(s).
If your supervisor is not mentionning the rules of the lab/university at the first warning, or is lying about them, or is acting or communicating inconsistently (eg., different messages depending on present witnesses), or is involving hidden or implicit pieces of information including personnal judgements/comments/features (ethny, gender, appearence, behavior etc) or blurry consequences, or is using some sort of surprise (when you know the rules, there should not be any surprise at all), or is invoking some subtexts or surprising and strong moods. Then it is psychological abuse (sometimes named moral abuse).
The ideal communication in case of problem should be at all times extremely clear for the present and the future (predictable), written, objective, with escalations and as cold as possible (without any kind of mood, affect, surprise).
If there is psychological abuse, I recommend to document everything (and try and document everything (voice record, email/chat copy) from the first suspect communication), and refer this to the chief of doctoral school to request piece of advice for your next steps and report the case.
The same way, you are subject to rules, warning, explanations and escalation, your supervisor is also subject to them for the problem involved. If there is no possible or desired resolution (you may feel permanently uneasy to finish you PhD), then indeed do switch your supervisor, again with the recommendations of your doctoral school's chief.

I think the use of bold formatting for emphasis in this answer is distracting and does not help in highlighting the important points, which are otherwise reasonable.

I feel your boss is far from the best boss, but could not tell whether good or not for your research career.
Based on your record (the first author on the top journal), your future can be promising. Of course, although it depends on the field you are, you might be able to find a  good place to continue your research after recieving phD.
So, I feel two points look important: Will your boss give you phD; After getting phD how will the relationship between you and your boss last. I guess you can see old members of your lab to get information about this points.
If it is possible for you to receive phD and, afterwords, get a position for another PI, staying current place is worthwhile. Unless so, switching a supervisor might be good choice.
In any case, a stable state of mind is very important in research. Your boss seemed to be having a negative impact on your mental state, maybe in the short term. If you feel this way, I suggest you use a school counselor where your privacy is protected.

TL;DR. Get out, get out, get out! If you can... I don't what field you're in. Changing supervisors may not be feasible. Is there a suitable alternative supervisor whom you could work with?
Fair or not, these are statements that need to be considered before making a definitive move.
That said, I am very sorry for this horrible, abusive situation you are in.
It is not fair on you.

Intimidatory behaviour is not acceptable. There are arguments as to whether parents should be allowed to discipline their children like that---I am not commenting on this---but certainly a supervisor should not behaviour like this towards a student. Trying to scare you with "go to jail comments"---disgusting.
I worked with someone who treated me extremely badly during my PhD---although it sounds nothing like as bad as your case! Sometimes we had disagreements about whether to look into certain questions; he wanted to investigate something, but I didn't. This is fine by itself, but he explicitly told me that his time was more valuable so I should investigate it and get back to him. The fact that I didn't want to didn't matter. He told me that he's the senior collaborator so I should do it. Incidentally, he was a postdoc when we started and had just got a permanent position when we finished.
I won't go into further details regarding his behaviour---it's not relevant to your question. I should have tried harder to end the collaboration earlier, in hindsight. I really regret this. His behaviour made my life miserable for months and months. I'm done with the collaboration with him now and I am so much happier! I've found lots of other people to collaborate with who are not toxic and treat me with respect.
This person wasn't my supervisor, but rather a collaborator. My supervisor went "supervision-AFK" with me about 1.5yrs, so I was working with other people therein. I'm in maths, so choosing with whom I work is relatively easy. I didn't even have the option of working with my supervisor for half my PhD, as I said. Changing supervisors is more of a big step than changing collaborators. I don't know exactly what field you're in, so I don't know how easy it would be to just not work with your supervisor but work with others instead? Not a perfect solution, but perhaps better than your current scenario.
Unfortunately, there's very little accountability in academia. People who hold power have little to no training in utilising, not abusing, this power. You can report this, but I highly doubt you have proof that he said these things---after all, who gathers proof of all interactions? I don't. It can also negatively affect people's perception of you. Lots of people will have had only positive interactions with this guy---not all toxic people are toxic all the time---and will try to defend his behaviour. Just look at other answers here. Imagine the response from his peers?
One answer suggests that you intentionally didn't get his review on your work because you thought it wouldn't hold up to his critique. Quite where the answerer got this information, I have no idea. You say it was an updated manuscrip without full approval. There was no indication in your question that you were intentionally. His behaviour is abusive, regardless of your mistakes.
In a fair world, you would report this person, their behaviour would be investigated and they would go on some type of supervisor-training programme. Alas, in a fair world...

To be fair to the other responders, while in isolation, I would have full sympathy for OP, there are a number of iffy issues, such as submission of an artefact [or abstract?] without approval by coauthors and some inconsistency concerning ethics approval. We do not know whether the supervisor gaslighted them or this was a misunderstanding, but there are things that absolutely cannot be done without such an ethics approval and a 3rd year PhD student will know that (even if the supervisor said something else). Your response takes the absolute position that OP is perfectly in the right. Perhaps.

There is a whole spectrum of academic misconduct, and, unless OP clarifies, there may be the possibility (I am not saying this is the case) that OP's cavalier attitude might have endangered the legitimacy of the whole group; university may have initiated an investigation against the supervisor, possibly suspending them, freezing or disbanding the group, possibly forcing retractions of papers? Something like that can scare the world even out of a tenured prof. OP does not mention any issues from previous years, only of this last sequence of events. This may indicate something triggered this.

@CaptainEmacs My response certainly does not take the position that te OP is perfectly, or even at all, in the right. It is not supposed to comment on this either way. If you can show me where it appears that way, I shall definitely edit to remove that implication! The point is that it's no excuse for abusive behaviour. Intentionally trying to scare a student. Disgusting. Absolutely vile. Such a shame to see so many people sticking up for abusive behaviour. No surprise that people don't report it

Sorry, I am the last person tolerating abuse. However, your whole mail operates under the assumption that OP has been abused. Which is possible and, if so, it's inexcusable. However, critical information is missing in the question and OP has not provided yet clarification. Until that is resolved, it can not be excluded that something weird is going on. You will see that my comments throughout the threads vacillate between wondering whether the supervisor is gaslighting or OP is not entirely forthcoming. The consensus in academia.SE is condemning abuse of OPs, but here's something off.

Kind of saw this one coming - OP's question was all about seeing the worst case scenario for others while failing to see their own faults. Now they accept an answer with negative score that most validates them. They will probably try to leave their advisor and it won't work out well for them, unfortunately, but maybe ultimately the best for everyone.

Bryan Krause and Daniel Hatton. Good luck with your respective careers

@DanielHatton Um, disgusting would be too far in that scenario. Handled poorly would be better. But the OP states that the advisor explicitly said they are doing a strategy of intimidation. Maybe I misunderstood, but I felt that it was clear that the advisor doesn't think the OP would go to jail for these, but rather is being intimidatory. Maybe this is a mistake on my behalf. If the OP clarifies contrary to this, I can update the answer accordingly

@BryanKrause If you reread my answer, you'll see I actually at no point say that the OP hasn't done wrong. It is not clear from their post if they have made errors, from the mundane to the serious, or not. I do not comment on this. But the advisor's behaviour is horrendous even from a worst-case point of view, ie even assuming that the OP has commited serious mistakes. || That said, I do agree with you that accepting this answer is inappropriate. This sort of question isn't really a "here's the right answer to accept" question

@user24601 OP has made it fairly clear despite the opacity of their question that they've made ethical mistakes. This answer downplays those mistakes, implying it's okay to submit things without other authors' approval or IRB. I think you've completely misunderstood what OP's advisor meant about their "strategy of intimidation" and are imagining something like what you experienced instead. It's completely unclear that any abuse has taken place, especially if the "strategy of intimidation" is to state the potential consequences for what has transpired: nothing unethical or abusive about that.

@CaptainEmacs I do not doubt that you would not condone what you see as abuse. Perhaps we see things differently, though. From my view and experience I've gained in life, this is classic abuse. And that's even taking a worst-case view of the OP's behaviours

@BryanKrause Wow. Dear me. I do not condone submitting parts of manuscripts without all authors' approval or any other potential voilations in the OP---I don't know what "IRB" is. Please back up claims with quotes. But to suggest that a "strategy of intimidation" is to state potential consequences... dear me... no wonder people are scared to report abuse

To reiterate, I really don't feel that this should be an accepted answer. There is nothing inherently more correct about it than ones giving opposing points of view. On-topic or not, this is definitely an 'ask for advice' question

@user24601 - I accepted it to try and stop the thread. I regret posting this, but the moderators don't allow you to delete threads. Stack exchange is rather more full of vitriol than your average online forum. I wish I could provide more detail on the events, but i am not going to risk deanonymizing myself for these people.

@John I understand that and sympathise completely. I hope that you are able to resolve the situation. It should go without saying, but to be completely clear, you shouldn't take action based on the opinion of an anonymous poster without all information such as myself!

"His behaviour is abusive, regardless of your mistakes". IRB or equivalent is approval for human subjects research; research without this approval is illegal. OPs own description of the strategy is that it involved informing of consequences, and that OP's advisor hoped that awareness of these consequences would prevent them from future violations.

@John If you think this discussion here is "full of vitriol" you must be new to the internet. The discussion is full of controversy, yes, but still focused on facts. I am sure that you have reasons for not disclosing more details - the problem is that the question, as it stands, does not permit us (at least me who hasn't made up my mind yet) to be more supportive. You will notice that there are many questions on SE for anti-bullying advice and many helpful comments there. Maybe your mistakes were minor, but we do not know. You might have been led into a trap. Again, we do not know.

@John If it's anti-abuse advice that you seek and you do not wish to reveal more about your case, please check out other answers on academia.SE, there is quite a bit of advice on that. You have also made clear in your question that the discussion here showed you the weak points of your position, so, while unpleasant, maybe nonetheless it is helpful in finding the best and fairest solution for yourself. Good luck!

Why not accept AnonymousPhysicist’s answer?  I don’t fully agree with it, but it’s a good on-point answer that’s not a long rant.

@NoahSnyder kekw


text:
My second paper builds on the first, but may be published before the first. Will this be a problem?
I have two papers on the same data, but each gave me different results as I used different methods. I sent one of them to a journal and am waiting for the response which may take months.
The problem is that I need to publish the second one, which gave me a better result, at a conference. If it is accepted it will be published before the first one that I sent to the journal.
The question is: will the publication of the second one (at a conference) affect the journal's decision about the first one?

Better means nothing, if you do not clarify in which sense.
Two methods to process the same dataset, it looks like they are independent papers. However, if the second paper method is really better, maybe you should stop the reviewing process of the first paper: it is a waste of time if you found a better method.
On the other hand, if the first paper is presenting some theoretical study and the dataset is used only for validation of the theoretical study, it may be the case that it is worthwhile to publish it.

Questions you need to ask yourself to answer 'yes':
Did you split one paper into two to get more papers? Do both papers heavily cite each other? Do the policies of the Journal or Conference explicitly forbid something like this?
Questions you need to ask yourself to answer 'no':
Are both papers completely independent of each other? Do they use the same data but make independent interpretations? Can a reader read any one before the other without having to ask for clarification?


text:
What is "salami slicing"? Does it preclude presenting similar papers on a similar topic at multiple conferences?
What is meant by "salami slicing" ?   I see that a few researchers present papers at multiple conferences with a very similar theme or topic, but was not sure if this was permissible.  My own research could fit multiple conferences, even if the topic at each of these papers would be virtually the same.

You don't mention your field. One important thing to realize is that salami slicing is not universally considered a poor practice - in some fields it's quite normal to structure one's work into "least publishable units".

Salami slicing normally refers to a different practice; that of taking a result and slicing it up into several smaller results with the intent of getting multiple publications. Technically all of the resulting papers are different, but less significant than if all were presented together in a single paper (or smaller number of papers).
It doesn't really have to do with "similarity" as such. But some conferences would frown on "virtually the same" paper at their conference.
But it depends. If the purpose of a conference is simply to broaden the audience of a result then there may be no issue. But conferences in some fields, such as CS, are primary publication venues and the proceedings have the same weight (or more) than journal publication.
In the latter case you have issues about self plagiarism and multiple publication, both of which are best avoided.
But I know some people who give similar talks at multiple conferences (often by invitation) and there is no issue, since their talk isn't intended to represent new results. So, a bit subtle, depending on the conference.
So, while your idea may not be technically "salami slicing" you still need to evaluate its appropriateness.

Thanks for your answer. But I am not sure whether it is helpfu unless I elaborate more on the appropriateness of salami slicing in my case. I am in the interdisciplinary field of public policy.  I developed a conceptual framework to address an issue.  Would it be appropriate to slice the framework to cover the economic, sociological, political implications of this framework and how it might be implemented across different stakeholders?  By this construction, I can see at least four different conferences for presentation.  Would this be appropriate then?

Sorry, but I can't be more specific, not knowing about the conferences or their standards or how "similar" your papers/talks are. You need to judge that. Or explore it with a conference program chair.

(Salami slicing is already nicely explained in @Buffy's answer)
I'm in a field where journal papers are the primary thing rather than conference presentations (and conference proceedings are a nuisance that doesn't really count - we use special issues of existing journals instead). For us, it is completely OK to present with very similar title at several conferences as long as the audience is sufficiently disjunct, e.g. I may present some data analysis method at a more theory-oriented conference  plus possibly several conferences that belong to different application fields.
The content would often still be quite different between theory vs. applied conferences, while potentially more similar at different applied conferences (depending on availability of good example data). While it is original research I present, the applied talks often do have a tutorial/lecture type aspect of showing how to approach a particular problem people in the audience may have.
E.g. I've been been talking about measuring random uncertainty in certain situations.  On a chemometrics (statistics for chemistry) conference, I went into more details about the data analysis aspects, the "applied" conferences were a general analytical chemistry/trade fair, a meeting on cocoa and chocolate production, a more general plant science/agriculture conference, a more engineering-oriented conference where people meet who build measurement instruments, and a meeting with audience working in medical diagnostics, where I went into more detail about the application conclusions and practical considerations.
My guesstimate is that among those 6 conferences, maybe 10 - 15 people have heard me speaking more than once on the topic (excluding people from "my" group).

Thanks for your answer. But I am not sure whether it is helpfu unless I elaborate more on the appropriateness of salami slicing in my case. I am in the interdisciplinary field of public policy. I developed a conceptual framework to address an issue. Would it be appropriate to slice the framework to cover the economic, sociological, political implications of this framework and how it might be implemented across different stakeholders? By this construction, I can see at least four different conferences for presentation. Would this be appropriate then?


text:
How to choose a PhD research area in AI to prepare for industry roles?
I’m planning to pursue a PhD in Artificial Intelligence to transition into industry after graduation, rather than stay in academia. I’m having difficulty choosing a research area that will set me up for the industry, especially since AI research evolves quickly. Here are my specific questions:

Should I prioritize choosing a topic that is currently relevant to
companies, or is it better to focus on one that might become
important in the next three years?
Will focusing on a specific PhD topic limit my opportunities to work
in other areas, or do companies in AI value transferable skills
across different topics?

I am interested in many areas of AI, and I’m finding it difficult to choose a topic to work on. What are the factors that I should consider when selecting a research topic?

What part of the world are you in? "Industrial PhD" probably means different things in different places.

I second @cag51's question. "Industrial Ph.D." could mean a Ph.D. you do "on the side" while working in industry. But the rest of your question rather suggests a "traditional" Ph.D. with the aim of moving into industry afterwards. Please clarify.

Re your substantive question: I don't know whether this is a good fit for our site, being quite opinion-dependent. IMO (you see?) the limiting factor to your employment as a Ph.D. will less be your specific topic, but whether an employer has headcount available. Ph.D.s will be expected to be flexible enough to work on quite different topics. And nobody knows today what will be hot in three years. Few people had GenAI on their radar three years before ChatGPT became a craze. And if you do GenAI today, there are good chances the bubble will burst in the next three years.

I am in Europe. By "industrial PhD," I mean a program where a student works closely with a company, often on applied research that directly impacts the company’s interests while being enrolled in a university's PhD program. The Industrial PhD is funded by the company. This contrasts with a traditional PhD which is usually more focused on theoretical research. within the university setting.

Yes the other questions 1,3 and 4 are related to the "traditional PhD"

We usually advise one question per post. I downselected one of your questions -- feel free to post it separately. I'll leave the other two since they seem to go together.

Should I prioritize choosing a topic that is currently relevant to companies, or is it better to focus on one that might become important in the next three years?

It is very difficult to predict what might happen in the future. Both the science and the "industry" of AI are changing rapidly. Three years ago, applying deep learning to text summarization, translation, or question-answering might have seemed like a good idea. But as it turns out, the majority of such work is now obsolete in the face of Chat-GPT. Similarly, industry's demand for customized chat bots is way higher than we could have predicted years ago; now that they actually work, everyone wants one.
Given this, I wouldn't try to game the system. Focus on whatever topic you find interesting. Learn the fundamentals; don't just become a technician who knows how to type model.train(). But do also take the time to focus on skills such as programming, technical writing, and statistics. R&D positions in ML are fairly easy to find (at least relative to other fields), but most will require you to actually implement prototypes and do experiments; it is usually not enough to do theoretical analysis only.

Will focusing on a specific PhD topic limit my opportunities to work in other areas, or do companies in AI value transferable skills across different topics?

Your mileage will vary. Historically, companies have been very open to hiring smart people and teaching them how to do ML. Someone who actually had a degree in ML -- let alone in a relevant type of ML -- was a unicorn who could write their own ticket. But the past (or even present) is not necessarily a good predictor of the future: these days, more universities are offering degrees in ML, more people are taking such degrees, and some areas are cooling now that the low-hanging fruit has been exhausted. That said, smart people with relevant skills tend to land on their feet, so even if getting the exact job you want proves difficult, it's unlikely you will starve.

I think this is good, but it's missing two pieces of relevant advice I'd recommend: (1) Go look at current job postings for jobs you'd like after graduating, and try to synthesize their "checklist" requirements. Experience with certain broad frameworks (think PyTorch) are often filters. Publications in certain conferences are increasingly common as filters for ML related positions. You can work this kind of training gracefully into the other aspects of a degree. (2) Ask as many experienced people as you can what they think the "core skill set" is for further data.

@user176372, actually, your point 1 won't work in a fast changing field as the writer here points out. Today's jobs can be obsolete by the end of a doctorate.

@Buffy I disagree: There are core skills which have not really shifted that much over a 5 year time frame. You can re-do this check 2 years into a program or whatever if you're particularly jumpy. The people looking for NeurIPS/ICML/etc. papers for their AI hires are unlikely to turn up their nose at those in a few years' time frame.

Thanks for the answers. What I see in research positions like Deep Mind or Meta research labs is the requirement to publish on top conferences NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR. I don't know if I will able to publish there, but it seems the only common requirement, or am I wrong?


text:
MSc thesis lacking content because of my mistake
In the final month of work before writing the thesis I found a bug in something I did a couple months before. I talked to my supervisor and we checked  together that indeed something was off. I took full responsibility and corrected that portion of work.
This way I lost 1.5/2 months out of 6 (where the firsts were only about studying) and I now notice that I really lack content to write. Those lost months weight a lot and are not salvageable. They were the part of the thesis where true work was done.
I don't know how to say this to my supervisor. He is continously pushing me to just write the thesis, but I'm quite sure it's just a way to end the project since, independently of anybody, it was a dead end from the beginning (he admitted we have no idea how to keep going).
Probably those months would not have been that big of a problem if other things we tried before had worked. But the whole idea behind the thesis resulted in a dead end and more time was lost without it being anybody's fault.
I really need a good thesis for PhD admissions (here it counts a lot) and right now I don't have it
Add to this a not exceptional relationship with my advisor,mainly because as soon as this project showed up as a dead end he lost interest, and I think he was (understandably) pissed by my error and really stopped answering to many questions
I'm not exaggerating when I say that much of the work is just a rewriting of well known facts and the new part is very very small and definitely not fine even for a MSc thesis.
Should I consider the possibility of dropping the thesis if in no way my supervisor will let me work a couple extra months to produce new material? Would this make me a selfish student?
I am really embarrassed by my mistake. It was very dumb and I suppose I gave the wrong impression about myself. I chocked under pressure, I guess

It would have been even worse not choking about pressure and spending your time to cover up the error. Yes, you would have a thesis, but you would have learned nothing.
On the other hand, the 1.5/2 months you spent working with wrong parameters are not lost. I do not believe you need exactly the same amount of time to redo the work, with the correct parameters.

Let's say that the kind of work done in those months was already based on a "we don't know what to do" mindset and was meant to be a further study on my subject. With my error corrected it is entirely possible that we would have skipped that phase all together. I will try to suggest to recover it anyway, but I'm not positive my supervisor will want to keep working on this project. It really is a dead end.  Research, so it's fine, but not promising

I do not know your subject/topic, but I would say it will be much more worthwhile, even having a PhD in sight, to spend additional time doing an internship in an external research center /university, even in a company, rather than fixing the thesis.
About your supervisor: he has no interest in following you, but he is for sure interested in having you getting your degree. You have freedom, fix the error, describe clearly what you did (it's the original part of the thesis), in the conclusions chapter give some oversight of future continuations (conditional to other developments?).

Do not spend extra months to produce new results on this dead horse. It looks to me you undertook an ambitious thesis (very high risk, moderately high reward) ... and it turned out unsuccesful. However, you are not the one to blame: there is a thesis advisor exactly to avoid these dead-ends.
Do not blame yourself, your advisor should have know better. Regarding your errors, they are experience.
Again, do not fall prey of the sunken cost fallacy: either you complete the thesis in the remaining time (without asking additional months), or you find now a completely new thesis, on a closely related topic (so you do not loose completely the first 1/2 months of work), with a different advisor.

Always taking responsibility for my mistake, I must say that I really felt like I was left on my own by my advisor. There was a lot of pressure for results, but very rarely a true feedback. This is a project given to a student hoping it works out, but it didn't and that stressed me a lot. I was thinking about dropping it (after writing a good review for future students) because the communication was never there. I rarely saw my supervisor face to face, it felt like a spare-time project to him. Sadly there is no closely related thesis available

The approach "give to a student, let's see if it has interesting aspect" is a common one, and it is not wrong by itself. What is wrong is the second part "it does not work, who cares, let the student wrap it up".
Even discounting the pandemic to your advisor, I am sorry you felt let down. It is surely meaningful to give this private feedback to your advisor (when you are finished with the thesis, even just in written). If the advisor is a human person, it will be a chance for improving, if the feedback is received with a defensive/offensive attitude ... you know what to say to other students