text:
Will one with record of unfinished PhD on his/her CV be doubted of his/her ability?
A PhD student of my advisor (I am a master student), having been enrolled the doctorate program for less than a year, is now unsure about whether or not to finish it.
One of his concerns is that if he continues, but eventually quits the doctorate program, and applies for a normal job, the future interviewer, during interview, may suspect his lack of ability due to the record of an unfinished PhD program.
However, if he does not write on his CV about the years during PhD program, the interviewer may further question about the absent years.
So, does a record of an unfinished PhD program makes employers doubt a person's ability? Or are there other negative consequences in it (besides, of course, the opportunity cost of the time interval)?
In addition to helping me reassure him, such information also helps me to decide whether to get a PhD in the future.
(Not being anglophone, if I misused some terms in English please correct me.)

Edit: Wow, to my surprise, this is probably the most popular question among SE questions I have asked (in all sites). I appreciate every answer and have read all of them, but chose Mr Romik for being the earliest among all good answers.

If someone starts something and doesn't finish it, there's invariably a reason: it could be lack of time, lack of motivation, lack of ability (at that task) or something else. People may start to suspect lack of ability (at that task) if they can't see (or indeed aren't presented with) any evidence of things like lack of time or lack of motivation.

This depends a lot on the job, and is probably too broad to answer well. There are many jobs where the reaction could be along the lines of "You're smart enough to make it to grad school and understand what you want in a job enough to leave and come to us? Great!" And others where Dan Romik's comments would very much come into play

This might receive good answers on workplace.se

What is the field? That is probably important. The harder the perceived difficulty of the field, the easier it might be to put a positive spin non-completed Ph.D. work. Anyone who can start a Ph.D. program in physics almost automatically impresses me. This isn't the case for some of the softer disciplines.

Maybe not exactly a duplicate, but see this: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/16552/72815

Is an MS "along the way" possible? That's what I ended up doing, made it easy to put on a resume. I only mentioned the PhD part in interviews, when it was easier to explain in conversation.

does a record of an unfinished PhD program makes employers doubt a person's ability?

I very much wish it were not so, but the honest answer is yes. Employers, within the restricted context of reviewing job applications, are forced to rely on very partial and superficial information given to them in CVs and job applications. Moreover, they are given huge numbers of applications to select from under time pressure. They respond to this in a way that I think is completely rational, but nonetheless extremely frustrating (to them as well as to the candidates), which is to assign a highly inflated significance to each piece of information given to them: positive things appear much more positive than they should, and negative things appear much more negative than they should.
In particular, both an unfinished PhD and a long period of seeming inactivity in one's CV are likely to be perceived at least somewhat negatively, certainly if they are unaccompanied by an explanation, and possibly (to a smaller extent) even when an explanation is provided. It wouldn't kill someone's chances of getting a job, and can be overcome by many other positive things one has to say about themselves, but I'm pretty sure it will have at least a small negative effect.

"Employers, within the restricted context of reviewing job applications, are forced to rely on very partial and superficial information given to them in CVs and job applications" -- This only applies if you apply in the form of mass-CV-ing potential new employers. If you go the route of talking to people personally before sending in your CV, you can always convince them of your reasoning behind not finishing. The competition might still be better, but you have the chance to show your personality.

@Ian that's a good suggestion, and of course talking to people personally is a good thing to try to do, but "the competition" will also be using such strategies. As I said, an unfinished PhD will certainly not kill someone's career or job prospects, but sadly it is likely to make it just a little bit harder for them to sell themselves to employers.

I don't challenge your argument at all. The thing is, I am always frustrated to see how people think sending out CVs is the best solution to finding a job, especially when you have things to explain about yourself.

@Ian oh I see, thanks for clarifying. You are correct that when I wrote my answer I had in mind primarily a "generic" CV-based job search strategy, so thanks for pointing out that there are other approaches. I would still argue that the basic premise that an unfinished PhD makes things a little bit more complicated is still correct even in that broader context, but certainly it's true that explaining one's history and choices more in detail (as suggested in Nicole Ruggiano's answer) is the best way to address and preempt such potential negative perceptions.

Certainly amongst computer programmers, this is just wrong.  Some of the strongest engineers I know have not completed their PhD - this is such a common experience, only the most foolish of employers would reject partial PhD candidates.

@Martin I never said employers would "reject" partial PhD candidates, but when they are comparing job candidates who dropped out of a PhD program after 3 years to others who graduated and/or others who did something else for 3 years and had notable successes, I claim the ones who dropped out will be at a small competitive disadvantage. Please do not read more into my answer than what I said. It is not a claim that not finishing one's PhD is some sort of fatal career-killing flaw (or necessarily a flaw of any kind), just that it can be perceived as a (minor) flaw in a particular context.

"when they are comparing job candidates who dropped out of a PhD program after 3 years to others who graduated ... I claim the ones who dropped out will be at a small competitive disadvantage" - and my experience is that even this is not true.

... and note that what you wrote in the comment is much more nuanced that what you wrote in your answer.  What you wrote in the answer was [reworded slightly] "a record of an unfinished PhD program will make employers doubt a person's ability", and I believe that is a false statement.

Ok thanks, that's helpful feedback. I acknowledge that I don't know for a fact that my claim is true in the software industry. I hope that you are correct.

There are many reasons that people do not finish doctoral programs other than incompetence or lack of motivation. For instance, one may become disenchanted with the soft deadlines of academia and would like to work in a non-academic setting, where deadlines and tasks may be completed in a more timely manner. Also, one may like the income security that a non-academic salary may provide, rather than having to chase after grants for summer pay. Yet another example is that one may like fixed hours in their employment, rather than spend evenings, weekends and sometimes holidays working on manuscripts or grading papers. So, it would be advisable to include the doctoral studies to demonstrate graduate training (especially if it is in the area of the non-academic jobs one would apply for) and give a reasonable and respectable explanation for leaving academia. I often suggest to non-academic job candidates in this position to write their reasons for leaving academia in their cover letter so that there aren't any unanswered questions that may damage their ability to even getting to the interview.

This is somewhat useful information, but it doesn't answer the question.

For an industry job, I don't think it is a big problem (unless it is a research position where PhD is required).
It is very likely that the candidate found out that he/she does not like to do research, and it might have taken them a while, like it took me.
Of course, I have no idea of what kind of opportunities I would have had if "PhD" in my resume did not have "abd" next to it, but from questions that I had about it and amount of time interviewers spend on those question (if they asked at all) it seemed like a fairly minor point. My previous experience and technical skills get much, much more attention.
And just to be clear I started my first job, while I was still in the PhD program.
I do believe that it is a negative, but a small one, so if your friend does not have passion for research, they should get out, ideally get a job first and then get out.
Also, they should put PhD experience on the resume, being part of PhD program is a plus, this is a lot better than having unexplained gap.

I would say the longer the time spent without success, the more damaging.
In particular if one has three or more years but no degree to show for it, then that has to be read as a problem to be explained.
Quitting early is read much less harshly, perhaps especially by those who got their PhD but then left academia for industry. They understand how one can get into a PhD program, perhaps precisely because of natural talent, and discover that it is not fulfilling.
Two of my most effective staff started PhDs and dropped out after just over  a year. I didn't read it as a negative and nor has it proven to be.

if one has three or more years but no degree to show for it — Shrug.  In the US, getting a PhD can take 6 years or more.

@JeffE: I'd guess Keith is from the UK (where three years is the normal time for a PhD).  US doctorates are expected to spend significant amounts of time teaching; in the UK there are expected to just "do the PhD".  For a US employee, replace "three years" with "six years" (although I'm still not convinced it's that bad).

Or in many places in EU where 5 years is minimum and you need to complete an MSc to even be considered to start a PhD. Can quite often take 7-10 years all in all.

I can't speak for Keith but I would tend to agree with him regardless of the usual length of a doctorate. If you've spent 3 years or more without anything to show then that's a red flag and would need a very good explanation. Less than a year then a "I realised it wasn't for me", is actually quite positive. Shows maturity.

It may also be a question of timing: if he applies for the job while still being enrolled (and within the traditional time of doing a PhD in your country) then it is not (or at least is not likely to be) an issue.
I did this myself, joining a company (there was a fantastic opportunity) when I did not have my PhD yet. The company was fine with me finishing it later, but would not have cared if I did not finish it.

As an employer I would be more worried of hiring people who might have gotten their degree but got burned out as well. Or who passed the requirements, know lots in a very narrow field but acquired almost no new skills broadly applicable in work. Any wise employer would also know the mechanics of pressure to finish can be a double edged sword. Anyone in too long could be more worn out than one careful enough to hop off before that happens. After all (work) life is a marathon, not just a sprint or a leap or you know..
The research aim in a PhD is often thin as a needle (rather specialized). But there is a fair chance that the skills acquired during the time of the studies are useful in many other areas and contexts. Even if the work did not pass the requirements to graduate the candidate might have learned many valuable skills as well as a systematic approach to perform work and have gotten valuable ideas and visions.
Look for skills, ambitions, visions and experience (save).

Forget about your silly whim
It doesn't fit the plan

+2112 for an employer's view.

I spent 5 years working toward a PhD in physics. Around year 4.5 I decided I couldn't cut it in the department I was in (a combination of department politics, my advisor being farrrr too busy to give me the attention I needed, and my wife wanting to start our lives outside of school), so I got an MS and got out. I just got a real job, slightly unrelated to the field I was studying, but it's close. During my job search I told them directly that I decided the PhD wasn't for me, so while they were hiring a guy with an MS physics, they were getting someone closer to a PhD physics or a PhD physicist on a budget.
Don't hide that you have time spent toward a PhD, an understanding hiring manager will realize that spending time learning what you don't want to do will put you a couple steps closer to knowing what you DO want to do.
I think for anyone who understands what a PhD actually is, they will understand that ability is rarely the deciding factor of making it through a full 4-10 year program, it's motivation. Or more specifically, people lacking in ability will usually be weeded out in the first year, while people lacking the dedication to finish will last far longer.
Interesting side note, when I started grad school there was a guy in at least his fourth year, when I graduated he was still there (9+ years), and I just checked, he is still there (11+). The point of this is that you shouldn't feel bad about getting out early and doing something else.

Interesting you can just get an MS if you hop off. Over here it's a requirement to have an MSc to even be allowed to start a PhD.

As a person who hires people, I tell you that it depends. I'm in software engineering, and I've hired any number of ex-Physicists who decided that writing code was more rewarding that smashing particles or whatever.
The idea that hiring managers are drowning in resumes is very context-dependent. If you are in a field where supply of people far exceeds demand, the resume-level exclusion described in other answers makes sense. But if you are aiming to work in a field where that isn't true, sensible hiring managers will have questions for you in interviews, but won't be tossing your resume into the recycle pile.


text:
Is withdrawing from two courses in my PhD bad for my future?
I am a 2nd year PhD student. So far, I've taken 5 courses, 3 of which I got A and the other two I withdrew from. The reason was mainly it was not until the 6th session that I understood those two courses were not particularly relavant and helpful towards my thesis. My question is how bad is my situation regarding gettting a post doc, faculty position, or a position in industry, in the future?

I'd say the effects will be negligible. There are plenty of valid reasons students might drop a course.

Nobody care about the courses you take or do not take. They only care about your papers.

@qsp: For research-oriented faculty jobs, that's true, but some other academic jobs do pay attention to graduate coursework.  For instance, if you have substantial coursework in a secondary field, that can be helpful evidence that you are qualified to teach courses in that field, which can be a plus for some teaching-oriented jobs.  I am also not sure whether what you say applies to industry.

Do you have at least a temporary advisor?  If not, you can ask your department to assign you one, or you can seek out a professor you feel some affinity with.  It is always good to check one's progress periodically with someone in your department. // When you meet with this person, bring an unofficial transcript, and find a couple of positives to mention, in addition to the information in your question.

In general, giving out too detailed information about yourself on the internet can be long term damaging for lots of different aspects in your life. We would probably be able to answer without the details which make co workers and others able to figure out who you are.

@mathreadler Thanks for the advice, I edited my post :)

For postdoc and position in the industry, it will not cause any problem.
However, faculty positions depend on grants, and commitees pick people who are able to obtain fund grants, and publish papers. It is unlikely they will care about your grades.

why do you think committees are responsible for hiring @padawan?

Committee, in this context, is used in a generic way. Even if it is one person, there is a process that approves the applications and decides who to accept. This process is held by a committee.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Format of the manuscript at the revision stage
I recently submitted a paper to an Elsevier Journal (Biomedical Signal Processing and Control). I wrote the paper using the Elsevier article class (elsarticle.cls) with the option "review" which is one column format (text width = 12.5 cm) the final print copy as can be seen in published papers is two-column format (text width = 18.5 cm), when I was waiting a response from the editor I reread the paper carefully trying to correct possible errors and prepared it in a two-column format so that it matches as possible the final published layout.
Now I received an email for minor revisions but I found some comments about this topic, most of them say "to send the revised manuscript in single-column format and let the journal worry about which of the formats they use in the end", now if I worked by the last advice and since the preprint layout uses a larger line width, I did not face problem with displayed the long equations but in two-column format the long equation will overlap.
Is the Latex expert (person specifically employed to do the layout of the journals) Takes upon himself the formation of the paper in two-column format (for example : break the equations in the appropriate points)?
Another chose, if I put a figure of 10 cm of width it looks fine in one column format but in two-column format if I put it as one column (\begin{figure}) it will overlap, and if I put it as two-column (\begin{figure*}) maybe it looks much smaller and if the Latex expert they use Latex instructions to reduce or enlarge the figure maybe it loose its nice shape.
Finally,as I said before I have two-column format it Much like the final published layout, should I sent the two-column format or one column format?

Did you check the "submission guidelines", "author guidelines" or "guidelines for authors" or similar? Some journals have layout people that take care of everything - there you should submit a word or similar version of the text, and figures in separate files. Others expect that the author takes care of the layout.

Reviewers are concerned with the technical content of your paper, not the formatting.
Even if you're using a LaTeX-based style sheet, it's not necessary to worry about making sure everything fits within the margins. If the paper is accepted, the journal will probably work on your paper to make sure it follows their style guidelines when published.
So just worry that the content is correct, and submit a single-column paper for the reviewers to read. It'll make their lives easier, which will thus make your life easier. (And you won't waste time fiddling with LaTeX!)

I would just add that you should have a working plan for breaking your equations once the paper gets accepted. I mean, if you have long unbreakable equations, you better simplify them now then after.

@yo': But the journal will probably do it their own way. You'll just need to make sure that the typesetting doesn't change your intentions. (I had an article where they completely screwed up the math.)

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


text:
How to fill a review form
I am preparing to send a review report for the International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, I wrote all the comments about the paper in Word Document when I log in to my account to attach the file, In the review form there is a called comments to the author, should I rewrite the comments located in the Word Document or what?
is the file attached will be visible to the authors?

The straight forward answer is YES. Make sure you have not been offensive in your comments. Based on these comments, the authors would prepare their improved manuscript (if any).

The review submission page is more or less similar for many different platforms such as EditorialManager, EES (EVISE), ManuscriptCentral etc.
You would find at least the following three sections after you log into the page:

Rating of the manuscript
Comments to the authors
Comments to the editor

1. Rating of the manuscript
In this section, you will find pointwise portions of the assessment of the manuscript in terms of novelty, originality, writing style etc. which are related to the research work. You may probably asked to enter the rating on a scale of 1-5 or 1-10 (based on how the interface has been designed)
2. Comments to the authors
This is the comment section where you are either allowed to attach a file or enter your comments in the text area provided there. You must not be offensive in your comments. It is better to be slightly descriptive and positive in review comments which would help the authors to improve their research or the manuscript.
3. Comments to the editor
This section is confidential (mostly). Here, if you want to share something privately with the editor only, then you can. For example, if you think that the research is plagiarized or something like that. Or, sometimes, you can also praise a paper, if it worth it. This section would make the editor's task easy at least to some extent.


text:
Should a degree in an unrelated field be included in CV?
So, in addition to my PhD and bachelors degrees I have another advanced degree that is ultimately irrelevant (and entirely unrelated) to my research efforts and current academic discipline. Should I include this on my CV under education or not? Will it make me look less focused or simply more educated? Is it standard practice to include everything, regardless of relevance?
My understanding of the CV is that it should be specific to relevant research experience and pursuits, not necessarily complete.
Edit:
This post received WAYYYY more attention than I anticipated. Some background. I completed bachelor's degrees in physics and mathematics. I then went and completed a Juris Doctor, but, found myself a bit unchallenged working with softer logic and went back to Physics. In Physics, I've mostly done mathematical physics which borders on pure mathematics and computer science. My main concern was seeming flaky and unfocused.

Curriculum Vitae means you should list the achievements in your lifetime, not a shortened version. Otherwise it'd be a resume :)

For what it's worth, now that you've clarified the situation, I think it's awesome that you got a JD. To my mind it makes you a more interesting person who has shown himself to have wide interests (something that is a big plus in my book). In a job/admissions context I would still evaluate you primarily for your math/physics abilities, but the JD would certainly give you some points in an orthogonal direction that still matters. With that said, I speak only for myself. Other scientists with different personalities than me may see things differently.

Dan, thanks for all of the helpful comments. The only reason I didn't accept your answer is that, were I to, it would be at least partially out of disciplinary bias :). Thanks again. Hopefully you can also respond to my upcoming followup post on letters of recommendation. (You can tell I'm entering the postdoc market this year.)

Would love to hear comments on my recent post from anyone who was interested in this one. link

Michael -- no problem! I'm glad you evaluated my answer for its merits and not because you were impressed by my unrelated advanced degrees. ;-)

While there are some circumstances in which is it appropriate to use a "shortened" C.V. that does not include everything that you have done, I have never heard of a circumstance under which it is appropriate to omit a degree.  An irrelevant degree will not hurt how your C.V. is perceived, and if it is later discovered that you omitted a degree from your C.V., it may be considered suspicious or dishonest.  Furthermore, it may under some circumstances be considered a plus---you never know what kind of interesting cross-disciplinary connections somebody reading your C.V. might make in their head. I would thus advise you to include all of your degrees, even if some seem irrelevant to you.

This all sounds good.  I would make a stronger statement than "it may under some circumstances be considered a plus", though.  My own experience with a career change has been that the unrelated Bachelor's tends to impress people.  Basically, if you're proud of what you did, toot your horn.

I've been told by recruiters, hiring managers, and some staff from college I attended that having any degree at all to post on a CV/resume is often beneficial, as a degree shows that you can take a long term project (2, 4, 8 years, etc) and see it through to completion. One common sentiment I've heard is "it doesn't matter if you have a degree in basketweaving, simply having a degree has value."

@phyrfox - I think that depends heavily on the industry. I'm in programming, and I've yet to meet anyone who gave a single f**k about my degree. I even interviewed at Microsoft, and they only asked me to solve tasks, no one even took notice of anything on my CV except the projects I've done.

@Davor are you sure HR hadn't already filtered applicants based on whether their CVs ticked boxes?

@ChrisH - nah, MS was the only company out of those that I interviewed and worked for that was big enough to have separate HR, and I was an undergraduate at that point, so I didn't even tick the boxes. There are a lot of self thought people hiring programmers who don't have degrees themselves, so they naturally don't care much for those.

@Davor fair enough, though "working toards a degree" may have helped.  The HR process isn't always precise.

@Davor It likely depends strongly on the position that you are applying for.  If you're applying for an entry-level programmer job where they just want you to be a cog in a programming machine, they probably don't care. I guarantee you, however, that Microsoft cares about advanced degrees for its higher-responsibility positions.

I will answer with an anecdote. In my discipline (mathematics), several times while reading recommendation letters of job candidates I have seen them extol some skill or education that the candidate had in an area unrelated to mathematics. For example, on at least a couple of occasions the letter mentioned as a side remark that the candidate was an extremely gifted classically trained musician. One such candidate actually got a tenure-track offer from my department; obviously not for her music abilities, rather because she was also an excellent mathematician. However, the remarks about music abilities still left me (and probably others in my department) with a terrific impression. I think you'd be amazed how big the psychological effect (both conscious and subconscious) can be of learning that someone you are considering for a job/grad school application has impressive skills or knowledge, even about an area that is completely unrelated to your discipline. I have seen the same effect at work many times in other (more informal) situations.
To put things differently, you have another advanced degree on top of your PhD and bachelor's! How awesome is that?! Most people would kill just to have the "extra" advanced degree, let alone all the other ones. It is hard to imagine why you would want to hide this.

Hi Dan -- Given that your field is the closest to my own (it may even be my own shortly) this is a really helpful answer. I suppose that part of me wants to be evaluated based on my qualities as a mathematician and physicist and not based on something that I ultimately abandoned as a path that, while teaching me something about myself, was mistaken.

Michael, I understand and that is very admirable, but keep in mind all of us are always judged based on the totality of information that is available about us, some of it more relevant and some less. Sometimes this works against us, other times to our benefit. If I may be a bit cynical, I'd say use every (fair) advantage you can get, because your competitors certainly will, and this way you only level the playing field and have a better chance of getting a fair evaluation. Good luck in any case!

I have wondered this myself at times. However I have only ever received positive feedback from having degrees in unrelated areas. I have a Bachelor of Science with honours in maths and PhD in maths (from a maths department but actually in statistical genetics). I applied for a job in a project in air traffic control in an engineering department; they seemed impressed that I also have a Bachelor of Economics and a Master of Arts (linguistics). People seem to love that I also have those degrees and I got the job in air traffic control (with a bunch of software engineers). The point is whether you have the capability in the job you're applying for; the extra law degree just adds to how generally awesome you appear.

Thanks Jacki, I'm told this by enough people now that I actually believe it. :)

It won't hurt you at all. It shows couple things about you:

You can clearly commit to a long-term task and focus on the goal (graduation)
You care about educating yourself
You are well-round, not just focused on one narrow field

And of course, if you get to a personal interview, you can always find and pinpoint some transferrable skills you picked along the way and make it a really strong advantage.

Depending on the context, you should include what is required. "CV" is often shorthand for the shortened biographical sketches required by funding agencies when applying for grants. You should scrupulously include every required item that the agency requires in its preparation instructions and nothing more or less. Typically, this would include all of your educational preparation. For an academic position, post doc, etc, include it.

When I was hired at my position in an academic science research lab, both the director and assistant director had J.D.s.  In an academic environment, dealing with bureaucracy is a necessary evil, and someone with that kind of training can be a huge asset.

Having a JD is relevant to every field. As a JD you have the opportunity to do IP work (i.e. patents) for yourself or your organization/company.


text:
Demand code and/or data as a condition of peer review?
It is still relatively uncommon for social scientists to share data or code as a part of the peer review process. I feel that this practice runs contrary to notions of replicability and reproducibility and have a desire to voice opposition to instances in which manuscripts are submitted without data and code.
Where, however, is such opposition appropriately expressed?
I am specifically curious about whether or not it is appropriate to refuse to review an article in the absence of code or data.
UPDATE
I'm going to watch this for a couple of days to see what surfaces. FYI I cross-posted this to Andrew Gelman (http://andrewgelman.com/2015/09/14/its-not-so-easy-to-share-data-and-code-and-there-are-lots-of-bureaucrats-who-spend-their-time-making-it-even-more-difficult/) for those who are interested in seeing his response and the response of his followers...

What is the publication's editorial policy in this regard? What does the editor say? If you aren't on the editorial board, you have no vote except to stop buying/reading that publication. You could try a letter to the editor, but....

@keshlam: If you are a reviewer, you certainly have the power to decline to review a paper if you don't feel you have enough information to properly evaluate it. Doesn't matter what the journal's policy is.

You can always decline to review, or reject... but that may just mean they find another reviewer, if they don't agree with you.

FYI: Are there any journals or conferences that take into account the availability of the source code when selecting the papers to publish?

@NateEldredge Editorial policy generally states what it considers to good way presenting data, which details should be included etc. If the reviewer totally ignores this policy, he is rather unethical and unprofessional. The reviewers job is to judge the merits of the manuscript BASED ON EDITORIAL GUIDELINES. If he doesn't like those guideline, should feel free to reject the invitation for reviewing for a journal he obviously considers sub-par.

@keshlam you can recommend rejection based on lack of evidence or support (of course, the editor may ignore you).

I would suggest first spending a little bit of time reflecting to yourself on why you want to see sharing of code and data, and which code and data you would want to be shared.  Is it more ideological in nature ("information wants to be free"), or at its root is it a belief more about scientific ethics and efficacy?
I am almost certain that you do not actually want all data and code to be shared.  For example, you probably do not want identifying information about subjects to be shared.  Likewise, you probably do not care too much about little bits of utility code that don't have anything much to do with the science.  Where do you draw your boundaries and why?
The reason I would suggest doing that, is that you will then be in a good position, as a reviewer, to persuasively argue for the inclusion of code and/or data for objective reasons that the editor and author are more likely to agree with, even if their personal preferences are different.  I don't think you'll have much effect by refusing to review (unless you can get a lot of colleagues to exert pressure along with you), but I think you may make much more difference by refusing to accept poorly justified conclusions in the absence of result and method information to support them.

I would also suggest that requiring any support for said code would immediately unblind the peer review process at worst, and at best make the journal a tech support routing system and slow things down considerable.

@Fomite Perhaps my phrasing was unclear: I meant "support" not as in "tech support" but as in "evidence that supports the conclusion"

It appears I was being unclear - I was adding a reason. For example, where do you draw the boundaries also includes "Does this have to work without any back and forth with the code authors?" etc.

This is a very UK specific answer.
The UK Research Councils have principles on open data and policies on open access. In the most recent clarification this also covers software. In essence, RCUK funded research should have the data and software essential for reproducibility released before publication.
My approach to this is that

when refereeing UK grant proposals I always check that the grant explicitly mentions they're following these policies, and if they don't explicitly say how, I raise that as a question;
when refereeing papers that cite support from RCUK grants I always query if I can't find the software/data that allows them to follow these policies.

In both cases I expect the impact to depend heavily on the preferences of the panel/editor (I don't think I've seen much as yet).

Strategically, you might consider that you'll probably have much more impact if you become the editor of a journal. That way you'll be involved in setting editorial policy, and more importantly, enforcing that policy. Refusing to review papers will not help you become editor.
This presumes that you care enough about this issue that you want to spent the time and effort that comes with being a journal editor. But there are more reasons for becoming an editor then just this one issue, so I would at least consider it.


text:
"Retrofitting" sources
There seems to be a sort of craze about having as many references as possible. Among the students at my university, it has become common practice to write a passage of text and later figure out if someone else has done something similar and attribute it to them, changing the original text if necessary.
Is this in any way, shape or form appropriate? It seems rather contradictory to me, since you are attributing your own work to other people, even if they came up with it first. The author did not have prior knowledge of this.
I suppose you could simply claim it as your own and note that someone else has come up with it, as well. Is this necessary? It is your own work, after all, even if somebody else came up with something remarkably similar.
Many problems have straight-forward solutions that you can easily come up with. I am asking this now, because I am writing my bachelor's thesis and have come up with some of those straight-forward solutions myself. I just now found, by chance, papers on exactly that subject and, reading them, realise just how similar our approaches are.
What would be the best way to handle situations like these?
Meta: I'm not happy with the title. If you can think of a better one, feel free to edit and remove this notice.

Not sure I understand your first paragraph. It is definitely OK to turn a research paper into an expository paper if you discover that the results are not new. (Though if your exposition is crappy, then it will be a crappy expository paper, and as such rather useless.)

since you are attributing your own work to other people — No, you are correctly giving credit to the people who did the work first.

@JeffE: I think what the OP meant is that it is your work effort, your time, your resources that were invested for developing the aspect. The other people had no part in that, did not contribute anything, and did not ease your work. So, it is unquestionably your work. Note that this does not contradict that, in the context of publications, you can and should still mention whoever did the same thing before.

So, it is unquestionably your work. — No, sorry, I disagree.  "Work" in this context doesn't mean effort, but rather the product of that effort.  Nobody cares how many calories you burned; if the result isn't new, you can't claim it as your work.  (This is perhaps the single most significant difference between classes and research.)

@JeffE: '"Work" in this context doesn't mean effort' - this may be field-specific, but that statement immediately raises a "[citation needed]" in my mind. I perceive papers to consist of three types of information: (1) Conceptually new work by the author(s), (2) work by the author(s) that is not conceptually new and just needs to be documented, and (3) work that the author(s) didn't do at all, but about which they merely point out someone else did it. (1) is roughly synonymous with the contribution, (2) contains aspects such as the description of an implementation, or of a user study ...

... design, and (3) is the related work. In a side note, a paper can mention that a model of some kind was used, in which case that model is either directly taken from someone else's definition (thus the statement belongs to (3)), or it is built by the authors upon someone else's definition (thus the statement belongs to (2)). In neither case is it necessarily conceptually new, but the distinction between (2) and (3) is still relevant for the readers to get an impression of the reproducibility and possible influences of the author(s) decisions. At the same time, (1) and (2) must not ...

... be mixed (which, by the way, is one reason for me to promote the use of markers like "new" or "novel" in another answer). Summarily, I think distinguishing between groups (1), (2), and (3) is required for accurately representing new concepts and the context they are based upon, even though I acknowledge some circumstances that warrant pretending elements of (2) belong to (3).

This seems like a strategy designed to shore up a reference list for a passage provided by generative AI, which provides zero references.  Frankly, I believe most students would be better served by a simple search engine and the literature.

Among the students at my university, it has become common practice to write a passage of text and later figure out if someone else has done something similar and attribute it to them

Indeed, that seems to be a constant part of paper writing: A portion of what you have made up has been done by others the same way before. In my opinion, this is often because it is simply impossible to always know all details of previous work (that is by no means always "related" to your own work in its overall topic) by heart, and because it is often more straightforward to just do something oneself rather than dive into the literature that may or may not contain something vaguely similar.
Sometimes, it gets apparent even only afterwards that an aspect of one's work is non-obvious enough to be mentioned elsewhere.
In the end, it is simply a question of benefits vs. drawbacks:
Drawbacks

You do attribute your own work to someone else. Thereby, even though you may have spent some energy to develop or define something, you

falsely pretend to have relied on someone else's work
misrepresent the effort you may have invested for your work

Benefits

You secure yourself against claims of plagiarism. While you cannot possibly copy anything you do not know, the suspicion that you did actually know some previous work but failed to mention them can arise when certain of your ideas resemble those mentioned in other papers. As such, it is less cumbersome if you just pretend you are replicating someone else's work.
Usually, the statements subject to this phenomenon do not nearly seem complex enough to warrant the mention as a contribution. Hence, you do not lose much by not mentioning you were the actual source for a specific aspect of your work.
Citing in such situations strengthens your work. While the contribution of the cited aspects would be minor, showing that you build your actual contributions on top of proven practices makes your actual core contribution more convincing.

In particular, the last point is a major benefit compared to the drawback. This is reflected in your observation that some are

changing the original text if necessary

Given that the original ideas are not a significant contribution that needs to be promoted, anyway, replacing them with a possibly better method that is truly taken from another source is fully reasonable and can help to further improve the overall document.
EDIT: To put this answer in relation to jakebeal's answer: I mainly interpreted the question to refer to the "third branch of possibilities":

They are writing down original text that they think is novel. Only later, they realize or find out others have done the same (possibly, in a completely different field or context, or with a completely different terminology, so finding the other work is likely a result of pure chance rather than an expected event).

You can have the best of both worlds: "my solution yadda, yadda... This results agree with the method used by Smith et al [5]"

@Davidmh: For central aspects, that amount of text is warranted; I was rather thinking of the many small statements throughout a paper. "We had configured the pastel colour scheme preferred by users during the preliminary test, but depending on the context, alternative colour schemes matching with the corporate identity of an organization [3], an established standard [9, 37], or suitable for users with colour vision impairment [29]."

I see two issues here:

Is it misleading to cite a reference you didn't know about until after your work was done?  In particularly, does it misrepresent history by falsely suggesting that this reference influenced your work?

Is it unfair if you have to give credit to someone else for something you independently did yourself, without even knowing about their work?

The answer to both questions is no.
Citing sources is primarily about assigning credit and indicating where one can find details or more information.  It's not about describing your personal influences.  In particular, everyone is aware that some references may only have been found after the fact, so nobody will interpret a citation as necessarily indicating direct influence while your work was being carried out.
As for the second issue, academic credit is awarded for making a novel contribution that advances the state of the art, rather than for rediscovering what was already known.  Being credited is a form of recognition for telling the world something new, rather than a reward for being clever or having worked hard.  (The person who rediscovers something may be just as clever and hard working, but hasn't done as much to increase the world's store of knowledge.  Of course, there may be borderline cases, where the original discovery was really obscure or its full generality had not been recognized.  I'm talking in broad generalities here.)
If you independently discover something at roughly the same time as someone else, then you can appropriately claim some of the credit for it.  However, you can't show up substantially later and expect to share the credit.

I suppose you could simply claim it as your own and note that someone else has come up with it, as well. Is this necessary? It is your own work, after all, even if somebody else came up with something remarkably similar.

There are times when noting that you did it independently could make sense, for example to explain why your approach differs in some ways from what is usually done.  However, you should be very careful about how you do this, since it looks bad if you seem to be claiming more credit than you deserve.  In most cases it's better not to point out your independent rediscovery.
When you ask "Is this necessary?", are you asking whether you need to include the citation at all?  Yes, you almost certainly do.  Omitting a citation is allowed only for things that have become common knowledge in your area (e.g., just about nobody cites Newton for the laws of motion) or are so trivial that they aren't worth any credit at all.  This citation is evidently not common knowledge, since you didn't know about it.  It might in principle be a triviality, but the previous discoverer must have thought it was worth publishing.  Declaring it trivial and unworthy of citation is a very risky move, which you should make only if you are confident in your judgment and expertise.

I mostly like this answer. I am only a bit wary of the last paragraph, starting with the claim "This citation is evidently not common knowledge, since you didn't know about it." I think an issue with this is that some non-trivial knowledge appears to be so common that no-one is aware there is actually one definitive source for it, rather than the knowledge being a best practice of some kind that has gradually formed over many years.

Furthermore, "Declaring it trivial and unworthy of citation is a very risky move, which you should make only (...)" sounds reasonable at first, but I would wager that in an "average" properly done paper, this "risky move" is still exactly what happens for 90% of the content. The necessity to consciously skip relatively less important citations even though you know them to save space is just one contributing factor. Touching upon use cases from other fields and writing for audiences with a vast range of different backgrounds contributes its share, too.

I mostly agree. Still (talking about mathematics), I think it is beneficial for (relatively) easily proved facts to be reproved, rather than forcing the reader to refer to some external work. Still, if the fact is nontrivial and not common knowledge (and there is a definitive source for it, or if the fact is folklore in a certain circle), then I guess one ought to at least acknowledge the source (or the fact that it is folklore).

On the other hand, I have a general suspicion that many methods are constantly being reinvented in mathematics, in various fields. To expect people to cite some vastly unrelated work in those cases is too much, in my opinion. That said, pointing out similarities in methods between vastly different fields is a great idea, with the caveat of not forcing the reader to go down too deep a rabbit hole to understand your paper.

I find it difficult to understand what exactly you say that people are doing, so let me split it into two branches of possibilities that I think you may be saying:

Perhaps they are writing down background they think they know, but aren't bothering to look up citations while at an early stage of drafting.  e.g., I might write in an early draft: "The lower bound on comparison sort is O(n log n) [find citations]", then later go back and fill in the citations, adjusting as necessary.  This is entirely reasonable: there is no requirement to write a paper in any particular order, only that the result be scientifically honest and ethical.
On the other hand, if they are writing original text or results and trying to put the words into somebody else's mouth, that's clearly unethical and also completely inscrutable to me in its motivations.  Unless they're trying to follow certain medieval practices where you have to pretend your original thoughts are all just interpretations of the wisdom of the ancients?

When producing a publishable piece of work (this includes your bachelor's thesis) it is your responsibility to check whether the methods you've implemented were done so before. If so compare the results and steps of your experiments with the one(s) previously published. Otherwise there is no point reproducing the same matter in theory.
I can understand your claim of attributing your findings to another person. But this cannot be differentiated from plagiarism. It is equally possible to include another's content without citation to claim it as your own. That is what the definition of plagiarism is about.
It is true for many to elaborate on the reference section and reviewers look for this too. This is to prove to the reviewers that enough work has been done to assess your field of application before proposing your own work which may be randomly novel or not.

Hmm, that does make sense. So if I look for papers who deal with something similar and don't find any - I am plagiarising those papers? That seems a bit odd to me.

"But this cannot be differentiated from plagiarism." - which is where the presumption of innocence would normally come into play. I think the issue highlighted in your third paragraph is much more relevant, namely showing that you know related works and have consciously either chosen or diverged from proven methods.

@Xandaros: Plagiarism means copying a written material and claiming it as your own without citing the source. If you are unable to locate any material similar to your method, then you may freely publish your method without guilt. But, beware and be ready to edit your content if such a method was published elsewhere before the time your content is published which otherwise wouldn't have reached your knowledge.

But this cannot be differentiated from plagiarism. — I disagree. If there were no difference between imperfect scholarship and plagiarism, nearly every paper ever published would be an example of plagiarism.

@JeffE: I think what was meant is that an outside observer (e.g. a reviewer, editor or reader) has no way of knowing whether the respective fact/paragraph has been plagiarised or not. Intrinsically, there is a difference, of course, but the author might have a hard time proving that he didnt know, and if the didnt know something which he really should have he might only be able to choose between "plagiarism" and "literature search not done properly".

True, I agree with @Gerhard. Inadequate literature search are also in the grounds of rejection in paper review process. As long as the author doesn't claim his method to be 'novel', he should be in a safer side. But if he's in a school that publishes thesis online he should go through he hardship of literature survey.

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


text:
What is the best time to apply for a PhD in physics?
I am currently an international senior undergraduate physics student, with a 3.41 GPA and no research experience.
I want to apply for PhD program in USA, and I am confused when it is best to apply;
1) before finishing my bachelors degree.
2) waiting to finish it and get engaged in research during my senior year.
3) finish my bachelors degree, get engaged in research, and do a masters degree.
I need to know: does waiting for option 2 and 3 really increase my chances in getting accepted for a PhD program in physics or biophysics? Or should I apply now and save some time?

For a physics PhD in the USA, experience after a four year bachelor's degree is not expected.  However, if you have a three year bachelor's degree or your degree comes from a country with many applicants like China or India, a master's degree may be very helpful.  You should make an application plan no later than the August 1 before you graduate.  This allows time to prepare for the September Physics GRE.  Applying the year following graduation should be a backup plan.

I want to Clarify that, Option 1 Excuses me of the Military services from January 2018 to March 2019. and I can start in Fall 2017.
Option 2, My application will have some research experience but i will have to do the Military Service First. and Start in Fall 2019
Option 3, I can do A masters degree during my military service. and also start in Fall 2019 or wait if my masters degree is not yet finished.
It's obvious that Option 3 is much better than option 2, So, we can choose between 1 and 3 only.
What is your advice?

@MohamedAyman - As it is now the beginning of October, you may want to sign up immediately to take the physics GRE ASAP, and then start to prepare some applications.  The schedule recommended is ideal but I have seen a shortened version work.  I have not looked at the GRE schedule, so, no guarantees, but you can easily look up the schedule.

@MohamedAyman - Thanks for the update, and best of luck.


text:
Is it okay to discuss multiple interests when writing statement of purpose for attending a conference?
Question: I am interested in two fields, mathematical biology and cryptography. Is it okay to discuss both of these interests in my statement of purpose?
I'm currently a junior majoring in mathematics. I have to write a statement of purpose so that I can be able to attend a mathematics conference. During the conference there will be a time where we can submit applications to graduate schools there. I'm not sure if it is for seniors only, but I am writing one just in case. I don't know which schools are going to be there. If I did I would just choose one depending on the degrees offered by each school, but I don't know who is going to be there.

I'm curious: what conference is this?  (I am a pure mathematician.)

@PeteL.Clark - Field of Dreams Conference.

Keep it short and succinct, I would say a paragraph is good, unless otherwise stated in the application. If this means that you only have enough space to talk about one of those areas, then pick one.
If the conference is more geared towards pure mathematics, I would suggest expanding on your interest in cryptography. Otherwise, if it is an applied mathematics conference, then talk about your studies in biological math. Chances are schools which specialize in pure mathematics will attend a pure mathematics conference, and likewise for applied math. If you want to find out the universities who are attending, just ask an event coordinator. I'm sure there isn't any secrecy surrounding who is attending.

I would try to emphasize (as far as possible) the commonality of math between the two disciplines. For instance, biology may use a lot of differential equations, or even graph theory, and perhaps cryptography can too.
It would be awesome if you came up with an application combining the two disciplines, e.g. using fingerprinting for crytography.  Your job in writing a statement of purpose is to convince people that you're a viable candidate for such role.


text:
How can I find images to use in my thesis that are free/unrestricted by copyright?
I need to add some  images to my thesis. I would strongly prefer that these are free (no cost) and not restricted by copyright.  I have used Google Image to find images, I don't know how to determine what the copyright restrictions are, or what license types apply. I will not use them in any published paper, just for my unpublished thesis.
Thanks
P.S. Here are the search options for Google Image:

Depends on the license terms under which your thesis will be distributed and the laws of the country in which you're writing it.

@David Z, Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

The easiest solution (if you had a budget for it) would be to commission an artist.

In addition to the helpful answers below, and the mention of Flickr, there are websites which specialise in copyright-free images. For example, I use Pixabay frequently - all the images there are under Creative Commons. You may be able to use Google to find a similar website which provides the pictures you want.

I know what follows may be considered cocky by some, but It's hard to believe that someone writing a thesis is not able to learn about copyright and licenses, and find resources that fit your needs. Yet it finely demonstrates that degrees tell only a small fraction about overall ability.

@phresnel For my thesis, I had to inquire about the copyright for one single image; so this is not really something that comes up often. Degrees tell only a small fraction about overall ability, indeed. For example, I am not great at knitting.

@luna copyright is what makes creative commons licensing work. They're not copyright free, the copyright holder chooses the terms under which they may be used and picks a liberal set of terms.

@henning: What I mean is that many people mistake degrees with some kind of deity. If there's a Doctor in the room, and a "common" guy, then many ppl will believe the Doctor only, in every aspect. And then, of course, there are degree carriers that build up some form of hubris and infallibility. Met several of those; for example, IT professors questioning my argumentation about clean code (basically, they said "we are a university and do it right", "your practice is pagan").

Could you tell me why does your thesis need generic images (i.e. ones which can be found on the Internet, whether free or not)?

@Piotr Migdal, I'm looking for some images for the introduction, to better illustrate the papers and ideas I cite. Would be ideal to have a better looking.

You can't rely on the options for Google Image search.  Instead, you will have to do additional research for each of the images you find and intend to use.
First, you need to find the original author/creator of that image.  It may or may not be the same as the owner/creator of the web site where you find the image. (They may have copied the image from somewhere else, with or without permission.) You can use Google Image search "search by image" option to find other copies of that same image on other sites.
Second, you need to find the copyright statement for that image on the site of the owner.  In many cases, you'll find a copyright statement as part of the "Terms of Service" for the whole web site.  In other cases, there will be a copyright statement for each and every image.
Third, when in doubt, you need to contact the author/owner and ask for permission to use the image.

If all this seems cumbersome and so non-digital, be aware that copyright law (and intellectual property rights law in general) still lives in the pre-digital age.  Lawyers still send faxes to each other and to the courts. Think about that.

Thanks @MrMeritology. From your comment I can assume that Google Image filters are totally useless. The idea was to use some images from others in order to save some time. If there is no straightforward way to find free scientific images, I might skip images in thesis. Only text in the introduction and discussion. For me is OK, lets see for the committee.

@biotech yes, google filters are completely useless. And also, you may have to cite the image author in your sources, depending on where you are.

What is this thing you call "fax"...?
(just kidding, but that is pretty ridiculous)

This depends highly on your countries laws and regulations.
For example: The German copyright laws has some limitations for the use of works in the area of teaching and research.
With the CC licenses you risk less mistakes. But you have to take care of the correct distribution.

name the author and source if the license contains BY.
don't change the file and only use it in the original composition when license contains ND (no derivate).
don't use media with licenses containing NC (not commercial) in a thesis or paper that contributes to (pending) patents. That could be interpreted to be a commercial use.
[changed:] according to the (IANAL-)comments one can use SA (share alike) licensed material without putting your thesis under the same license

In any case, pages that give information about the media-license are good sources, because you mostly have a clear licensing statement for any file. So you can easily decide whether and how to use it. I doubt that an author will change the license later on. You could use a web preservation repository service like WebCite to create evidence that the file had a specific license when you found and decided to use it.
Suggestions for search:

Wikimedia Commons
Flickr (thanks to Henning for the suggestion)

"be aware to put your thesis under the same license as the used media if their licenses contain SA (share alike)" - I wonder whether this is accurate. Just like a software package can contain single files whose license deviates from the license of the rest of the files in the package, can't a thesis document be subject to license X, with the exception of some graphics depicted in the thesis that are (both originally, and still in the thesis) subject to license Y?

@O. R. Mapper: That's a good point. The sentence I wrote is my understanding of the share alike (SA) property. Maybe someone else can provide a more detailed view on SA property as a comment.

In particular, I could create a graphic on my own, include it in my thesis and declare that particular graphic to be licensed as CC-BY-SA, even though the entirety of my thesis is not. That sounds like it should work, as otherwise, non-CC-BY-SA-licensed "works" (books, websites, ...) could never publish CC-BY-SA-licensed graphics, which probably isn't the case (?) But if that is possible, it sounds reasonable to assume that CC-BY-SA-works that I took from elsewhere could just as well be integrated (and republished as CC-BY-SA) in non-CC-BY-SA-works. IANAL. Maybe warrants a new question.

Case in point: Websites such as Wikimedia Commons could never contain both images subject to the CC-BY-SA license and images subject to the CC-BY-NC-SA license at the same time. (Not to mention other share-alike-licenses with more incompatible other terms.)

Yes, you can use a CC-BY-SA image in eg. a book without it having to be CC-BY-SA itself. The bigger work is what is called an aggregation.  Note that for instance Creative Commons considers that you can use sharealike images in a document without infecting the document. The FSF thinks the document would need to be under such license. Other people consider that in both cases you can include the images. And of course, for legal advice you should consult your lawyer about the specific license, IANAL.

thanks for the helpful comments. I edited the post to reflect your contribution.

Yes, for example in Finland the thesis is under most conditions extempt from copyright entirely. This does not cover third parties and people doing the thesis in industrial settings.

@O.R.Mapper After doing some research my intuition goes the same way, but I am far from being certain (I am not a lawyer). Inspired by these comments I asked it: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/48375/using-images-with-a-copyleft-license-e-g-cc-by-sa-in-slides-or-a-thesis

Flickr makes it very easy to find images that have a "free" license in the sense explained in Andrés answer. These also include beautiful images from public archives, such as the British Library. In contrast to a google image search (see MrMeritology's answer), the author and copyright information on Flickr are reliable. However, one caveat is that the author might change the license and you have no way to prove that the work was "free" when you first used it.
If you are confused whether or not you can reuse a copyrighted image, this flowchart might help.

I wanted a very specific image for my dissertation, and found a simple solution - I drew it myself, and scanned the result. Since I created it, the copyright status was exactly the same as the words I was writing. It did not need any acknowledgement or reference. It cost me a few dollars for materials, and about an hour of my time.

Are you kidding? The images I need are from the papers I cite in the introduction.

No, I'm not kidding. Whether draw-it-yourself works for a specific image depends on the situation. If you need images from existing papers, I don't see any alternative to contacting the copyright holders of those papers to request permission to use those images.

There are a number of sites where you can download images.
For certain sites, attribution isn't required (but usually appreciated). For example:

https://picjumbo.com/
https://pixabay.com/en/
https://stocksnap.io/
http://www.pexels.com/
https://unsplash.com/grid

Flickr (https://www.flickr.com) also offers a great database of free images. You can use the search tool and then filter by copyright types:

Images under "Commercial use & mods allowed" are free but attribution is required. This means you'll have to link to their author and to the License page. if you've modified the image, you also have to specify it
Images under "No known copyright restrictions" are in the public domain or universal commons (CC0 1.0 Universal) and no attribution is required.

May I add to the list of site:
https://free-images.com/
https://imagefree.com/en/
https://www.freepik.com/

In order to use images in your thesis you need to know who made them so that you can properly credit them, regardless of the issue of copyright. Proper accreditation is probably a more significant issue for your thesis than complying with copyright laws since failure to properly credit images including in your thesis is plagarism.
Since you will need to identify the original creator of each piece anyway, I would suggest you rely much more on what you learn through this route than anything Google tells you.

I think, if you guide yourself by the creative commons it could get easier but Im not aware of how your contry takes this online practices so you might want to check that
This is an article that helped me a lot some weeks ago with free photos and images ready to be used, some shared under the creative commons other freely shared by their owners
https://www.shopify.com/blog/17156388-22-awesome-websites-with-stunning-free-stock-images

There are a few sites which allows you to use images copyright free. Just note that you cannot re-sell those images.
Follow this

Another royalty free stock image site is: http://www.sxc.hu/
I would also suggest take pictures of your own. You can pose for yourself or ask family or friend.

I'm not sure OP would be interested in the "pose for yourself" option you mentioned; can you elaborate on how that helps them?

Pose for yourself if a model is required. Your thesis will look much more credible if the pictures are also created by you.

«royalty free» is not what the OP meant. also, this section of the legal information section looks fishy: «Freeimages cannot be held responsible for any copyright violations, and cannot guarantee the legality of the Images stored in its system. If you want to make sure, always contact the photographers.»


text:
How to evaluate a postdoc offer, if I'm not sure I'd be able to do the work?
I've been accepted for a postdoc position but after reading the research project I realised that I barely understand anything, so I'm not sure if I would be able to perform it.
Should I reject the position and inform the PI about it or start the postdoc and try asking other postdocs in the group to help me?

It depends highly on the group, they might give you a guided background. The best would be to express your concerns with your PI to see what background would be required, where are you at, and how long would it take to understand the details.

If you already know how to do something and are certain that you are going to succeed, then it's not "research" ;)

A postdoctoral position is first and foremost advanced training that prepares you to be an independent researcher above and beyond the training you received as a graduate student.  Your postdoctoral training should incorporate material that you are unfamiliar with, and a training plan for you to learn that material.  If you are concerned that you barely understand the research project, I would recommend identifying specific aspects of the project you are unfamiliar with (background literature, methodology, unanswered questions, etc) and talk with the PI about how, if you accepted the position, the lab would set up a specific training plan for you to learn that material.  I would only decline the position if they seem unwilling or unable to provide that training.
Personally, I struggled with the same concern when I started my post-doc, but my postdoctoral PI repeatedly reminded me that she hired me not because of what I already knew, but because she knew I was excited about the field and was confident I could learn. I've been productive thus far, and feel well positioned for the coming job search.  Plus, now I have distinct skill sets from my predoctoral and postdoctoral work, which helps distinguish me from others in the field.


text:
What should I do if, after choosing a Master Thesis topic, I find an existing thesis on it in another language?
I picked a very unique topic for my Masters Thesis, only to find out that there is a Dissertation on the same topic, from 2008, in French. No other books have been published on this topic.
Ugh... I really really wanted to do this. What should I do? Can I do the same topic in English? I can't even translate what the other person wrote.

Unless the research topic is about language, then it wasn't done in French it was just written in French.

Isn't there a way for you to write on the same topic while making a new contribution? Remember, especially for a master's thesis, it's perfectly acceptable to critique or extend existing work. Perhaps there's a flaw with their methodology, or there's something about their theory that doesn't quite hold ... ? Unless the topic is extremely small, there's generally room for more than one voice in the conversation. As long as your work is original and you properly cite the other work, you should be fine.

No other books have been published on this topic. Realize that this is different from saying no other research has been published on this topic.

Do your university rules require you to do a topic that has never been tackled before? From what I have seen, Bachelor's and Master's theses are generally not required to produce any new knowledge, just to show that you are capable of performing certain tasks and applying certain methods and concepts, while the requirement for results to be globally new is only added for doctoral degrees. If that complies with your university's rules, you may still be able to work on your topic.

Check with your advisor before you get too involved. This is a pretty interesting problem.

You can still write on the same topic, you just need to expand the knowledge that's already there and offer some new, original insight to the issue.

How do I offer new insight if I can't speak French? Do I have to go translate it?

Yes. You have to read the literature before you can expand on the knowledge presented there. If you haven't read it, how do you know that they have scoped you? Maybe the paper is only tangentially related to what you were going to do?

There will be undoubtedly, plenty of literature on your topic in English. Don't read the dissertation until much, much later in your thesis. Otherwise you're going to get yourself stuck onto what they did as opposed to developing your own research.

It was not clear to me that whether you know French language or not. If you know the language, so spend some time to read the publication. May be the topic is so similar to yours, but it has a different solution or methodology than the one you have in mind.
A. Change your thesis topic
Talk to your advisor to see whether you can change your thesis topic or not. There may be some regulations in your university which may allow you to change your research topic in such case that happened to you.
B. Work on this topic
You can work on this topic but try to develop a new method to solve the problem, work on other questions related to your topic, apply existing methods you have seen in the literature to solve your question.
If somebody else has worked on the same topic does not really mean that you should not. As an example, many scientists have tried to solve the system of equations of motion, but they have different methods to do so, some go for numerical solutions and some other go for analytical methods and applied mathematics.
Suggestions
So if you think that you still want to work on the same topic, here are some of my suggestions:

Review the literature related to your topic carefully;

Read that similar thesis you have found and the references to which it is referred. If it is in a language which you do not know, you can ask for help from a friend who knows the language or at least take a look at the equations, it's abstract and summaries, graphs, tables and etc.; also, the authors may have published some journal or conference papers after the submission of the thesis. Search for their name in the internet and take a look at their publications. These publications may be in English and help you get familiar with their work.
Try to find books and papers which have worked on the same topic;
Try to find solutions to similar problems to yours, think about whether you can apply their methodology to your own question or not;

Consult your advisor about how you can apply the new methods you have found to your problem. He may advise you that some methods may not lead to a solution and some other have chances to solve it. He may also encourage you to read some papers which you have not seen or found in literature.

Warnings
Here are some warnings about your case which come to my mind;

Do not be upset and control your emotions; you are a researcher and research is not always an easy process. Do not become too angry or too upset. If you think you have problems on this, it will be a good idea to consult a doctor about it.
Please do not think that the solution or methodology which is presented in that thesis is the only way to solve the problem, free your mind and precisely search and think for newer and innovative solutions;
Do not loose time, as a student you may not have unlimited amount of time to spend on your research; based on the regulations of your university you may have a year or two to submit your final report;

If you feel that you have to change your topic, consult your advisor, find a better topic and change your topic;
If you think that you found a newer methodology to solve your problem, work on it, but if you see that you are wasting your time on this newer method, do not stop; consult with your advisor, look for another solution, read more papers; don't stop, move forward.


text:
How to decide whether to publish masters project in computer science alone or with supervisor?
I am working on my Master CS project. I would like to have this published as article before my Master ends.
Now I see 2 options:

I try to get it accepted and published at my own (not a affiliated with my university/supervisor, more as a independent scholar). I will use a ghostwriter (Master CS, native English) to get the English correctly. In this way I will be the only writer.
I will try to get my supervisor on board (eg. for advice/editing). This will result in a paper with at least 2 writers.

What are the pro/cons of each choice? Is it worth to get it accepted alone? Does it happen more frequently that students try to get its work accepted prior to finalizing the master program?
If you try to get your supervisor as second writer, does this not looks like 'student did research but supervisor wrote the article?'.

Has the supervisor contributed to the MSc project (original idea, feedback, solving problems, providing solutions when you were stuck etc) enough to be a co-author on you paper? If yes, you cannot just leave him out.

As a master student, or even Ph.D. student, there is nothing wrong on writing a paper with your supervisor(s). In fact, it shows your group work ethics. You should be delighted an experienced academic put his/her name next to yours on a publication. It adds value to the publication, because your supervisor is more well known than you and others will discover your publication faster.
You should think about being an independent researcher; at the later stages of the research (e.g., as a postdoc or an academic).

You did the work at the university, so you must publish as affiliated with the university.  To do otherwise would be straight-up lying.
Likewise, your advisor should almost certainly be a co-author, unless they truly contributed almost nothing to the work and your field has very tight authorship guidelines.  If you avoid including a person who should be a co-author, that is a serious academic offense.
These offenses will be compounded by the fact that this is your Masters project, and so the thesis document will likely be readily accessible by anybody on the internet, with essentially the same content and making it blatantly obvious what you have done.


text:
Writing a paper from Master thesis, but not sure how to organize the paper or what to include in it
I finished my master thesis and my advisor asked me if I would like to publish a paper on it. Being my first paper, I was very excited when he first told me, so I immediately started reading the journal rules about how to write it properly.
Now I am at the point in which I should start writing, but I actually do not know how to organize things. I asked my advisor and he said it should be a sort of summarisation of the thesis, but I fear some contents of the thesis, that were new to me at the beginning, might be taken for granted from research people and so I will actually write obvious things.
Also, I have some contents which, I think, are quite interesting in the sense that I saw only one other paper using some of these concept, but without providing any information about the set-up of the code, which is something I would like to add since I feel it might be useful to have an example on how to do it, especially if you are at the beginning as I was when I started the thesis. Still, the idea is not new. So, how to deal with this? My feeling at the moment is that the paper does not worth the effort.

How much of the background stuff to include might depend on your field. What field are you in?

Aerospace engineering

It is a good idea to edit that into the question for better visibility. I am not familiar with your field, but in my field (math), I would advise that you only include those parts of the thesis that are actually new knowledge, together with sufficient background for those things to make sense. Better a shorter paper that is more to the point than one that gets rejected for containing too much "trivial" stuff. A possible exception to this can be including specific examples though.

You are a master's student. Your advisor presumably will help you edit your paper. Write your paper up, err on the side of including more detail, not less. Show it to your advisor. If you are including stuff that is too trivial, he will surely tell you.

You could structure your material as follows. To my perception (at least in computer science) this is more or less standard structure.

Introduction: The bigger picture in which your approach fits in: the problem you are trying to solve. A short description that guides the reader from the more general to the more specific issue.
You could have an extra section regarding some preliminary concepts that are crucial to understanding your work. The nice thing with journals is that you do not have the space restrictions that you have in conferences, and thus you can expand a little.
Related work: Attempts that already exist in the literature, and how you compare with them. Why your solution would be an advance in the state-of-the-art, and under which conditions.
Description of your work: as detailed and as formal you can be regarding e.g. a system architecture, an algorithm, the core idea of the paper.
Performance measurements. A comparison to "competing" approaches in terms of performance.
Optionally, a discussion section, where you discuss about your experiments. This could be merged in the previous section.
Conclusions and future work. A section where you provide your most important findings and give directions towards which your work can be expanded.

Of course, the above are merely indicative and do not apply to all cases. Personally, this is how would start drafting a new journal publication.

My feeling at the moment is that the paper does not worth the effort.

It is certainly worth the effort. Why not? Even if the idea is not new, your paper would be a study on how your approach performs in certain conditions.
Funny as it may be, this presentation gives some quality advice: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/giving-a-talk/writing-a-paper-slides.pdf


text:
How can regular group/lab meetings promote a culture of learning?
We are a small group of researchers and we meet 6 times a year as a whole group. During these meetings, lab members talk about the current status of their projects. However, from my point of view, these presentations are always a bit too shiny or perfect, instead of talking about one's own insecurities (e.g. about the methodology used) or work in progress. Like this, we get to know what others currently are working on, but there is little exchange and we can hardly benefit from the knowledge and skills of the others.
I assume one option would be to meet more often, and of course, it is good to set a good example and talk about one's own project in a transparent manner. But what other features of a regular lab meeting could promote a culture of learning, where participants present and share their ideas openly and courageously? Does it need a certain structure or, on the contrary, just as little structure as possible?

My lab meets every week. Is six times a year a common schedule? That frequency seems more typical for a loose research collecting that spans multiple institutions than a lab.

"During these meetings, lab members talk about the current status of their projects." - are you sure that everyone is interested in everyone else's work? If that's not the case, these meetings are very annoying for people without an interest to a particular topic.
Actually, the entire thing is overrated and misevaluated. I understand that sometimes (quite often) researchers want to discuss their problems with other people. For instance, you want an advice from someone who's an expert in A and so you find such an expert and ask your questions on A. In doing so, you address two things: (1) you get quality feedback because that person is an expert, and (2) you make sure that the topic of your question (A) is interesting to that person.
Both of these things might not work if you're doing this via group meetings. There might be no experts in A among the attendants of the meeting, and also, people might be uninterested in what you're talking about, so it becomes a waste of time for both sides.
That was about presenting your work at group meetings for the purpose of learning. Another thing is when you use a group meeting to practice a talk. In doing so, one should realize that they are actually asking for a favor of giving feedback from everyone else, not blessing them with your infinite shiny knowledge. So the speaker is not supposed to await questions from the audience but conversely, ask the listeners whether this and that was clear, if something could be explained better and so on.
It's not easy to do, actually. When I started doing this, I got very little feedback because not everyone was understanding what did I want from them. Yet, after a few times I could see benefits for myself and my presentations.
Bottom line: rather often group meeting become a venue for "boasting" about your scientific results, and they really should not be. Ask yourself if this is really the case, and in case of doubts, discuss it with the other group members.

People who have no interest in the science done by others in their group are either in the wrong group or are doing science wrong, in my opinion. Good scientists are balanced, broad of interest and collegial. People who join my group as trainees will get a training with those characteristic as educational aims. Those who join as employees will be expected to try to live up to that as part of their job.  The best ideas about something don't always come from someone who is an expert in A, and you don't always know that A is what you need until someone less connected suggests it.

I applaud you for desiring an increased level of engagement and 'realness' in your meetings. In addition to meeting more frequently, I recommend structuring part of your meetings from a formative feedback perspective in which all participants are provided a natural avenue to voice their struggles/concerns in a way that fosters growth instead of judgement.
As one example, you could ask every participant to share their greatest successes experienced since the last meeting and the greatest challenges faced since the last meeting. Or, you could ask each participant to share what 'big questions' the group could ponder or ask participants to all share their most substantial unanswered questions.

Group meetings are an important and useful tool in academia, and you're right to try and improve yours. I think you've already hit on two key points - meeting more frequently, and modelling good behaviour, and I'll add a third.

If your group meets every two months, there's a long time for everyone to forget what you're working on. Weekly meetings can be effective because they get built into the rhythm of the week, but some people find them too much. However, I would say a weekly meeting where one person presents is better than meetings every two months where everyone presents. We have a weekly meeting slot, and people volunteer to talk each week, without a rigid structure. Some weeks we cancel the meeting, if there is another deadline looming. And some weeks we start chatting with no agenda, and end up continuing for hours discussing an interesting problem.

Modelling good behaviour is key - allow yourself to be vulnerable, ask for advice, show results which are not perfect but for which you need the insight of others. It's difficult to tell people they need to ask for help, but if you ask for their help, they will be less reticent to come to you. Explicitly ask for advice on future directions, conferences to present at, journals to publish in etc.

You also need everyone in the group to take the meetings seriously, especially the group leader (which may or may not be you - I'm not sure!). This can be tricky with those who believe they are too busy or too infallible to need to discuss their work. We managed to get a group meeting going over the pandemic by pointing out the lack of informal interactions, and I hope it continues when we are back in person. This might still be a reasonable excuse where you are!

Some more ideas for ways to use a group meeting:

Discuss a new paper in your field, one that you don't understand or where you think the results are particularly important or controversial.
Invite someone from outside the group to discuss their work informally, or invite an outside expert to discuss your work.
Talk practice before a big conference - after the talk, provide detailed feedback on the presentation, speaking style, figure clarity etc.

I once tried to bring such group meetings in an academic group I was affiliated to and unfortunately I failed to. I should mention that at that time I had very little experience in research and in industry. The people attending the group were first or second year PhD students or masters students. Each of the students had their own issues and concerns which were more important than attending a research group study. One had to do course work and did not have time to read papers for the next session. The other was busy with providing proposals to receive scholarships for their studies. The other was under pressure to submit a paper in a deadline. So everyone has their own concerns which may prevent them from focusing on a voluntary group meeting.
Based on my experience, these may help a group study to succeed. These should not be relevant to your seniority level or research group but reading these may help you shape your group:

Group members can set mutual interest goals for their meetings. Just meeting to read a paper may not encourage everyone to spend sometime for a voluntary work. But, if they feel that if they read that paper and do some research, program some codes, etc and the result will be some sort of report, publications or a paper, which will benefit their resume; this may help them pay more attention to the group studies.

This may even appear by exchange of skills. If they feel that they do not receive sufficient information from the group, they may pay less attention to it. But if they feel that if they teach something to the group, they will learn something new in return, this may encourage them to actively participate in it.

Having a very big goal may not encourage group members to participate. For instance, if you have a goal to publish in a high impact journal, some group members may have weaker resumes, some other may not have experience of group work to publish, some may feel discouraged that they can not understand study materials the same as the senior members. So breakdown the hard tasks like reading a tough paper, publishing to journal or conference, reading a book, developing a code, etc to smaller tasks and assign them wisely to group members based on their understandings and seniority. Make them feel motivated and feel they have something valuable which is needed by group.

Do not set tough regulations. Be flexible on the schedules, task achievements, members problems, etc. If somebody has lower interest in a topic, be flexible to change as much as possible or give them time to find and bring topics they like to the group.

Do not act like a boss with 'must' keyword! This is bad trap a group organizer may fall into. More senior and established people like post-docs and professors may not have this problem but when it comes to fresh researchers, they 'may' show such behaviors which may be discouraging to the other mates. Choosing a group leader who is more appreciated by the members also helps. For instance first year students may not feel so responsible to a student at their own level but they may respect a postdoc more.

Use technology as much as possible. There are very good online tools and software which may help you shape the group. Define tasks. Assign mates to each task. Share files and topics. These tools may increase group mates participation and their courage to contribute to the group.

Please note that I am writing this answer based on my experience with research students. So, for a group of senior researchers and professors, the environment may be much different. Their mutual goal may be advising junior students, applying for funding and writing papers instead of learning new skills and topics. So, each group may have his own problems and interests and you should adjust group with his own specific interests.

I've met two entirely different types of talks at group meetings:

Talks where the speaker presents their work: besides providing an overview to everyone what is going on where in the group, here the audience may provide guidance to the speaker, but they usually don't learn that much for themselves.
In te context of thesis research (which has an element of an exam, or really whenever the speaker expects to be judged on the content they present), these talks may be prone to be very polished in terms of showing results without discussing obstacles.
You can encourage the guidance to the speaker element e.g. by asking all speakers to include not only a summary of what they did but also a slide with questions to the audience (I've been to a small conference that did this, and it was rewarded by very good discussion.)
Talks where the speaker is asked to teach a topic. Here obviously the goal is that the audience learns something specific from the speaker.
I've met this in annual retreats or as the need arose rather than in the regular group meetings - but there really isn't any reason not to have such talks also in normal group meetings.

I'd say if you want to have a talk of type 2, you'll need to explicitly state this - otherwise people will assume you want a talk of type 1.

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