text:
Peer-Review dispatch by Professor
In our institute the professor dispatches papers to certain employees(research fellows/assistants who are graduates or have a PhD degree) for peer reviewing. The professor takes responsibility for the reviews, still I wonder if this is the way the review process is meant to be.

Strongly related question: Is it fair that a PhD student should be allowed to review a research paper?

Without making it known to the journal that he is not actually writing the review it is (usually, as far as I know) not supposed to be like this.
Here is one example, a quote from the PLOS One reviewer's guidelines:

Confidentiality
Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict
  confidence and should not share information about submissions with any
  other parties unless previously agreed with the editor. The
  involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the
  time of the submission of the review.

If you ask the editor before you are sharing the publication with someone else, it can be okay. I have been "co-reviewing" with someone else (not my supervisor at that time), which was known to the editor and our names were both attached to the review.

it is (usually, as far as I know) not supposed to be like this" - I think that is very context-dependent. Venues that send batches of 20 papers to single professors, to be reviewed within a few weeks, should not realistically have any expectation that said professors will indeed review all of these papers themselves. It is possible the respective venues do not use the formulation about confidentiality you indicate above, though.

Just to add a clarification for the original poster, most likely the professor is disclosing who reviewed the paper. "The professor takes responsibility for the reviews" does not necessarily mean that the professor is claiming that they reviewed the papers. For a conference I am PCing for at the moment, it is simply that if I delegate a review I take the ultimate responsibility for its quality. Moreover, delegating reviews in general is not only normal, but also professors should do it (in many fields) for the benefit of their PhDs.

@O.R.Mapper In my field, conference articles are not actually peer-reviewed (only the abstracts are) and I know of no other setting where batch reviews would be sent out, so I based my answer on a peer-review for a journal article. And of course, not all venues have formulations about confidentiality, that's why I added the "usually".

@ThomasKing That's where I wanted to get at, that there is a difference between "taking authorship" (not good) and "taking responsibility" (but delegating) of the review.

@skymningen: I agree (with both comments), although (probably also field-dependently), "review authorship" may or may not be considered irrelevant. I have meanwhile discovered I had already written all that in an answer on a very closely related (duplicate?) question, so I might remove my comment if this question gets closed as a duplicate.


text:
Distributing work that hasn't been published
I have recently completed a senior/bachelor's thesis as part of my BS degree, and I would like to share my thesis with others. However, I plan on perhaps publishing the work that I did soon, so I have some concerns about whether it is ok to send the thesis to others. Is this a reasonable concern? Is there some way I can protect the document, i.e. by a watermark or something similar?

In the U.S., for example, you have copyright of your document without doing anything at all.
Also, if you make it public in one way or another, then that literal publication (doesn't have to be in peer-reviewed journals, etc.), gives you priority. In particular, if someone else publishes (one way or another) the same thing, they are plagiarizing you, at least. Unethical professional behavior. Possibly violating copyright, too, depending on how literally they copy you.
Operationally, I think the point is that you should "publish" your work... or, anyway, don't worry about circulating it to "friends", because (in the U.S., anyway) your creation of it is an acknowledged thing... and it's not purposeful to think/worry about people "stealing ideas". Sure, people can do illegal things (stealing all kinds of stuff, how to prevent it?!?!), but the appropriate default is to not worry. Like "don't sit anxiously by your back door waiting for people to break in."

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Two professors agreed to be my supervisor
I did my research for masters degree under an aged professor. He was a very good guide. From a Ph. D. research student under the same professor, I came to know that my guide has only 2-3 years left before retiring. I was planning to enroll for Ph D after a brief working in industry. So, since my guide might be retired by the time I come back, I asked another professor, who is also very good, for being my guide in Ph D, and he agreed. Now, by the end of my masters course, I asked my current guide about how many years he is here, and he said he still has 6 years of work before retirement. I told him that I might come back for Ph D after a year, and he assumed that I want to work under him.
Now, I am thinking of going back to my institute after a year, but I am a bit scared whom shall I approach and if I end up offending the other one. Actually, both of them are very good, and it's difficult to choose, but I might want to work with my masters guide only, as I got comfortable working with him.
So, I want to know if I did anything unethical (unknowingly), that might create problem for me or offend any of the professors.

Do they work in similar/complementary topics? Would they like to share a PhD candidate (more than a member of the exam committee)? Do their current universities' policies align  with this? By your elected alias, e.g. there are international cotutuelles (Sorbonne, Evry; and though more an coordinating body than an establishment of research UFA.)

Are they at the same institution? If not, do they consider themselves colleagues/collaborators?

This may depend on your field. In mathematics, it's easy for two professors to jointly supervise a student. In an experimental science, each professor may need you to work full-time in his lab, and you can't do that for both of them.

Your PhD supervisor is usually a fairly close relationship. Usually a professional one, but still close. You are meant to trust them for your professional development.
It's also nice if you can be personally friends with them, though that does not always happen. This can be very different in different cultures. In some schools it will be super-duper-business-at-all-times. In other schools you will likely get invited to social events such as parties at your prof's house. One day I found myself holding my prof's 18-month old son and offering to change his poopy diaper. Your mileage may vary. (Mrs. Prof saved me from that little task.)
So you want to be sure you are as open and honest with them as you can manage. Confusion over who is meant to be your supervisor is not a good start.
I don't think it was unethical. It seems like you just managed to get some confusion into the messages you sent to two profs. It happens.
What would quite likely to be unethical is leaving it confused. For example, if one of these profs falsely thinks he has you as a student, he might turn down some other student. That could get a lot of angry looks in your direction. It would certainly be a poor basis for the relationship with your prof.
My suggestion is to communicate to both profs that you may have things confused. Let them know what you have let us know in this post. Let them know you are concerned to not offend either of them.
If these two profs work in sufficiently close subjects that either could supervise you, it is quite likely they know each other. At least by reputation.
When I started my PhD I went to a prof I had thought to work with. After a 20 minute conversation he suggested that another prof in the same department would be a better fit. Turns out he was giving me to one of his former PhD students, now a prof.
If they both know you are interested, they may do that sort of thing. And it could work out well since the "other" prof, knowing your interest, may come by to lend a hand now and then.

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


text:
Should I respond to editors about unprofessional review?
I think I am in a very similar situation to this question, with the exception that my submission has been refused.
I do not want to start a flame, but to me, one of the two reviewers didn't took the necessary time to do a proper review.
The first reviewer made a thorough summary of the paper, and explained in an extremely clear way what were his/her doubts and which parts were not strong enough.
The second one looked like a baby plugging his hears and screaming "It stinks! It stinks!".
He only attempted to make a point that resulted to be wrong since he was substantially criticizing how an algorithm works (Random Forests), even though it's empirically demonstrated to be effective.
Now, based on the constructive critiques of the first reviewer I refined the manuscript and attempting to submit to another journal. What I can't stand is the behaviour of the second reviewer.
Generally speaking, is the idea to respond to the editor about the bad (where bad is like in the linked question) review(er) a viable action, or should I just ignore all of this and go on?

Quoted from the accepted answer of the linked question: "the reviewer did not fail to understand your paper due to incompetence or laziness, but because you failed to clarify a certain aspects."

Well, we are in a 50/50 situation since the other reviewer got the point. Anyway what I was expecting wasn't a favorable review, but a professional one, even if it was for the bad outcome

This is right. I failed to clearly explain my point and that is my fault. I know that. What I'm saying is that this does't authorize a reviewer to skip a proper review of the manuscript. C'mon the review was just four sentences and he didn't even summarized the work.

The answer may not completely address your question, I think it is still a very important one for you to read. The second reviewer read your paper and was not satisfied with an algorithm. It's natural for him to stop reading the whole paper and gave you the four sentences. IMHO, you need to address that part of the paper before you submit to another journal.

Frustrating as it is, this is something that happens to many authors at some point, and the simplest solution is to shrug and move on.  The editor probably already knows that the review is sub-par, and has decided to move on anyway.  Arguing with the editor at this point is not just attacking the reviewer, it's attacking the editor's professional knowledge and judgement.  It's not impossible to have a good outcome from responding, but it's unlikely.  Even if you do get a positive response, the editor would simply send it out to a new set of reviewers, so even the best-case scenario has you starting all over anyway.  Find a new journal and send it there.
That's assuming that the review is genuinely completely useless.  From your description, I'm not convinced.  The reviewer may be wrong, but it doesn't sound as if their process is completely wrong; there is a specific reason for the rejection, it is based on something in your paper, and the fact that there is empirical support doesn't seem like a strong argument in your favor. Before you resubmit to another journal, you should seriously consider how to deal with that issue.

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


text:
Contact professors who are not listed on application
I forgot to include one of the faculty members who works in my area of interest in my application for grad school.
Since I have not mentioned him in my application, would contacting him and requesting a review help my admission?
As far as I know, every professor in the department (CS) could put a review on an application even if he/she is not listed in the potentials. But I think he might ask himself why the applicant did not include his name in his application and simply ignore the review request.

If you really think your application needs a boost you could do this, of course. But you could also contact the professor simply to express interest in the area.
"I am applying to your program and am interested in your area...". But you need to express it so that he knows that you know something about the area.
I wouldn't try to flood the person with information, but you could ask for him to comment on your application and suitability as a student. If he asks for more information, you could send it, but just sending a CV blind is likely to be ignored.
Since the reaction is a matter of personality, there is no way to predict the outcome, of course, but it might be a mistake to appear to be pleading.


text:
How to decide on what citation format to use when writing on legal history?
I am an amateur historian who is considering writing a book about the history of Treason in the United States. I have a dilemma with how to format citations.
The book, by nature of being history of law, would have to cite both historical and legal sources.

Should I cite everything using Chicago Style, everything one of the law citation formats, or use the Chicago style for the history sections and the law citations for the legal section?
Does my choice in citation format affect my book's ability to be cited in academic journals?

As a general note, I strongly recommend you use some form of citation manager (probably any of them at all) so that converting from one style to another would not be a strictly manual (nightmare) process, as ultimately the final style will be dictated by the publisher. So good that you try to pick the right style in the first place, but you'll want to be flexible in case you need to change it later.

If you are hoping to submit the book to certain publishers you could check what guidelines they have for authors. For example, here is a link to the Oxford University Press
I would not recommend to use the Chicago style for the history sections and the law citations for the legal section. Using a consistent citation style across your manuscript would normally be expected, and again some publishers may expect you to use a specific style.
If you are using a citation style used by your publisher I don't see why it should impact on if your work would be cited or not. The content of your work and if other academics use it should be what would gets it cited.


text:
Is there any journal in which I can publish educational articles not a research article?
I want to publish an educational article about some non-standard approach to Lagrangian Mechanics, but the problem is that I have written it in my country language (not in English) so I want to know if there is any journal which accepts academical papers, I shall surely convert it into English if there exist one. I want to mention that I have no background in research, I'm a lecturer at one of the state Universities.

One example would be the American Journal of Physics published by the American Association of Physics Teachers. Quoting from their Audience and Mission statement (at the link above):

The mission of the American Journal of Physics (AJP) is to publish articles on the educational and cultural aspects of physics that are useful, interesting, and accessible to a diverse audience of physics students, educators, and researchers. Our audience generally reads outside their specialties to broaden their understanding of physics and to expand and enhance their pedagogical toolkits at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

They have quite a broad range of articles, many of which are of broad interest.

The International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology (published by Taylor & Francis) has articles called Classroom Notes which

provide a space for short articles highlighting a single, unusual and interesting result, an alternative method, or a creative approach to teaching a particular mathematical idea. These  articles are intended to provoke ideas that will support our teaching of mathematics at school or university level

The SIAM Review (published by the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) has articles called Education which

consists primarily of individual modules that are self-contained presentations of specific topics in applied mathematics, scientific computation, or their applications; each module provides the primary material needed to teach a given topic as well as supplementary material.

Yes: Some journals publish tutorials. Just add "tutorial" to your search terms and you should find something appropriate.


text:
Can I submit a paper to two or more journals at the same time?
Assume I am submitting my paper to Journal X, which rejected the paper. After making modifications I am going to submit the paper to Journal X again. At the same time can I also submit the paper to another Journal Y (which has a lower impact factor than Journal X). As the Journal X has rejected it the first time, I think it may be rejected again. So I want to publish my work anyhow in a journal.

No.
You must not submit to more than one journal at a time. Most journals explicitly forbid this in their policies. The reason is that people agree to spend a significant amount of time reviewing your paper essentially as a favour and their effort is completely wasted if you then say, "Thanks but my paper was accepted somewhere else."
You must decide now whether to resubmit to the same journal or to try for a less prestigious one.  Since you're asking the question, I assume you're a student: discuss this with your advisor!  That's what they're there for.

No, not the same paper in two journals at the same time.
Either submit to X again or submit to Y.

But that means I have to wait again for 3 months for X's answer. What if the paper is accepted either in X or Y. After that can I withdraw the paper from other journal?

Yes, that is what it means. Journals frown on dual submissions. Most forbid it explicitly.

To add a rationale to this correct answer: the reason why journals don't allow parallel submissions is that it eats up resources with uncertain payoff. In particular, several reviewers will volunteer their work to review your submission. This could hardly be feasible, especially for less than top-notch journals, if there was a non-negilible risk that the submission could be withdrawn on a whim, e.g. because the author found a more prestigious venue or because another journal had a faster turnaround. If you attempt to do this, you risk being blacklisted.

For example, for American Physical Society journals, the Editorial Policies include the line that the corresponding author certifies: "The manuscript has not been published and is not being and will not be considered by another journal while it is considered here."

Thanks for the answers.


text:
Co-authorship in exchange for paying conference fee
My BSc dissertation has recently been accepted for publication in the proceedings of a small conference. My supervisor has co-author credit as his assistance was naturally instrumental.
While I'm been working a career, my supervisor has very kindly been shopping the paper around for publication and has finally landed a hit here. He's been leading the charge all the way towards publication.
We were just discussing the presentation, and he sent me a file marked "Final". It contained my original paper, now with a third person as co-author.
I asked him who this person is; I assumed that they were perhaps another professor or lecturer, or maybe another student who'd contributed something new. The response I got was:
"He's the guy paying the conference fee. That's sadly how research works in real life."
I was never informed of this third person when the paper was submitted, and it was submitted with their name included.
My understanding is that they have contributed nothing further to the paper.
How do I stand in this situation ethically?
Should I withdraw?
Is this normal?

This is absolutely not “how research works in real life”. However it’s typical of corrupt and cynical people to delude themselves into thinking that everyone is also corrupt and cynical like them. It’s the only way they can live with themselves.

I have been involved in my share of drama over authorship (not by choice, these kinds of things just inevitably happen), but this has to be one of the most outrageous reasons I've ever heard to add someone to a paper. Having said that I personally wouldn't take any actions against your advisor until you are safely being advised by someone else and I wouldn't take any actions that would hurt your own career, like withdrawing. I'm sorry this happened to you.

I wonder what this third party can even do with authorship on a paper they didn't contribute to... even if they use this to get grant funding, it's not like this sets them up to actually be able to do any further research. What a strange story.

"Is this normal?"  Is the paper in the field of engineering?  I suspect this practice is "accepted" in some countries.

How much is the conference fee? Don't ask the professor first, ask the conference, then the professor.

The title of this question is very misleading based on the content of the question. Nobody accepted money for co-authorship, he only paid the publication expenses, he didn't bribe anybody.

@Andrew: There is seriously something wrong going on here. What if that third co-author is actually a fraudster? Even if you use purely selfish reasoning, not withdrawing can also hurt your career if you knew but did not disclose fraudulent authorship.

Are you sure that guy is paying the fee himself, or could he be the guy getting money for the conference fee? The latter might be a professor/lecturer; but still seen as only the person getting the funding. I'm not saying that it makes the situation any better.

my supervisor has very kindly been shopping the paper around for publication - From what you've told us, I don't see how you can distinguish this being kindness as being self-serving, since your supervisor and some unknown person are also co-authors.  In fact, if you have a non-academic career, I don't see what a publication does for you at all.

I'm aiming to re-enter a career in academia so there is value for me.

@Andrew: It may be that the 3rd party is only able to use funds for this purpose if they're included as an author.

@JackAidley I see... so maybe the advisor has a friend with extra funding, who is willing to foot the bill as a favor, but had to be added as an author to use the funding. That's very far from anything I've experienced in physics, but I do find it plausible since I can't see any way the third author would benefit enough to pay money to be made an author on an undergrad thesis; if this is a favor it makes more sense. While I think it's very unusual and sketchy, I still think "just go along with it and give the talk" is in the OP's interest.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like the advisor is essentially out of funding and embarrassed enough to not be upfront about it. To me that provides a lens where I can at least understand why people are acting this way... if the advisor is trying to do the best for the student by enabling them to attend the conference, without having access to funds themselves for whatever reason.

As a side note for your future career: you should try to send the papers yourself when you are the first author to avoid similar problems. This may not always be practical, and you may run into conflicts though. I had quite a lot of friends who were waiting months+ for their supervisor to "accept the paper" (especially when they were not listed as authors...) and when I asked them why they do not simply send it by themselves - they did not want to get into conflicts. Life sucks sometimes.

What field? In mine the marginal benefit for the third person is so low ... but might be different in CS

"He's the guy paying the conference fee...": With the same logic, we would need to add all of the tax payers as co-authors to publicly funded papers since they pay the bills

Customs for who is listed as an author vary considerably by field.

If this third author is "paying the conference fee", who is actually attending the conference? Will you present your own paper at the conference @ConnieMnemonic? Will your advisor attend?

Personally, you are fine. The actions weren't yours. You are being used, I'm afraid, and your professor has an ethical problem. "Sadly" is exactly right and I hope they are wrong, even in a narrow sense, but it isn't a widespread practice.
But if your advisor is willing to do such things for a bit of money, I'd suggest you bite your tongue so that you don't bring down the wrath of the powers that be on your own head.
What is real life is that you have to occasionally deal with unethical people and sometimes have to just protect yourself to advance your career. Sorry you got stuck in this swamp.

You forgot: "Run, don't walk."

@CaptainEmacs, indeed. I wanted to add that once you break free you might consider complaining, but from a safe distance.

I can’t advise you on what to do, since you are the person who will be living with the consequences of any action you decide to take. It is your decision to make how to deal with the situation.
I’ll just say this: if I heard a year or two from now that one of the people applying to my department’s graduate program was the person who famously exposed the money-for-authorship scandal at University of X by writing that viral blog post in late August 2021, in which they cited the immortal line “He's the guy paying the conference fee. That's sadly how research works in real life” from their adviser’s email and quoted the full unredacted email, you would be number 1 on my list of people I’d recommend to my department to accept.* And you would be number 1 on my list of people I’d want to mentor, and people I’d want to help have a successful academic career.
This is not normal. It’s corruption, pure and simple, and would not be considered remotely acceptable in any part of academia I’m familiar with.
Well, assuming you had decent potential to succeed in a mathematics graduate program, of course.

This answer should be improved by noting that the people that would recommend OP as number 1 (as Dan would) are an exception. Most people would recommend someone that is known for his academic achievements, not someone who wants to be known for discrediting and exposing his collaborators for personal gain.

@user000001 that sounds like an opinion rather than a fact. I reject both your framing of the class of people I belong to as people who don’t care about academic achievement, and your characterization of that class as small.

(And I reject your framing of exposing the corruption as being “for personal gain”. It is no more appropriate to say that than to say that not exposing the corruption, as advocated in another answer, would be for personal gain.)

Middle, slightly cynical view: some employers will probably look at a non-anonymous whistleblower as a risk because "if they'll throw their former employer under the bus, maybe they'll do it here...". And it's not necessarily just the unethical employers. They might be afraid that OP might decide something that's actually within ethical bounds is whisteblowing-worthy (not saying OP would, but a potential employer might worry this). So I do think that whistleblowing publicly (vs. anonymously) is a career risk because you are now a risk to an future employer (in their mind).

@bob good point. To balance what you said, there is also risk with the route of not taking any action. If the corrupt authorship-for-conference-fee scheme is later found out (because someone else decided to blow the whistle, say), OP’s name could end up tainted by their silence, which would seen by some as complicitness. So, unfortunately life has all kinds of risks, and it’s not always possible to avoid career risk altogether.

interesting on the OP side we have the cynical professor, and here we have the exact opposite of it.

@encryptoferia there are plenty of non-cynical professors. There isn’t anything unusual about my attitude.

Should you withdraw? No.
Should you have been consulted before submission? Yes, but sadly it's common for senior academics not to properly consult undergraduates and other junior scientists about submissions for publication.
Is this ethical? In some fields, crediting the people who got the grant money to do the science as authors is common practice regardless of their further involvement. The argument is that getting the money takes time and effort and the science can't be done without it. Getting published is a necessary part of science and publication fees can be significant. I would count this as dubious rather than clearly unethical, but - and I can't emphasise this enough - it depends on field. Some fields have very narrow views of authorship, others have very broad views. Reactions from people outside your field usually throw more heat than light.
Finally, I note your framing is incorrect. Your supervisor did not accept money for authorship; they agreed to add the author in return for them paying something for the paper's publication. Your supervisor isn't getting any money from this, and will get minimal benefit from this extra paper, especially compared to how much you benefit.

Which fields are those in which "crediting the people who got the grant money to do the science as authors is common practice regardless of their further involvement". From my admittedly limited academic experience, that's what the "acknowledgements" section is for.

@Fizz It's common in parts of the Life Sciences, and probably elsewhere. In this case Acknowledgements are usually used to acknowledge the source of the funding, rather than the person who applied for the funding.

I'm guessing it's for that reason that some publications in that field more recently require a statement of what work each author contributed...

@FIzz: That's part of it, yeah. Authorship is a totally outdated concept, unfit for purpose in most fields of science today, and should be dropped in favour of a better system IMO. But unless it is we'll be stuck with silly arguments over what authorship actually means.

I would disagree with your statement of "Your supervisor did not accept money for authorship". We don't know whether the third party simply whipped our their "credit card" to pay the fee, or handed the supervisor "cash" (or a PO, etc.). The effect is the same. Fees were required. the supervisor (and I assume the OP) did not have enough liquidity to pay the fees." The supervisor approached a third party to make the fee payment. The supervisor accepted the value of the fees so the supervisor did, in fact, accept money, whether it was in the form of a purchase order, credit, or cash.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is the right read of the situation. As far as I can tell, the person benefitting the most here, at the end of the day, is the OP. Even though the situation seems unusual to me from the point of view of physics, I sympathize with an advisor lacking their own funds doing whatever it takes to enable their student to attend a conference.

@CGCampbell: It doesn't make any difference whether it was a credit card, cash, or a direct payment. The point is that the money is going to serve a purpose that is part of the supervisor's work, not their personal finances. The supervisor is no richer after the transaction than they were before. The common practice in academia of conflating the supervisor having money with the supervisor controlling money as part of their work isn't helping here.

@JackAidley a bribe in which the money is directed towards the receiver’s professional goals instead of going into their own pocket is still a bribe. I believe this is a well-established principle in the context of criminal law, (although defendants regularly try to make the same argument you are making, usually without success). Here we are talking academic ethics, which is a slightly different thing (I think it’s unlikely this scheme would be of interest to any criminal prosecutors), but the principle remains the same. So OP’s framing seems correct to me, if perhaps lacking in nuance.

About the “in some fields the funder of the research gets authorship” argument: it’s one thing to say that it’s not unusual for the person funding the lab and staff salary that enabled the research to be carried out to be a coauthor. That seems a bit shady, but I agree it’s common enough in life sciences that there is not much reason for outrage. But being added as a coauthor for paying the conference fee after the research was already completed is a very different thing. That is not “getting the grant money to do the science”. As I said, it’s corrupt, and indefensible IMO.

@DanRomik I agree it's on much shakier ground but publishing and disseminating the results of a study is not an optional part of science; without it you're playing in a lab not doing science. As I said above, I'd rather see authorship dropped as a concept unfit for purpose, but until it is I see little value in being overly precious over unimportant infractions.

I think another component of a bribe is that the third party is paying in order to further their own interests in some way. It's really not clear to me what the third party gains from being an author, it could essentially be a favor to the advisor (ie, third party is willing to pay for the conference fee that advisor can't afford, but needs to be an author to use grant funds). Still sketchy, but I think it's worth pointing out there is a plausible reading of the situation that isn't a bribe. I agree with Jack that the weight put on authorship creates problems like this.

@JackAidley as much as one can argue about authorship, it's pretty obvious from the definition that paying for an event is not authorship of a publication. Neither is paying for publication. It's not a problem of the authorship concept, it's absurdly misusing it that's the problem. any other concept would suffer the same fate if there is a way to "invest" without repercussions into fame and academic credits.

@FrankHopkins That was the intention of my comment, actually. I was considering what if... what if someone like Einstein, or any other world renowned scientist could not afford to publish, and accepted moneys to do so at the cost of authorship. Now a third party has become famous (or more likely infamous) as the result of nothing except having a bankroll

+1 Reactions from people outside your field usually throw more heat than light.

Is this normal?  No, and it should not be.
Should I withdraw? No.  Presumably the results are still valid.
How do I stand in this situation ethically? You yourself have done nothing wrong: it is your supervisor that is being unethical.

This is NOT how science is done these days, and thankfully this kind of bribery is rare. There isn’t much you can do yourself except carefully consider if you want to continue collaborating with this person.

+1 for a clear and concise analysis of the situation. Probably the best answer so far.

Adding a co-author purely because they paid for something is definitely inconsistent with academic standards. The policies of journals and professional societies make that clear and can be cited. What you can do is add a grant number in the acknowledgments, at the end of text. That way the sponsor can list your work as part of what has been accomplished with the funding, without being a co-author on the paper. That would be the proper solution; everyone will get credit for what they contributed, and if you insist you will prevail.

Well, first, selling authorships for a conference publication is like selling your soul for a hamburger. Nobody needs a conference publication that bad, though on the plus side, it's a conference so most likely nobody will ever care.
Second, yeah, it's unethical, and it's not how research works. "A friend" of mine once had a boss who had a habit of including government technical monitors as conf paper authors, which apparently did butter some of them up, but there were occasions when "the friend" could tell that the technical monitor felt pretty skeevy that this boss would even offer. My friend recalls one getting pretty irritated about it (they have some pretty severe quid pro quo policies). I should note this boss was from a country where this kind of thing is par for the course and which regularly appears in the news for corruption scandals (if I said what it was you'd go "ahaa"). His lax sense of ethics on a more serious matter eventually got him massively and expensively sued, like on a "forget about retiring" level.
I'm not sure if I'd call them out on it or not. I guess I'd have to know more about the paper and the circumstances of the work, particularly the funding and the background. It really sounds like a strange situation, that this guy just comes out of the blue and wants an authorship. Again, for a conference paper? Most conferences, to get a paper in, all you have to do is write something vaguely related to the field and pay the registration fee. It seems to me like there's more behind the scenes that we're not aware of. If it was a journal, I'd go nuclear on it, but conferences are pretty loosey-goosey about a lot of stuff. Like, it's not at all uncommon for professors to just randomly stick new grad students on conf papers just because they're in the research group.

You are in an abusive relationship. Supervisor and student is an interpersonal relationship, and just like with any interpersonal relationship, there are cases of abuse. Sadly, academia is full of such abusive situations.
Don't walk, run! As with any abusive relationship, it's not going to get better no matter what you do. It will only get worse.
You are in a state of denial:

While I'm been working a career, my supervisor has very kindly been
shopping the paper around for publication

It sounds like you kind of try to find something good in your abuser in order to suppress your gut feeling, but your gut feeling is right. This is not common in the academic fields that I am aware of.
If your supervisor strains your relationship with you in that manner, he or she doesn't care about you. Your supervisor knows it's unethical, your supervisor probably has a guess what opinion you have of him, so obviously he has no long-term interest in you. He won't help you and throw you under the bus whenever convenient. Don't count on him ever for your career.
Honestly, the third author could just as much have been a desperate guy looking for a publication and paying your supervisor directly. Don't believe anything that guy says.
You should not withdraw, because it's your work, and nobody will hold a grad student accountable. However, Don't walk, run and get away from that guy as quickly as you can.
As with any abusive relationship, it's not going to get better no matter what you do. It will only get worse.

Contact the journal editor (confidentially)
What you describe sounds very problematic, even after you tried to discuss the situation with your advisor. It sounds like you have already tried asking your advisor to clarify the situation, but his response was evasive, in that he did not confirm what (if anything) the 3rd party contributed in the capacity of co-author. Hence, as you say:

My understanding is that they have contributed nothing further to the paper.

You should try to ascertain whether that is the case by analysing the manuscript very carefully. Read it word for word, and check whether there is anything in there that you do not recognise as coming from yourself or from your advisor.
Of course, there is a (small) possibility that the advisor did involve the 3rd party in the process of making contributions that you believed to have come solely from your advisor, but if that were the case, your advisor should have mentioned to you that he had been involving a 3rd party at the time.
Personally, my view is that a person on the author list must be able to present on and answer detailed questions about all aspects (albeit allowing for some division of labour or specialisation, provided that everyone understands what is going on) of the work encapsulated in the paper (including exploratory work, investigative stages, and methodology), and it sounds like this 3rd party cannot do that.
So, my advice would be to contact the journal editor (confidentially) and explain the situation, forwarding all relevant correspondence and drafts in your possession. The editor, who should be familiar with what constitutes authorship and who should have the authority to ask tough questions, will then be able to investigate the issue properly and come to a determination of whether your advisor acted appropriately (based on the information you have given, the answer is probably "no", but it is difficult to be sure without seeing the details and asking tough questions of all parties concerned).
Of course, once you have taken the step of going to the editor, you (and your 'co-authors') will probably have to abide by whatever decision he/she makes. Depending on the details of the case, possible outcomes include:

the editor retracts the article due to academic malpractice; or
the editor publishes the article with just two authors (you and your advisor), and asks you to mention the 3rd party to the 'Acknowledgements' section instead; or
the editor is satisfied with the explanations given by your advisor and publishes the article with all three parties as authors.

You should be prepared for the possibility that this will result in your "burning bridges" with your advisor. But to be honest, that might be a good thing (if it turns out that your advisor were corrupt); better to cut your losses now than to be tainted by corruption and blighted by toxic working relationships.

Oh wow, I think this is a really bad idea. If you were going to contact the journal editor, I would definitely make sure the email you sent to the editor had a clear request for an action. In practice, the editor's job is not to mediate conflicts between co-authors and I think this email will make the OP look unprofessional. Finally I get the sense that the OP doesn't know the full story. I would not kick the hornets nest of burning bridges with a current academic supervisor without knowing all the facts. It's not at all clear to me that the advisor is corrupt.

What journal editor? The question is about a conference paper

@Andrew   Granted: the student has next to 0 leverage on the supervisor, else there would not be this conflict, and the outcome of this is possibly one less presentation for a student who has done nothing wrong, but I doubt the conference organizers would allow as a policy this kind of academic dishonesty on the part of some authors and co-authors.


text:
Advisor will not write a recommendation letter for me to participate in a conference
There is a leading conference that will take place in Jan 2022. Graduate students are encouraged to present a poster about their thesis work, however, the slots are limited so a recommendation letter from the advisor is needed to ensure that the student has made a significant progress in their research and is highly competent.
I have asked my advisor three times and he told me that he is going to send it but he did not send them anything. I feel like he doesn't want to send for me the recommendation letter. In the last few months I went to three workshops in the field and made new connections and I felt like he doesn't like it at all.
The deadline is very soon. I just have a feeling that he does not intend to send it "based on some history" and he is going to tell me "I forgot", he has done it before with students. So, I am assuming here that he won't send it, I am looking for anything I can do. I am hoping maybe someone who has been in my situation before can give me an idea on what to do.
Should I give up on the conference? Or should I contact the conference committee? If so what should I tell them?
I don't want to ask my advisor again.
I am in the final phase of writing the thesis.

When is the deadline for the letter to be submitted?  If it it not at least close to the deadline, I can understand your concern, but can you really blame your advisor for not having written it yet?  Imagine you have a course with a final project and your instructor keeps asking you in the middle of the course whether you've finished it yet.  Wouldn't you wish they would let you complete it by the due date and not bother you so much far in advance?  Could it be the same with your advisor?

The deadline is 27/8. I just have a feeling that he does not intend to send it "based on some history" and he is going to tell me "I forgot", he has done it before with students so, I am assuming here that he won't send it, I am looking for anything I can do. I asked here so maybe someone was in my situation before can give me an idea.

What does "based on some history" mean? Is that a quote? Is that what he said? Is that your interpretation? Is that someone else's quote? Have you had subpar submissions in the past? Has he said that you had subpar submissions in the past?

Is the letter of recommendation a hard requirement, in the sense that you cannot submit your proposal without it? Or is the likelihood that it gets accepted just lower without the letter?

I had similar problems with my adviser - he would not do things even if he had to agreed to them in writing. I fell for this a couple of times and then just assumed (mostly correctly) that he wouldn't come through on his  promises. In the end I asked one of the other lecturers I worked with if they could provide references as my "de-facto" adviser (as they  were much more familiar with my work than my nominal 'adviser') and using sufficiently vague phrasing about their role this usually worked. So, try asking someone else, but if there is no-one you can ask, you should just forget about this conference and get on with writing up and moving on.

"just forget about this conference" is anything but an optimal solution for the OP.

This! Plan B is what is needed here. OP must find somebody else, i.e. a postdoc, collaborator...to send a recommendation letter. In the worst case OP will end up with two which is surely better than zero. Also, I would sign up for the conference in any case just because you never know.
I had the same situation just few months ago when, one hour before the deadline, adviser sent an email stating (s/he) had no time to write a statement even though (s/he) was asked one month in advance.

I don't understand why you say he "won't" when he said he would. You can't also demand to set his schedule.
You would be foolish not to remind him of the deadline as it gets close, but if there is no reason for it to be sent "right this minute" then you would be wise to back off. You aren't helping yourself by being a pest. Your "feeling" that he doesn't want to isn't based on anything you say here.
But a reminder a week before it is actually due would be good. Just a reminder, not a complaint.
And don't contact the conference. That seems very unwise if it gets back to your advisor.

The OP has provided more information, in case you would like to take it into account for your answer.

@Buffy: There are some terrible advisers out there. Mine would deny stuff he agreed to in writing -- to quote: "You should have known I wouldn't be able to do this." I fell for it a couple of times, but then just stopped believing him. At the end of their PhD the OP is probably correct in her assessment of her adviser.

Some people are forgettable, others dont like conflict. At least these are possible reasons I have met.
My former advisor always said yes to everything. He was supposed to set up an account for me, take a regular look at my notes and work and so on. This guy would constantly forget and I had to remind him. Hell one time he called me because he forgot that he gave me a day off the day before.
I also had a boss who just didnt want me to get a promotion but would always say yes. He was known for avoiding confrontation.

The tip I've heard every now and then when asking for recommendation letters is, whoever you're asking them to, give them a model. And by "model" it could be something copied from the internet (and do tell the writer it is a model from the web). Alternatively, write yourself the letter so that your advisor only needs to sign it. And tell him "if you want, you can just sign this". Writing this stuff is boring and demotivating enough that half academics I've met would procrastinate doing so as much as they could, so remove what is possibly the reason he's dodging the problem. When dealing with very busy people, there is a big chance that they will never solve your problems for you, but rather only approve or decide on the spot based on the options you give them.
That being said, some conferences could as well be a waste of time, so maybe you should be focusing on your thesis? If my first suggestion proves unfruitful, you might ask the advisor for honest feedback on why he doesn't want you to go to the conference. Maybe "somebody told me you believe X reason and thinks I shouldn't go, why didn't you just tell me?" would be a fair gambit.

@user151413 : If tasked to write a recommendation letter or a CV, most people will start by google searching a few examples, or a few hints on what to do. Unless you have done lots of these letters/CVs over the years, and even then, I'd suspect most advisors would start by copy-pasting an old letter, modified the obvious fields, then re-reading to add some specificities, and only then making a conscious effort to polish/customize the letter. So no, I'm not kidding, but I understand if you disapprove of someone who does this.

(1) Since my comment apparently got deleted: For the record, I think it is a very bad idea to hand your supervisor a draft you copied from the internet (even less so if not telling him it is from the internet: they could make a fool of themselves). (2) I might be the exception, but I write my recommendation letters from scratch, and most colleagues I know do so as well, I believe. (Of course, if you write more than one letter for the same person you reuse the letter.) To be honest, I am somewhat sceptical there is a good sample of recommendation letters on the internet - if you don't know...

I moved to chat the discussion around this answer, but I left the two comments outlining the main points. Please continue the discussion in the chat and, in case, please read this FAQ before posting another comment.

There's a few days to go. It would be appropriate to remind your supervisor that the deadline is in a few days. You could also say that you realise he is very busy and ask whether it would be helpful if you wrote a draft for him.

Offering to write a draft can be a thin line.

... maybe a better way is to offer whether you can help with the letter in some way, by providing some type of input.

Do you trust your advisor? If yes, they will send the letter. Many people send their letter on the last day, or at least close to it. Not only students work more efficiently under pressure.
From the advisor point of view, I believe it makes sense to tell people when one will send the letter (e.g. on the last day), and tell people when one wants a reminder (in case one does).

In Hebrew there's a saying: "Respect him and suspect him". Trust is not a binary thing.

@einpoklum Sure. My point is simply: Without any reason to suspect otherwise, the mere fact that the advisor hasn't sent the letter yet a few days before the deadline need not mean anything. I don't think I ever sent a letter more than 1-2 days in advance.

@einpoklum If a student would show/express suspicion towards me or I got wind that they do, I would continue advising them, but they would feel a clear and unambiguous distance placed between me and them from that moment onwards. Suspicion goes both ways. That being said, I have written recommendation letters at 2am in the morning for a student that asked for them in the last minute. Recommendation letters are amongst the most critical services you would render to your students. If you promise, you have to deliver, if you do not intend to write them, state so unambiguously.

@CaptainEmacs: We're talking about OP's advisor's behavior, not yours...

@user151413: Then please rephrase your answer to say: "Do you trust your adviser? If you do, wait another day before reminding him."

@einpoklum If I tell a student that I will send the letter, and ask them to remind me X days before, that should suffice: If I send the letter the last day, sending two reminders each day before that, and suspecting me that I won't send that letter, won't help. The point is not "wait another day", the point is "just because she hasn't sent it, doesn't mean she won't send it, as long as it is before the deadline". If my students won't trust me that I will send a letter, how would they trust me that I would send supportive letters?

@user151413: But that's not what OP's advisor said. He just said "I'll send it", a while ago, hasn't sent it.

@einpoklum You mean he should have said "I will send it before the deadline."? Or what should one say, to make clear one will send it in time, but not several days in advance?

@user151413: If someone tells you they'll do something but don't say when, you expect them to do it with time to spare before any possible deadline. And really, there is no benefit to doing it at the last minute; and people do forget deadlines.

@einpoklum Out of my own experience, I do write recommendation letters rather late, and I think many people do. It is unpleasant business, even if done for a student you very much like and support, and many people tend to postpone unpleasant yet important business - even though, as you say, there might be no benefits from that. (Though I don't agree there aren't: http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/) Let me say that I have never missed a deadline for a letter: Postponing and forgetting are two rather different things.

@einpoklum Yes, but if you send to the advisor the message implicitly or explicitly that you distrust them, then even a tolerant, open and reasonably reliable advisor will take that badly. That's what I was trying to say. For an unreliable or underhanded advisor, who do not even carry out the most important duty to their students, it is difficult to predict how they will take it.

@CaptainEmacs: 1. Presuming someone has forgotten something is not the same as distrust. 2.  If it's the most important duty, why hasn't the advisor discharged that duty already?

@einpoklum Nagging your supervisor can be seen as sign of distrust or else as if you think them incompetent of keeping a promise (yes, they may be, but then get a backup). It's the most important duty - but it's the supervisor's choice when they discharge it. It is not for the student to decide it. I think the use of the word "trust" is too strong if you do not expect them to intentionally sabotage your application. If you think they will forget, I would say at most 2 reminders, one a week earlier, one on the day or two before the deadline. If OP thinks the supervisor is sabotaging them, then

then no number of reminders will help, and then there should be no trust in this matter - at all. OP seems to suspect the latter; but they did not answer a very pertinent question of mine, so it is not clear to me whether this is the case.

First thing to do is to make sure you made this recommendation letter as easy as possible for for your advisor.

Make sure that he has the deadline in writing (if someone tells me something is due by date, I'm sure to forget. If I have a written trace of the deadline, I might make it).
Make sure that he has the address to send the letter to (or a link to upload the letter somewhere or whatever the procedure is for your conference)
Give him your CV and a list of elements that he could mention in the letter (e.g. you worked on X project where you demonstrated Y skills). He might not have all the things you did off the top of his head, but a list may help him think of things to write.

Letters of recommendation are gruesome to write, and are not top priority tasks for those who write them. Reduce the overhead on this task for your advisor.
Next, prepare a contingency plan. Sometimes it is possible to have more than one letter of recommendation sent in. If this is the case, contact another professor and ask them to write you a recommendation. This way, if your advisor pulls through, there is no harm done. But if they forget, then you still have a recommendation on your record.


text:
What to write in journal cover letter when research was conducted several years ago
I am in the process of submitting a paper to a peer reviewed journal. The paper reports a study that was conducted 7 years ago. In the cover letter to editors that I have prepared, I point out that the topic remains timely, and I provide relevant references to illustrate this (which have also been used to update the paper). I feel that this information is sufficient at this time of initial submission, and that if the editors ask the reason for the delay in submitting the article, I can address it then. Any thoughts regarding this? Any suggestions for anything else to mention in the cover letter (aside from what normally goes in cover letters)?

I'm not sure why you would mention that the study was done years back, at all.

Delays in publishing results are normal for several reasons. Seven years might be a long time, but as long as your results are still relevant and writing a new publication on them has not become obsolete, it is irrelevant when they were generated. So do not mention it in the cover letter at all.


text:
What should an academic disclosure statement look like
Nowadays journals require people to disclose conflicts of interest by submitting a disclosure statement. I wonder how this statement should be written.  I found a lot of examples of disclosure statements online, but they are all from some business environment not academia.
Does an academic disclosure statement for a journal follow some special guidelines? Does anyone have an example of a disclosure statement for journal publication?

How do the statements look in the particular journal?


text:
Why do papers published by people in tech industry often have such a large number of authors?
It is no secret that industry labs are competing with academia at a pace never seen before. Most of the tech conferences now are dominated by industries with superior funding, human resources, and data.
What surprises me is that papers from industry are often written by a large number of authors. In fact, whenever I see a citation/reference with a whole string of authors, I can immediately predict that it comes from industry labs. Why is this the case?
For example, this very short and simple looking paper from Google is authored by 9 people.
Here is another very brief paper from Google, similar to the style of an undergraduate project. Now why is 12 people needed to put it together?
Take a look at another paper from Facebook. What looks to me to be a  survey paper with no simulation or any equation required 17 authors.
Or this, again, very short joint paper from Apple, Facebook, Google. Why 11 authors?
Why does this Google paper (that has three labeled equations in total) require 16 authors? Are these people gaming the publication/citation count system or what.
Why does this other Google paper require 31 authors? Am I to believe that they all contributed equally?
Can someone please chime in as to why these papers require so many authors? I say many because I've seen student projects or theses written by a single person that (more than) rivals the depth of those papers that require some 15 people to write.

"Am I to believe that they all contributed equally?": In general, you should not expect authors of a paper to contribute equally. And, in general again, the fact that a work can be done by a single author, doesn't mean that it should (if you have them, you may put 10 people doing the work in 1/10th of the time).

"It is no secret that industry labs are competing with academia at a pace never seen before," really? Fortune suggested the opposite in their article entitled "The Death of American Research and Development" (http://fortune.com/2015/12/21/death-american-research-and-development/), which appeared just a few years ago.

Trust me, as an astronomer, 30+ authors is not a large amount. That's just what you get when working in a large collaboration.

And, from your final paragraph, there are also papers produced by teams that would be impossible for a single person to achieve...

Try looking at the Higgs discovery paper :-D

TL;DR: results in industrial practice are often much more of a product of team work, rather than the "every student works on their own thesis" model that we usually have in academia. This is also reflected in the length of author lists.

The work mode of an industry lab (or, even worse, of a group of day-to-dat software engineers in industry who just happened to become involved with a paper) is typically different to your average academic lab. To wit:
Academic project (simplified, of course):
Somebody (a PI, the student themselves, or somebody in between) has an idea for a research paper. A person (often, but not necessarily, a student) takes responsibility for executing it, and collaborates with their advisor and, maybe, one or two other students on executing it. Importantly, for this "driver" of the project it is usually of high importance (because it goes into their thesis in the case of a student), and they invest a significant portion of their time on it. The other collaborators usually only invest time in specific roles (giving feedback, doing specific analyses, helping with paper writing, etc.). In short, there is often one person responsible for bringing the project all the way.
Industrial project (particularly in the case when a software company is reporting on aspects of their practice, as in many of your examples):
Somebody (often a member of the research division of the company, sometimes an academia-affine practitioner) has an idea for a paper. They start working on it, but they cannot commit more than a fraction of their time on it (because even for industrial researchers, writing papers is often much less a core focus of their job profile than for students or academic staff), so they gather collaborators, who likewise cannot put more than a few hours here and there on the project. Additionally, for such "report of a practice" kind of papers, many people have typically contributed to establishing the practice, and it is bad tone to leave out key players (unless they don't want to contribute to the paper). In short, while there may be a coordinating person as well, nobody really has the time to work on this paper full-time, and many people have somehow contributed to the work being reported on, so automatically the author list swells.

Since the comments already capture this pretty well this will summarize them and add only a bit.
In a place with a lot of collaboration and team work it may be impossible to determine individual contributions to an important work, so you get a lot of authors, who did contribute ideas and other things.
In some lab sciences it takes a huge number of people to keep the lab going. Think CERN, for example. Many of these places credit contributors to the lab with authorship of work produced there. There is at least one scientific paper in which the list of authors is longer than the paper itself. I don't have a reference to it, but it was published within the last couple of years, possibly in chemistry or the medical sciences.
If computer programs were published the way scientific papers are, then a significant program would have (at least) hundreds of "authors" who all contribute in different ways and whose participation is essential to the result. Whether their contributions are "equal" is moot. I don't know how many contributors Linux has, for example, but it is over a thousand.
The number of authors of papers from academia is normally smaller since the working groups are normally smaller. But they have increased as well. It used to be unusual for papers in some fields to have more than one or two authors, but is now more common. That is partly true to the availability of internet communication, of course. I've been involved in several computing projects with several authors, all from different countries.
I will second, also, the comment that industrial research is in a sad state today, especially in the US. In the past, companies did a huge amount of basic scientific research. That is much less now, with the research that most do is very applied, product-oriented research rather than basic science. There are a few exceptions, but economic forces have pushed companies into a more parochial view of research. Even governments are less generous with basic research grants than was true in the past. Everyone seems to be looking for a competitive edge, rather than knowledge itself.


text:
I want to leave my tenure track position before fall. I have great prospects but no new position "locked up": when should I break the news?
I am a relatively new tenure track faculty member at my school. For many reasons, I am certain I want to leave my current position. All of my reasons are professional reasons; there are no relocation issues or anything like that.
I do not have a new position lined up but I am being actively recruited and feel that having a new position by the fall is a near-lock. Regardless, my finances are strong and, outside of good personal relationships with a couple colleagues, I have absolutely no hesitation about leaving this position.
One issue for my department is that some of my future classes are "important" (required classes that, right now, only I am qualified to teach). I do not want to put them in an unnecessarily difficult position. Therefore, my main question is:

when should I break this news? Given my certainty about this decision, should I tell them ASAP?
Or, should I follow the general logic that one should never leave a position without a new job lined up? What if this means waiting two more months, REALLY leaving them in a tough spot for covering my "important" fall classes?

As a secondary question:

any advice about how to break this news? Some of my reasons are related to the way the program is run and the behavior of some of my colleagues. Should I go into this, or should I simply say that the position turned out the be a poor fit and that I must move on?

It is a good thing to think of this issue, but/and institutions, as entities, would not be as thoughtful about your welfare. Yes, the brunt is taken by other people, not the institution, but this is sort of a "human shield" that the institution (effectively instinctively) takes to prevent you from thinking of your own best interests... Sadly, therefore, do not tell them anything until you have the new job signed-and-sealed, or you risk disaster.

Thank you @paulgarrett. Based on your knowledge of these things, does one risk significant "blow back" (for example: angry responses, attempted future sabotage) by waiting until 1-2 months before the new semester starts to break the news?

Well, obviously, people will be unhappy to some degree, but that's a false indicator of what you should do, I claim. You and your current colleagues (as is the case everywhere) are trapped in a certain system, which pits you against each other, blah-blah-blah-Marxist-alienation-blah, ... But, yes, that sort of analysis, in perhaps-calmer terms, is right on the money. The key diagnostic is whether the_institution would worry (!?!) about you when they planned to rearrange. (Hint: no, not in a million years.) The fact that your current colleagues may be inconvenienced should not... [cont'd]

[cont'd] ... cause you to do some sort of self-immolatory altruistic thang. Your colleagues will be understanding (or, if not, 'effim because they're jerks, anyway) and at worst it'll not be a big deal. There is some tiny possibility that the institution will do something to plan for coverage of your expertise... but if football or basketball confound them, it'll just be lost... :)

I'd like to offer a dissent.  You are a professional, and as such, more is expected of you than the bare legal minimum.  You're not a low-level clock puncher, and as such, professional expectations are that you will endeavor to help the institution succeed.
Tenure, respect from the community, and a decent salary all come with expectations that aren't present for the guy earning $10/hr.  You're not expected to doom yourself, but you are expected to provide the university with enough warning so that they can find a high quality replacement.

@TomWest Professional expectations go both ways and given the OP's reasons for leaving I think we can assume they are severely lacking from one end. Very few companies treat their employees with the respect necessary to merit additional measures or notice when someone resigns, I don't expect most universities to do any better. I also disagree with your insinuation that a "low-level clock puncher" somehow can't be professional.

@TomWest, thanks for this alternative opinion. So, are you suggesting that I do tell my university as soon as possible?

@ThePiecer, you probably have a better feel for how long it would take for them to find an adequate replacement for your time-critical responsibilities (presumably the courses).  I would use that as a guide.  Also, if it is relevant (might not be here), you can canvas peers who might be able to replace you and provide such names to your employer.  Of course, if one's employer has failed their professional obligations to you, that's different.  Bottom line, they shouldn't regret hiring you, even if you depart early.

@Lilienthal Perhaps my experience differs.  As a programmer, I've never encountered disrespect, even when a company's policies didn't operate in my favor.  If I don't regret working for a company, then I don't want the company to regret hiring me.  One should be able to get a sterling reference from every one of one's employers.  As for professional, I expect lower-level employees to use their skills as laid out in their employment contracts.  I expect upper-level employees (professionals) to (within reason) use all their abilities to help solve problems, not limited to contractual obligations

Giving notice in 6 weeks time gives them the entire summer to replace you. Wait as long as you can to give your potential next department the time to make you a formal offer. As soon as you have accepted it, tell your current department chair. Don't do it before you have the offer in hand and have accepted. Unless you outright resign effective tomorrow, your current department may assume you are fishing for a counter offer, a raise, or early tenure. Without waiting until you have accepted the potential offer, you may end up burning even more bridges through this process even if you deny that you are trying to force your current department to upgrade you. If you don't walk out the door immediately, then you will have to spend the next several weeks being around your current colleagues. Wait until the semester is over and you have completed your obligations for the spring at the very least.

Thanks Bill. My current semester is very nearly over, with only final exams left and final grades left to administer over the next 1-2 weeks. I had every intention of finishing that piece, at least. It sounds like you agree that giving my chair advanced noticed is not as important as looking out for my own interests, which is helpful. Also, to be clear, I am not concerned about "burning bridges". I never intend to return to this department or rely on them for anything. My concern is more about doing what is "right" by them.

In addition, do not formally send a letter of resignation unless you have the final, signed and sealed contract from your other university. C.f. Steven Salaita.

@BillBarth, my objection to your position is that it assumes that the university's bureaucracy allows instant search-authorization, and my own institution has a strict deadline on all replacement hires for the next year. A resignation can be made effective immediately, the end of the semester, the academic year, or next year -- what the dean needs is, simply, a letter of resignation.

@user6726, so what? If OP doesn't care about burning bridges, then it's better for him to resign after he's accepted the new offer even if that's in August. Anything else exposes him potential unemployment. The department will find someone to pick up his teaching load if they can't hire fast enough. They certainly have the line and can pick up an adjunct or VAP if they can't immediately do a TT search. If every department chair would swear to hold slots for folks who want to look around, then he could be sure that if it fell through he'd still have a job, but nobody does that.

@ThePiecer, do "right" by them once you have secured your ability to eat. Write your resignation letter and hold it until you sign with the new university. Anything else and your current gig could, depending on your contract, drop you this summer even if you don't get the other job. They may have no reason to hold a slot for someone who's looking around. You might lightly encourage the folks who are recruiting you that you're feeling awkward about the position you will leave your current department in. That might get them to hurry up their offer a bit.

@ThePiecer, burnt bridges include people who may become reviewers of your future work (for publishing, for grants, etc), not just people you have to pass in the hall or rely on for tenure votes.

Based on what you say about the certainty of the decision, I would inform the department now (and this may mean turning in a written letter of resignation, so that the administration will authorize a hire). But that assumes that you would leave even if no other job materialized, so you should be really sure about the worst-case scenario. As for giving reasons, I would only give details about the reason if I thought it would be useful to reveal that, and only if you trust the person(s) that you tell. There is a risk that your resignation could get "spun" in a way that haunts you after you are gone.

Thank you. So, a "safer" approach is to, even if asked, give a non-descript  answer regarding my reasons for leaving? Should this news be delivered to the head of the department or the dean of the school?

Please do not inform them now... You're creating dangers for yourself.

The standard protocol is to inform the head of department, who informs the dean. Informing the dean directly can be seen as making a pointed statement especially about the chair, in which case you should give a detailed reason. Basically, burn your bridges if and only if you really intend to leave behind a conflagration, and it really does not sound like you want to do that. I also urge you to explicitly say "Yes I intend to resign even without a position to move to", because that is so unusual a situation that it's hard to believe that you really mean that.

Thanks again. It's really more of an expression of my certainty that I will have another position within weeks or months (one of the departments recruiting me has informally asked me to discuss terms so they can formulate an offer). Of course, I do not want to be unemployed next fall but I also really do not want to remain in my position for another year and leaving mid-year seems like far more inconvenient than leaving mid-summer. Your tip about informing the chair, and not the dean, has been noted.

It's one thing to verbally say "I will leave this university in the fall; I'm telling you this because I understand that you will need to make accommodations". It's an entirely different thing to hand in a signed letter of resignation that formally binds you to resign your position. It is entirely common to say the former but wait with the latter until you have the new position locked in. It is not uncommon for the latter to happen four weeks before the next semester starts, and there is nothing wrong with this.

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


text:
How detailed do I have to provide sources
I am currently writing my master thesis and I am extremely insecure where and when to give the sources. I tried to google for any recommendations but could not find anything that helps me.
How often do I need to give the source for information when it belongs to the same topic and I introduced the one and only document to this topic already?
For example I am referring to a technical standard and when introducing this standard I give reference to its standard document. Now I will give more information later on on this standard as I compare it to other standards. Do I repeat to mention the standard document? Since this document is quite long: Do I have to exactly say where in that document I found the information?
EDIT:
Also while we at it: I also give information about a the Java programming language. Can I assume that everyone knows this? Especially since it's the teaching language, the most widely spread language used in industry, most probably all my readers know it and it is very easy find out about this language if not. Do I still need to give the source for my information?

It seems to me you should have asked these questions to your advisor, haven't you?

My advisor is on holidays.

I want to hand in the thesis soon. Getting the references correct is one of my last remaining tasks.

In general every factual statement should be referenced. Obviously things which are common knowledge are not included. Java is borderline ... I'd just give a footnote to www.java.com the first time it's mentioned.

When you first introduce the technical standard in your thesis, you should provide citations to any and all relevant documents.  By "any and all", I mean the set that you are making use of directly, but not previous versions, commentary, or ancillary documents.  Each reference should appear separately in your Bibliography.
After that, you do not need to provide additional citations even when you refer to that technical standard later in the same chapter, or in later chapters.  However, if you are quoting text from the standard, or otherwise you are analyzing/critiquing the standard in detail, then it would be helpful to your readers to provide citations to the specific reference and page numbers.  Sometimes, depending upon the standard, it is more appropriate to cite chapter, section, and subsection numbers.  You say that you are comparing different technical standards.  If so, then it would be very appropriate to provide chapter, section, and subsection numbers for the respective standard sections.  Somewhere on the page (e.g. footnotes) you could provide citation to the technical standard document(s) themselves.

The rule for citations generally differs depending on what citation style you are using and there is usually a handbook for citation formatting rules for each style.  I would guess that Computer Science would be most likely to use IEEE.  Ideally you would speak to your advisor about which style is expected, but at the very least make sure that you are consistent to one style.  For example, in IEEE you would reference the first time and then use the same number throughout.  Search for in-text citations and the name of the style you will use. You should be able to find an online guide detailing the rule.


text:
Can I put my accepted paper on arXiv before it appears on the proceedings
I have a paper accepted to appear in a CS conference proceedings,
Is it possible to put it on an on-line archive,
such as "arXiv" before the conference date?
Could I at least publish the pre-print?
EDIT:
The conference chair did not ask me to sign any copyrights form!

What did the conference committee say when you asked them?

Actually arXiv is a preprint site, not an after print of published papers. My only advice: Read the conference and arXiv's copy right information so carefully.

@EnthusiasticStudent: It's not just or even primarily for preprints, and much of the arXiv's value comes from "green open access" to published papers.

The conference did not claim any copyrights!

Are you sure about this? Moreover, even without a copyright transfer or similar, you could have agreed to not having submitted or published the paper elsewhere. If exceptions are being made for publishing preprints, they are often explicit exceptions to clauses that forbid you publishing the article elsewhere, so this is where you should start looking.
If the proceedings are part of a series by some publisher, you may find relevant information on preprint publishability on RoMEO.
If you are still uncertain, you have to ask the conference organisers. I have no experience with such CS conferences, but if journals allow the publication of preprints, this is intentional. Thus I do not see any risk in asking the organisers.

The conference CFP invites original contributions or work-in-progress for short papers. It also invites high quality works that have been accepted or submitted to a journal. Nothing mention that the paper should not be submitted to another conference at the same time.
What should I assume?

You shouldn't expect anything, and if you're not sure, you should ask somebody who will be sure -- PC chair, or maybe someone else in your lab, because there is a lot of unwritten rules and technically illegal policies that are widely tolerated, especially in some communities.
What would happen if you put it on arXiv without a confirmation you can do so? Most likely nothing, but don't go after me if the talk gets cancelled because of this (especially since you mention the conference is open to previously published work and work-in-progress).


text:
How prestigious are the meetings of the Optical Society of America (OSA)?
Usually, and especially for the IEEE conferences, it is easy to know whether a conference is good or not. For example, top-tier, second-tier and third-tier conferences are known and agreed upon.
For example, the IEEE ICC (1st tier) conference is better than IEEE Globecom (2nd tier). My question is, how to define the tiers for the OSA meetings and conferences.
Is there anyone familiar with the OSA meetings and conferences who can shed the light on how to interpret the acceptance in an OSA conference? What tier does an OSA conference belong to? How to know it, etc....
Kindly note that I am not asking if the acceptance as a poster, or even a talk is prestigious. I am strictly interested in the classification of the meeting and conference.
I know that a poster acceptance is less than being accepted for a talk, and that it is merely for discussions and feedback on new or emerging research topics. However, I believe that a poster presentation in a top tier, is better than a poster presentation in a second tier, therefore, I am asking about the OSA meetings and conference classifications.
Thank you.

The OSA is a reputable institution, but being accepted for a poster presentation is not 'prestigious' in any way. The purpose of having a poster there is more to get feedback on your work from experts (and there will be experts).

AFAIK for disciplines related to the Optical Society of America (which is a well-recognized organization), the most prestigious things are journals - either by it (for example, JOSA A, JOSA B, Optics Express) or not (e.g. general physics or general science journals). When it comes to conference, its importance is related only to speakers/participants (so there is no general rule).
In any case, a poster presentation is never prestigious, be it by OSA or not (usually almost everything gets accepted).
I would ask that not every field have well-defined tiers for conferences. For example in mine, there isn't. And if you care for prestige - if you can't tell the difference - the chances are people seeing you CV won't be able to tell the difference either.
Usually review of abstracts (especially if no feedback is given) is to decide which things are suitable for talks (the best), posters (almost all others), and which - neither (they make no sense, are on another topic, of very poor quality or are OK but there is limited space for posters for some reason).

Thank you for your response. Can you please elaborate on the "... be it by OSA or not (usually almost everything gets accepted).", What is the use of the review process then?

Could you give details to a particular process? Usually review of abstracts is to decide which things are suitable for talks (the best), posters (almost all others), and which - neither (make no sense, are on other topic, of very poor quality or are OK but there is limited space for posters for some reason).

Yes, I think this explains the review process in meetings and conferences by OSA. However, this does not answer my question. For example, the IEEE ICC (1st tier) conference is better than IEEE Globecom (2nd tier). My question is, how to define the tiers for the OSA meetings and conferences.

Not every field have well-defined tiers for conferences. For example in mine, there isn't. And if you care for prestige - if you can't tell the difference - the chances are people seeing you CV won't be able to tell the difference either.

Alright, make sense. Please add these comments to your answer so I can accept it as an answer to my question. Thank you for your valuable discussion. Appreciate it.


text:
How to contact an Emeritus professor?
Question is in the title.
More specifically, do emeritus professors (generally) check the emails which are listed on their university websites? I have emailed a few professors lately, asking about points in papers that they wrote, and none of the emeritus have responded.
I am assuming that they do not check their emails often, if at all - in this case, would it be appropriate to contact the university, requesting contact information for the professor? Or should I leave them be in their retirement? :)

Two emeriti I personally know reply emails almost immediately, even more so than other people.

Chances are, if they are not answering their university mail address, they are either busy or can't be bothered. They are retired, so both is completetly ok (it is sort of the point of retirement that you do not have an obligation to react to work mail anymore). Trying to get in touch with them over different media is probably fruitless, and somewhat obnoxious. Besides, I would really hope that the university administration does not give out private addresses to the request of random people.
Edit: an almost completely unrelated side notice: emeritus profs can be insanely busy in some cases. There is a famous austrian physics emeritus who is now writing popular science books, breeding alpacas (!), touring Austria with a science-based stand-up comedy show (!!), producing and starring a TV programme, and waging an ever-lasting war against the catholic church (as head of Austria's atheist movement).

On the off chance that they just don't like email, I don't think it would be obnoxious to send a paper letter addressed to them at their department. This also doesn't require asking anyone for contact info.

RIP Heinz Oberhummer

@beta Indeed :(

If you think that there is a good chance that this professor doesn't check email, and you genuinely believe that your message is important, contact the department secretary/similar and ask if they'd be prepared to pass a message to the person. You could also ask if they know whether email is likely to be read by that person.


text:
Can I take credit for contributions to study materials on my CV?
I currently work for a well-known company that publishes study materials for a certain branch of mathematics. I have done quite a bit of work under them that has been published through their website (and is used to profit the company), however, no one's particular name is labeled on the materials (they just state the company's name).
Would I be able to include such work on a mathematics graduate school application CV other than mentioning it briefly in my work experience? If so, should I create a section "Publications" or  with some other title? ("Publications" seems misleading to me, as it suggests a peer-reviewed journal or other scholarly text of some sort.)

You can take credit for almost anything. Just make it clear what you did (e.g. "Prepared study materials for XXX corporation") and put it in an appropriate section.

These are not academic publications that you can legitimately claim on your CV.  At best, you might be able to describe this work experience in a different part of your CV, but keep your publication section clean.  A publication is one that you claim authorship of the given product, whether it is a peer-reviewed article, book, book chapter, monograph, etc.  Once you have a stock of publications, then you can create some logical categories.

If you did it, you can take credit for it on your CV.
To answer your second question, I think you should consider who will be reading the CV and what kind of employee they want.  If it is a company that produces a similar product, I think "Publications" is okay.  If you are applying for a faculty position, I might label it "Teaching Experience".
Update:  For applying to graduate school, I would label it "Projects".  But there are many options.

Edited the original post to make my intent clear.


text:
Job requires recommendation letters from Senior Research Scientists - who is eligible to write letters?
I am wondering who are treated as Senior Research Scientists?
Whether or not Assistant Professors, PostDocs, Project Scientists are treated as Senior Research Scientists?
I am asking this because I need couple of recommendation letters to make an application for tenure track scientist position. I am asked to take these recommendations from Senior Research Scientists.

There's a nice discussion about what a Senior Research Scientist is on this very site: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30887/principal-research-scientist-vs-senior-research-scientist

My apologies for the terse response. When I read the link, I fell on this particular response: "Senior Research Scientist is an Academic Research Staff position, because while it is long-term, it is also a position for which the researcher is expected to procure their own funding". My understanding was that any position that requires procurement of funding to maintain is considered a Research Scientist. Adding "Senior" to that designation suggested a post-doc (which is usually temporary) and Assistant Professor (who is not established yet) would not qualify.

In general, I would interpret "senior researcher" as somebody who has a permanent (or potentially permanent, such as tenure track) position doing research at a research institution.  It excludes graduate students, post-docs, people with purely teaching positions, etc.
However, if you are applying for a specific position, I would add one additional criterion for what counts as a "senior researcher."  Your letter writer should themself hold a position at least roughly as advanced as the position you are applying for.  The people reviewing your application want the person writing the letter should be familiar with the hiring standards and criteria for positions at that level.  So while it may make sense for an assistant professor to write a letter for you if you are applying for an entry-level tenure track position, you would want a full professor (or equivalent) to write you a recommendation if you are applying to a senior-level tenured position.


text:
What does "observing research" mean?
When applying for exchange at US university, only using ESTA (visa waiver program for Europeans (EU)), I may only "observe research" but not "conduct research". What does "observing research" include? I could not find any examples.

would you please share a link to the policy you're talking about

I don't have a link since it was an answer by HR. I found something similar on the Internet: link There, under Acceptable activieties, there is Observing. However, I am not a medical observer, but a researcher

I have another link.  "J-1 Short-Term Scholars are professors, research scholars and other individuals with similar education or accomplishments travelling to the United States on a short-term visit to lecture, observe, consult, train or demonstrate special skills at research institutions, museums, libraries, post-secondary accredited academic institutions or similar types of institutions." What does "observe" means when it comes to research?

Are you asking out of curiosity or because this is something that you believe could apply to your situation? In the latter case, instead of philosophizing about the meaning "observing research", you should simply contact the university's International Office and ask whether your position or programme falls under this category.

It is both. I would like to know what it is. Also, the HR cannot provide any examples of "observe science" that is not "conduct science"

That means you can come to a lab but can not touch anything there.

@mikha I am not sure that HR is the right place to ask. My impression (and my personal experience) is that a reasonably large US university will have a specific office called  something like the International Student/Scholar Office, which will be in charge of making sure that your legal status in the US is in line with regulations. You should ask them instead of HR. Note, however, that they are most likely going to be quite busy, so generic questions "out of curiosity" will probably not be very welcome.

@mikha The fact that you're talking to "HR" seems to suggest that you are going to be employed in some form or another by the university. This would not be compatible with the Visa Waiver Programme, period. If that's the case, then the answer would be a very definite no, this "observing research" condition would not apply to your situation.

@AdamPřenosil Definitely being employed is not compatible with ESTA. Even being a student is not permissible under ESTA. Though they also mention J-1...really, OP, I think you are quite confused about many things beyond what the title question asks, and I probably should not have written any answer. You need to resolve these things before you attempt to understand finer language like observing vs conducting research.

This sort of visa waiver has restrictions because it is not a visa that allows you to work. "Conducting research" is work. "Observing" research or learning how to research isn't work, it's learning/education. Generally, laws that limit activities granted to foreign visitors are intended to protect labor: both to prevent jobs from being occupied by foreign visitors over citizens, to prevent exploitation of visitors who lack other protections, and to make sure the government gets paid the appropriate taxes.
There are likely to be differences in the exact letter of the law (which is also certainly vague) and how it's dealt with in practice. Really this is not something we should address here, it's a legal advice question where even slightly wrong answers from people you don't know on the internet could put you at legal risk. The distinction between work and non-work is not as clear in some fields as others, and the people writing these restrictions don't have every possible case in mind.
If you're in a restaurant, the difference between cooking a meal and observing someone cook a meal seems like it should be fairly plain. An observer could ask questions, could watch the preparation, but couldn't add an ingredient, stir a pot, flip a pancake, plate a meal. However there's a bit of gray area on what sort of feedback they could provide: "this could use some salt" doesn't really seem to cross a boundary in that situation, it's the type of feedback any visitor might give. However, if you're at a food manufacturer and deciding how much salt to add is normally a job given to a food science professional, that sort of input could be seen as "work".
The institution you are visiting should be able to help you with this, though, and you shouldn't need to hire your own lawyer. You're likely not going to be the first student to participate in this exchange, so you could ask about what sorts of things previous students have done.