text:
In general, who can apply for research grants (in Europe)?
Who can apply for research grants in Europe? Are there some degree requirements? Can students (undergraduate/graduate) apply for research grants? I know that the answer surely depends on the institution giving the grant, but I assume there are some general requirements, formal or informal. If you know (or even better, are) a student who has received a research grant, please tell how difficult it was. To clarify, I'm not asking about funding to do some degree, but funding to establish new research projects.

Very related to this: http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/9611/2700

Rules will very strongly depend on the funding institution you're applying to, and even on the details of the grant program. Eligibility criteria are listed in each funding program, so go check up those programs that are of interest to you. Even restricting to “in Europe” doesn't help much, because Europe is a large continent with very heterogeneous research (and funding) institutions.
Regarding students (undergraduate or graduate), the only types of grants I can think of are:

grants to fund your degree; for example, getting a fellowship that would fund you during your PhD
grants that encourage international collaboration and exchange; e.g., the Chateaubriand fellowship to spend some months in a French lab, or JSPS fellowship for short stays in Japan.

A student is expected to devote his efforts to the project for which he is employed, not to bid for new research projects on their own. Thus, I don't think you can get funding for a new research project of your own, until you are an independent researcher.

Institutions
Most grant programs target institutions - while a grant proposal will generally be prepared by a particular principal investigator (and possibly their team) according to their individual research experience and research goals, and the grant evaluation might place a large importance on their CV and individual publication history, in these programs the grant application has to be submitted by a qualified institution, and the grant will be awarded to that institution, not to an individual.
Furthermore, many grant programs require multiple institutions to apply - e.g. Horizon 2020 calls tend to require consortiums representing multiple EU countries; various grants for applied research require a participation of both a research institution and an industry partner, etc.
Individual researchers
There are some types of grants that are targeted at individual researchers, e.g. European Research Council or some post-doc programs. However, the general assumption is that the doctor's degree is the basic qualification showing that someone is qualified to do independent unsupervised research. The grants tend to be quite competitive, so a PhD degree by itself is nowhere near sufficient, but it's a basic 'table stakes' requirement that's mandatory in almost all (or all?) research grant programs.


text:
What are some strategies for dealing with feedback from multiple people?
It can be difficult to sort through feedback on a paper/chapter when you have feedback from multiple collaborators. Sometimes collaborators might have a conflicting point of view, or making all of the improvements suggested by each would make the paper far too large.
What are some strategies on working through this feedback efficiently? Should you fully address each collaborator's comments one by one, attempt to merge all the comments together before editing the manuscript, or take some sort of hybrid approach?

It's a tricky question and I think the best strategy will ultimately vary from person to person. Nevertheless I have two concrete suggestions that has helped me a lot throughout the writing phases of my manuscripts and thesis.

Get feedback in "rounds" instead of "continuously". When you have a version of the text on which you want feedback, send that to all involved parties at once. That prevents people commenting on each others suggestions and making a mess out of everything in the markup.
Once you have feedback from multiple people, you can iteratively go through the feedback and add/ignore the changes on the master document. This is rather contradictory to the accept/reject change function on MS Word, but in my experience that's not really sustainable when you have a lot of cooks making a single soup.
After the "round" is done, remove most (if not all) markup from people, have a new version of the document with whatever else you want to add/remove. If more feedback is needed have a new round.
If there are co-authors who are more superior to you in the academic ladder and you are concerned about how to handle any contradictory/problematic comments, define one of your superiors to be the "alpha" and ask that persons help to try and settle disputes. It should be relatively easy in some fields where the last author usually has the ultimate responsibility for the project.
Alternatively, if you have a supervisor/mentor who's gonna be a co-author but not the last; you can try to reason with that person to settle disputes. I have ended up in that situation where one of our co-authors decided to contradict with her own comments from before, and had these endless iterations of comments and changes. When I couldn't take it anymore, I talked to my supervisor and which point he took over the reigns and defined a new, final version prior to submission on which he asked all co-authors to have their final remarks.

It might appear as a bit totalitarian solution, but at that point the alternative was me completely dropping the project based on this one co-authors unexplainable and unbearable behavior.

I'm curious, in which fields is the last author the most important? In the ones where the order is relevant, it is always the first; the last author being either last, or second.

@Davidmh Hard to give an exhaustive list, i'd say medical, biological and chemical sciences for sure.  Also take a look at this question

I got privileged to work with some collaborators (some of them, I didn't get chance to meet personally). I got some good quick results instead of waiting for next round. Here is one strategic plan as suggested by one of my superior collaborators:

Keep all the conversation in a single thread.
After getting response from one of the team (it is obvious that all the team members are busy with their academic work, they are really helpful to make your paper one level up), start working on it. Now, there is an issue how to deal with title of the manuscript. I followed V.round-name.iteration, thus it would be like V.2.1.
Update all members when you have finished your task. Highlight the updated section or text. If you have something to say, comment it on the thread or in the manuscript clearly. Make your own identity while commenting.
If you have any ambiguity, then discuss with all the team member very preciously. You may be curious to know that why other team members are not responding! They are listening, they will respond when they feel that their time has come to make it another level up.
A good collaboration does not always mean to write the whole work in hand by the all team members, you have to take charge of that, a simple comment from a experienced person can be helpful to get you paper accepted.
If you have any contradictory statement made by others, then try to digest it, if not, then send them to decide what to do. But do not send as it is, make some own comments, then only the team will realize that you are working instead of just paper published.
Do not wait for receiving response from all members. That will kill your time. Work with the response received from atleast one of the individual.

While your question seems to be on-topic, since it is formulated in the context of academic activities, I doubt that there exist any domain-specific strategies beyond general ones to handle feedback from people (or, generalizing, processing information streams) via analysis and synthesis.
Having said that, I think that there are various possibilities in dealing with feedback from multiple people, but they all stem from general main problem of handling conflicting requirements (obvious edge cases of integrating non-conflicting requirements are rather trivial and are solved by merging information, based on all feedback, provided each piece increases the value of the target artifact).
The above-mentioned possibilities and corresponding strategies IMHO can be based on different perspectives, from philosophical (i.e., thesis, antithesis, synthesis) and other high-level approaches (i.e., Collaborative Information Synthesis) to the ones, based on business practices (i.e., business requirements analysis, including impact, scenario and stakeholders analysis) and software engineering practices (i.e., trade-off analysis) to more technical, such as multiple-criteria decision analysis (the latter approach is likely an overkill for handling traditional academic feedback, but included here for completeness; plus, it might be used for creating automated feedback systems).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What do these mysterious numbers in the subject line of arXiv mailing list emails mean?
Every day I receive the latest arXiv abstracts via email, with subject lines such as
physics daily Subj-class mailing a4 1
physics daily Subj-class mailing 124 1
physics daily Subj-class mailing 490 1
With new email clients that create "conversations" from an email chain based on the subject line, the disorderly nature of the subject lines makes it a pain to sift through the last week's abstracts if I haven't kept myself up to date.
What do a4, 124, and 490 mean? These identifiers are not unique to each day's listings, but I cannot spot a correlation between them and the date of the email. Is there some hidden way to either include the date in the subject header, or remove these seemingly random strings?

Have you ever contacted the arxiv support to ask your question?

@EnthusiasticStudent Not yet. I thought I'd make sure as best I can that the answer is indeed a mystery before I email the (busy!) arXiv admins. If the bounty expires un-answered then I will email them.

You may not believe, but I read almost every page of the help of the site, but I could not find any answer relevant to your question.

As a data point, I subscribe to one category (cs.CG), and I have only seen the numbers 2, 4, 8, and 10. So they seem to be in a base > 10 (hexadecimal?), and somehow related to powers of 2.

@Mangara mine quite does not look so: math daily Subj-class mailing 100020 26

@tohecz While that isn't a power of two, it is the sum of two powers of two: 2^20 and 2^5. So perhaps it's a bit mask?

And interpreted as a hexadecimal encoding of a bit vector, the OP's numbers all have three bits set.

I have emailed help@arXiv. I'll answer the question myself if there is a useful response.

Straight from the horse's mouth: there is no fix, but an update is on the list of things that "will be done when they're done".

You may safely ignore the numbers after the text "class mailing" as
  they are used for internal audit code and essentially meaningless from
  a user perspective.
We do have plans to update the mailing code at some stage, but the
  time-line is unclear due to limited developer time.

Is this from a public page on arXiv.org?

@episanty No. Once it was obvious no one here knew I emailed help@arXiv, this was their response.

They look like hexadecimal. So they may be the beginning of a hash or UUID. This would be similar to what git uses to refer to specific versions in a repository. If this is the case, they are effectively random and you aren't going to find any correlation with the outside world (which is the point).

Why was this answer so downvoted. As it turns out this was actually fairly close to the answer in that there is no usable correlation and the only way to get an answer, it appears was to mail the sysadmins, which the author should have done in the first place, and therefor it appears he made no 'real' research effort originally. I'm just curious.

@CGCampbell Perhaps in hindsight the downvoting is a little perverse, given that it was pretty close to the answer of the first of my two questions. But an objective question demands an authoritative answer, not an obvious piece of guesswork (this answer would have been more appropriate as a comment), so I do still feel that it is justified. If you read the comments to the original question, you'll see that I asked here first in case I could avoid bothering the arXiv admins. Not a lack of research effort - just respect for others' time.

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


text:
How to apply for a research internship at the master's level?
I'm a master's student doing research in the field of the cognitive psychology of language and I would like to do an unpaid 4-month research internship in a different university. I am preparing cover letters to send to different professors within whose projects I would like to work. I want to include in my cover letter a description of what I plan to do during my short internship, so I want to know what research interns usually do. How can they contribute to an existing research project?  Also, can I say that I want to learn how to use a specific research technique (like for example a neuroimaging technique) even if I have no experience with it?
Do you have any general advice on how to best ask a professor to accept me as an intern within their research project?

Say something along this line: I would like to learn from and contribute to your research project.

Networking is key--check out F'x's answer to this question. Find people in your university who are willing to recommend you to the other researchers in the field, whom you would like to work with. Take advantage of the connections your faculty members have developed.
Then write a killer cover letter. aeismail notes that a compelling 'cover letter' email was the only reason he even considered an individual for a research internship. Research the PI and tailor your letter to his/her interests and current project.

You need to have an insatiable hunger for learning and adding knowledge or contributing to the society. If you have bad grades, you need to present yourself well and prove to your professors that you've got more that good grades to offer. Be inspired and work your way to the top without getting gunned down by pressure.


text:
Math Professors -- On average, how many hours per week do you think is required to gain tenure?
I have a question particularly for the math professors here. I just finished my second year as a PhD student at a top30 University, passed all my qualifying exams, and I've begun working with an adviser in an area I'm excited about. Since the end of the Spring semester I've done a LOT of thinking, and I'm not sure academia is for me. The main issue is my perception of the time that will be required (in terms of hours per week) to get tenure. I have a wife and kids, and I just can't sacrifice the time spent with them, even if it means giving up something I love. I figure I could put in 40-45 hours a week, but then I need to be home. My first year of grad school, I put in 60-70 hours a week, and I certainly never want to go back to that. This last year, I've kept it between 40-50, and that seems about right for work/life balance.
So my question is this... am I correct in ruling Academia out for this reason? I had considering smaller colleges, but I'm looking to earn at least $60k and from what research I've done, I won't make that much.
My next question involves research outside Academia. Is there any place for research in combinatorics, asymptotics, probability, and analysis of algorithms outside of Academia, where the work-culture is a typical 40 hour workweek? I see a lot of research in other areas of mathematics that I'm not interested in (PDE's, Scientific/Engineering, Number Theory) -- but not really what I'm interested in.
So with all that, it seems to me that I'm not even sure why I would get a PhD anymore, other than it might open doors, but it's hard to stay motivated when there is no clear goal, or thing to work towards. My current thinking is just take some CS courses and learn some programming languages, get an internship next summer and perhaps leave with a masters after a year or so unless I can think of a very good reason to stay.
Any advice is appreciated!!

If you're not sure academia is for you, it probably isn't.  Yes, there is industrial research in the aras you're interested in — for example, at Google and Micosoft — but my impression is that research is what takes >40 hours per week, not just academia.

In addition to my other comments below, I'd strongly second @JeffE's observation.

This question is cross posted on MO which is on hold.

I've said this in another thread: if you are outstanding and efficient, you can do the work required in a 40-hour workweek.
An electrical engineering professor I know got through graduate school at MIT working 9-5 days with a wife and three kids (all born during school), and he was a shoo-in for tenure (and received it).  But, when he was at work, he was at work--I never once saw him out of work-mode during the regular day, and he put us graduate students to shame with his work ethic.  His efficiency and focus puts him over the top.  I know I couldn't be that efficient every day, but he makes it a priority to do the best he can at his job (which he loves) and also for his family, and he's figured out how to do it within the confines of a typical working week.  Granted, he is also extremely smart, but I believe his efficiency is as much responsible for his success as his brains.

First, I think it might be a slightly dangerous misconception about extra-academic research or work supposedly being neatly contained in 9-to-5.
Second, yes, efficiency and focus matter a great deal, in any case. Perhaps harder to be efficient and focused if one's motivation or interest is compromised, e.g., by time conflicts, thus making the problem worse.
But is it necessary or possible to "separate" research thinking from everything else? At least for many mathematicians of my acquaintance, it is not only possible to keep a part of one's mind working, if quietly, on an issue, but it is necessary, if not quite inescapable. Indeed, I would tend to claim that entirely putting an issue out of one's mind for 16 hours then necessitates considerable "recover and restart" time when one tries to re-engage. Thus, deliberately putting work out of one's mind entirely can have a further, partly un-necessary, effect, of reducing the effective workday by another hour or two, and having that unpleasant restarting to "look forward to" each day. Obviously this reduces one's effective competence as well as happiness if it happens.
I might recommend thinking more how to integrate a work-life and family-life, rather than about how to control or contain one or the other. Conceivably it will become clearer to you that very many of the "long" weeks people spend in grad school are spent fairly ineffectively and needlessly unpleasantly, not just taking up time, but dragging one down psychologically, and producing a state incompatible with family-life, for example. But if/when one becomes more effective at the enterprise, it may be less unpleasant and less an obstruction to the rest of life, apart from literal hour-counting.

+1. But I don't think hour counting is so bad; it just seems that many have trouble being honest about the hours they're counting. When my friends tell me they spend 70 hours a week on their PhD work, I know that's shorthand for "I spend 20-30 hours a week in the same physical location as my job, reading the newspaper and playing scrabble on my phone."


text:
Research internships at universities and funding
I'm going to graduate next summer from my bachelors. Before pursuing a masters program, I'd like to get to know research groups at different universities. Some universities seem to offer some kind of internship programs but I couldn't find any clear information.
How does it generally work? Can one do 6 months or a year of research at another university between bachelors and masters? Does it cost money and where can one find funding?


text:
How to tell my advisor I don't want to stay in academia
I don't want to stay in academia after finishing my PhD. My current research field is not exciting to me anymore, but also I am too old to change fields. Although my research and my interest were so far quite theoretically focussed, I would like to find a more applied job in R&D in a big prestigeous company, helping improving future technologies.
Now: How do I tell my supervisor? I want to avoid leaving the impression I think our research field is boring.
My supervisor tries already finding Postdoc positions for me, and probably thinks I'm quite qualified for staying in academia. So I fear to be disappointing.

I suggest “I don’t want to stay in academia.”

If you find a Job at a "big prestigeous company", that would be considered a plus for your advisor in some fields. Also JeffE's comment.

I wouldn't consider anyone "too old to change fields" unless they are near death, but if you'd rather not stay in academia, you don't need to worry or feel bad about it.

@JeffE That part is totally clear to me. I'm just worried what to say if my advisor asks me why.

@David Not in our field

If you don't want to say "That stuff bores me", say "I am no longer excited about my research", which in itself is sufficient reason not to do it, imho.

@jjdb just say what you said in the question: "I want to do more applied research in industry"

@jjdb: If he asks you why, just tell him why.  If he's disappointed or insulted by your change of interests, that's his problem, not yours.

How do I tell my supervisor? I want to avoid leaving the impression I think our research field is boring.

The other answers are already very good. You don't have a specifically academic problem, yours is a communication strategy issue.

be honest: in your specific case, tell your advisor as soon as possible in order to avoid a situation when too individuals want/wish each other only good and due to a misalignment it ends up in a clash;
focus on the positive side: Communicate that you are motivated to go for an industry position. It's easier than to focus on why you don't want to stay in academia.

There are always two sides of a coin. Your question sounds as if you wanted to avoid something (staying in academia) and that is always difficult to communicate, since it pushes you to defend your decision. Try to formulate it as if you were positively pulled to somewhere else. Then it's not you who is on defense, you took the active part in the conversation and usually it will be the other party to defend their position why not to do something (going to industry) is a bad move. As pointed out by others, you own a decision to do something (subjective, hence any reason is good enough), but there usually arises a need to explain why you don't want to go the default route (calls for more objective arguments, which are much harder to formulate). Your motivation for being pulled somewhere can stay vague, I wouldn't even hesitate to invoke emotions, such as I feel like I would like such a job and want to give it a try.

+1 for "running toward industry" instead of "running away from academia"

Different fields have very different attitudes about academia vs industry. In computer science, for example, research jobs in industry have a lot of respect (and pay incredibly well). Moreover, given how few academic jobs there are out there, it would be foolish not to look for opportunities wherever you can find them.
You don't need to go into academia just because your advisor thinks you should. And you definitely should not take a job that you're not interested in pursuing. As an advisor, I'm happy when my students get good jobs anywhere, and I'd imagine that your supervisor would be that way too.
Most likely your advisor is in "default mode" assuming that you'll continue in academia. If you were to tell him/her that you'd like to explore other options, I wouldn't be surprised if he/she had good contacts to help you find good industrial jobs.

Whatever you are going to do after PhD is your business. You own the decision. Nobody else does.
You want to avoid leaving the impression your research field is boring, then don't say it that way.
Tell him it is your will to go to industry. It is your future at stake.
You would like to find a more applied job in R&D in a big prestigious company, helping improving future technologies. This is good enough reason to go to industry. Tell him that. If he disagrees, ask him why.
If he had the impression that you are interested in staying in academia, it's time to tell him the truth. Honesty is the best policy. Tell him you will be much happier if you work in industry.
Be honest. Be frank. Be polite. He is your advisor after all. If he disagrees with you. let him convince you otherwise. Listen to him. He would provide the opinions from his perspective.
Use his advice as the opinion from your advisor (the person who advises you).
Then, make your own decision.
The most important thing for you right now is to find a job to do whatever you want to do.

The only way to mention it is to go ahead and actually discuss it with your advisor frankly. You should be prepared to explain why you don't want to go into academia.
However, it may just be the case that your professor assumes you want to go into academia because you haven't told him otherwise! It's quite possible that if you mentioned wanting to go down an alternate career path, he'd help with that, too. (Although that does depend on your advisor.)
You may also need to have this conversation more than once. I've known a few fellow graduate students who have had that issue with their advisors not "getting the hint" and continuing to recommend academic positions, even after they've moved on!

To be completely honest, I faced a similar situation towards the end of my PhD - I wasn't exactly bored with the research field but simply felt I should try out the non-academia. And I am glad I took that decision. But beware: there is a definite getting-used-to phase wherein you need to come to terms with your ego satisfaction etc. I also know of instances where people have gone back to academics after a 2-year stint at the industry. My 2 cents will be to pitch your am-getting-bored-of-this-stuff down and promote a wanna-try-this-out-too.
HTH!


text:
How does one try to make a journal cover?
Though fewer and fewer scientists actually read dead-tree editions of journals, being featured on a journal cover is still a nice way to highlight your paper to a large community, and is usually considered a great recognition of one’s work. So, how does one go about getting on a journal cover? If you feel you have extraordinarily attractive graphics, do you submit them for consideration to the editor? Or is it useless, and should only be done when explicitly asked (or suggested) by the editor?

I emailed the editor and suggested I had a beautiful and relevant graphic for a special issue. That worked.
Edit: Image attached. Also, note that I did go about it incorrectly, but it worked anyway. I emailed the editors when I submitted my paper. I should have waited until it was accepted.

I can't believe nobody else has been curious enough to ask - please tell me what your figure is.

The Pine Island Glacier ice shelf flows in gray from the top of the image. Ocean waters are shown in color, with blue cold and red warm, derived from LandSat ETM+ thermal infrared sensor. Sea ice (in gray) floats in and around Pine Island Bay. Warm waters are flowing out from under the ice shelf, directed by sub-shelf conduits seen as surface lineations in the ice, and the shear margins of the shelf. More details here http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2012AoG60A062

Wow, thank you for assuaging my curiosity. Now I understand why you're wrapped up all warm!

Usually the journals (at least with my very recent publication with Nature Publishing Group) ask for a potential journal cover upon notification of your manuscript's acceptance.

Pay the color charges. A lot of journal covers come directly from figures in an article. If you go out of your way to avoid paying color charges, you will never have a cover worthy figure. You will, however, have a lot more grant money.

In my field (chemistry), most journals follow the “free color online, pay for print” model, and some actually offer fully free color figures.


text:
Favoring citations in the same journal
I have once, some time ago, received a rejection notice in which the journal editor made what I thought was a peculiar comment. The reviewers all found that the work was good, but one emitted a doubt that I had chosen the right journal for it, saying the paper might not appeal to the broad readership of the journal (it was a general physics journal). So far, nothing out of the ordinary.
However, the editor indicated that his judgment to reject the paper was based on the fact that very few of the citations in the manuscript actually referred to the journal I had submitted it to. (Like, 2 citations out of 35. Some of the other citations were to other general physics journals, some to more specific journals.)
Back then, this looked very weird to me. To some extent, it could be interpreted as a push by the editor to increase self-citation of his journal. It has never occurred to me since.
Is it common practice? When does it become ethically wrong?

possible duplicate of Ethics of a journal requiring that submissions cite existing articles in the journal

Answering as editor of a journal (albeit not in Physics) I have never heard of such comments. It seems misdirected. The one possible and reasonable (in some sense of the word) reason for it might be that the editor considers the journal so specialized that most relevant literature in the field would be published in the same journal. As a result, one could conclude that if the manuscript lacks references to papers in the same journal it is peripheral to the field. I am by no means suggesting that this would be a good way to make such assertions.
Sometimes, and I am now speaking in my experience as an author, I have felt that such comments are excuses for other reasons to reject the paper. Without seeming too paranoid, I think this can be the result of a rash decision by the editor based on confidential comments by a reviewer but which cannot easily be conveyed. As an editor, I see different comments from reviewers which almost say that I (as an editor) would essentially be stupid if I did not reject the paper and where it seems clear some personal reason rather than scientific arguments are the basis for the judgement. What I am trying to say is that there may be reasons that are far from clear as to why you receive such comments. Unfortunately there is not much one can do about it unless you feel comfortable asking the editor to provide some background for why? I think such a question is reasonable, if for no other reason than to avoid "burdening" the journal with "off topic" questions in the future (quotations meant from journal/editor perspective).

It is not unheard of. For a journal that I submit regularly to the instructions for authors state

Given that the Journal has been in existence for over 80 years and has
  published of the order of 35,000 papers on a wide variety of
  acoustical topics over its lifetime, the absence of any references to
  previously published papers in the Journal raises a flag signaling the
  possibility that the paper lies outside the de facto scope of the
  Journal

I think it really is a scope question and not a self citation question. That said, the handling editors of this journal often alert authors during the later stages of review of potentially relevant in press publications within the journal. Most have been relevant and I am happy to add the sentence or two to the background, but I also think of it as a clear attempt at increasing self citation counts.

I don't know why but when I read that quote I heard it in Prof. Snape's voice.


text:
Request for high res figures: what should I be mindful of?
A researcher in my field has written to ask me high resolution files for 5 figures from 3 different papers of mine. He states:

Currently I am revising one review article where I have used several figures from some of your excellent papers. Due to the editor and the reviewer ask me to provide them with high qualities.

I see no problem in sending him the figures in high resolution. One thing is worrying me slightly: if you write a review with 5 figures from someone else, it's either a very long review, or you may simply not be the right person to write it, it seems to me. Should I be worried about plagiarism?
So, when I write him back, and presumably send him the request files, what should I be mindful of? I see the following (nonexclusive) options:

Ask to know a little more about this review.
Give him links to my few very recent articles related to this topic, trying to make sure he's not forgetting anything relevant (some papers are only a few weeks old, so it is understandable that they may not have appeared on his radar yet).
insert here others options I haven't thought of

What I will definitely do anyway:

Ask him to send me the review once it's published.
Remind him that he needs copyright permission from my papers' publishers, in addition to my files.

if he's an established researcher (i.e. you can look up for his name and find where he is working..etc) then I believe that would give me more confident to supply him the figures.

if you write a review with 5 figures from someone else, it's either a very long review, or you may simply not be the right person to write it, it seems to me.

Or you just think that person has amazing figures.  :-)
If the author's university and the journal publishing the review are both reputable, then I doubt you have much to worry about.  If they aren't, then it is more worrisome.  If the author hasn't already specified where the review article has been submitted, then that's strange in itself, although it could be awkwardness rather than dishonesty.
There seem to be two issues here:

Will it be a mediocre review article?  There's not much you can do about this: you presumably can't stop the article from being published, so the only question is whether the world would be better off if it didn't include your figures.  (That outcome would be worse for you, and I can't see why it would be better for the rest of the world, so I'd be inclined to give them the figures.)
Is there no actual review article, and this is just a setup to get copies of your files for use in plagiarism?  It would seem crazy to draw your attention if there's plagiarism involved, but sometimes people are crazy (or it could be someone using a fake address or hacked account).  I wouldn't worry about this too much: the chances of plagiarism are not so high, and the chances the plagiarizer will actually get away with it are even lower.  Besides, you might end up with an amusing story about the time a plagiarizer asked you for copies of your figures.

Remind him that he needs copyright permission from my papers' publishers, in addition to my files.

Definitely, and you could even cc the permissions e-mail addresses for your publishers, to help speed the process along and make sure the author doesn't forget or lie about it.

I agree that five figures sounds excessive (no offense!). In addition, I ask myself if you alone have the copyright or if the journal (or whatever publications) in which the figures are published holds a copyright (usually the publisher). It is of course possible that the author has asked about copyright directly with a publisher. It does, however, seem odd that the person has already used the figures for a reviewed version of the manuscript. I think it would be pertinent to ask where the paper is to be published and depending on the situation regarding the copyright, ask why you have not been approached before. I would also contact the editor of the journal where the paper is to be published if there are remaining uncertainties after contacting the author.

This sounds very fishy to me. If an editor has asked them to provide them with high quality figures then presumably there is a copy of this paper that you can read to make sure you're not being copied.
I'd ask whoever this is for a copy of the paper before sending them anything.

+1 for "ask for a copy". That seems like a good idea anyway; assuming it's legit, you can offer to read it and provide feedback.


text:
Special status of some physicists in France
This is a question specific to France.
Permanent positions at the university typically are either research only or research and teaching. For the latter, positions are "maître de conférences" (assistant professor) and "professeur des universités" (full professor). In both cases, you are affiliated to one (or two) disciplinar "sections" listed here. Several are related to physics : 28, 29, 30, 60...
However, there exists other permanent positions called "physicien" (physicist), which belong to a different, separate "corps", see here.
How is that so and what is the difference ?

To answer briefly the "How is that so" part of your question, it is historical: these 'corps' where created by the king as fulfilling special duties to the crown. Amusingly for instance, the head of the Observatoire de Paris has a special status within the french republic in that if the president, the head of senate etc.. all die, eventually he/she become head of state (rank ~ 40 or so).

This other kind of permanent position is very specific to a few fields of science such as astronomy, geology and probably a few other ones.
While usual permanent positions (such as something-professor) imply research and teaching, these positions add a new commitment : "observation service". 1/3 of the time should be dedicated to operate big equipments (telescope for example) for gathering and analysing data that will be useful to the community. For astronomy it implies missions on telescope sites for instance.

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


text:
Paid translation service for research papers
As a research/lab manager, I am looking for (paid) translation service to translate academic papers. Does anyone know of a good option? In my case I am looking for a German to English translation.
I have tried Google translate as suggested in this answer, but (as of now, September 2023) it seems to have trouble dealing with old PDFs where the characters are not fully legible.
The service can be paid with research funding, so cost should not be a limitation. I would be OK both with traditional (human) translation or a different paid software service.

This is a "shopping question" and so, off topic here.

Related question

Done translation work for papers in the engineering field - they tried some language specialists but since they did not understand the engineering they made a complete hash of it... So be careful who you find.

ProZ: ProZ (https://www.proz.com/) is a platform that connects you with professional human translators specializing in various fields
Editage: Editage (https://www.editage.com/) offers academic translation services for researchers and authors
Some universities and research institutions have their own translation departments or partnerships with professional translation services. You can inquire within your organization to see if such resources are available.
Freelance Translators:
You can hire freelance translators who specialize in academic content. Platforms like Upwork, Freelancer, or specialized translation websites can help you find experienced freelancers.
AND:
Gengo
ProZ.com
SDL Trados Studio

ProZ allows translators to bid on a project, to provide their CV, and other features. I believe it is considered best to get someone whose native language is the target language - English in your example.

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


text:
If I refereed a paper at one journal (and it was rejected) should I referee it again when it's sent to another journal?
A couple months ago I refereed a paper for one journal. Due to a number of factors, I recommended that it not be published in that particular journal, and gave the author a bunch of comments on how they could easily improve the manuscript. The editor of that journal followed my recommendation (and perhaps the recommendation of other referees I am unaware of) and did not accept the publication.
This morning I received another review request, this time from a different journal but for the same manuscript. I've never had this particular situation occur before, and am wondering what the expected thing for me to do is. Should I review the manuscript again as if I hadn't before, should I let the editor know first and see what they say, or what?

I think this may be a duplicate of “Asked again to review a paper, when the authors don't wish to modify it”

Ask the editor. Often journals share information about reviewers (if they agree) and even share reviews (again, if they have agreed to that). Therefore it might be the editors desire that you review the manuscript again.

There are a lot of anecdotes along the line "I am now reviewing this paper for the fourth time, I rejected it previously all the time, and any bit of it had not changed since then."

There are no problems associated with you reviewing a paper again, regardless if it resubmitted to the same or a different journal. Since you have seen the paper earlier and know its earlier problems you can better judge how it has improved and to what extent it is now publishable. You should definitely let the editor know that you have been involved in the process of this paper earlier even if he/she has not indicated the paper has been rejected somewhere before. That information provides the editor with a better perspective of the development of the paper and can make the decision to accept or reject easier since the willingness or capability of the author(s) to improve the manuscript is set in perspective.
You can always contact the editor and state that you are willing to take on the review but felt it was necessary to convey the information. I do not see it as necessary but it is of course a nice gesture.

Nice answer. Would your answer change if the manuscript was identical to the previously submitted paper (i.e., if the authors made no effort to improve the paper)?

Yes, then I would simply tell the editor that I already reviewed that manuscript, that it was rejected and probably add that I see no reason to redo the review. The situation is an interesting one and I wonder what the editor would do, probably reject it without review (?).

Thanks for the answer Peter. With respect to Chris' question, I think it also matters on the prestige of the journal. The first time I reviewed this paper it was in a higher-impact journal which specifically asked me to evaluate its impact. This was one of the reasons it wasn't suitable for publication. The new journal is lower-impact and thus if the authors have improved the other aspects of the paper I might think it suitable for publication in this journal.

In the case that the manuscript is same as you recomended to reject, you spare editor's time because no improvement has been done and thus needn't be expected. If the manuscript is improved, you spare editor's time doubting whether they will follow comments or not. Telling when the first manuscript was submitted also gives information about what to expect. I can't see any drawback at all.

I generally say "no" in these circumstances. I would say "yes" under either of two circumstances
1) I believe it is suitable for the second journal but not for the first
2) The paper is so wrong that the authors seem dishonest.
Ultimately, the whole journal peer review things comes down do finding two reviewers who think it's worth publishing. The same person rerefereeing is really just wasting everyone's time.


text:
Scholarship Information
I have a question regarding how schools decide on who to give scholarship to.
Is it appropriate for me to ask my graduate school department on their guidelines in giving out scholarships?
I feel like I have been cheated from scholarship because I have found out people who have worse undergrad GPA/GRE got scholarship and I didn't. I am an architecture major and will study in USC this coming Fall. I submitted my application 2 weeks before the deadline, but they emailed me that I was missing my community college transcript so they couldn't forward to the architecture department they finally forwarded my application early March. I responded to their email the next day with the transcript, but they just took their time to file it. Could that be a factor? If scholarships are given out based on performance then I really think I deserve it after, again, knowing that people who performed worse than me in undergrad received it.

I have a friend's friend who got into the same school as me, she told me she had lower GPA/GRE, no working experience, and practically nothing really special that stands out and she got offered 10k per year. She is also Asian just like me. It would be a different case if it was someone on the forum that just posted their GPA/GRE/race/whatever information (which I also found one with a lower GPA/GRE, same race). They can tell me their guidelines, but if I am a suitable candidate for scholarship according to their guidelines I don't see why I am not being offered a single dime while others who a

I feel like you are jumping the gun without many answers. Perhaps she downplayed her SOP. Perhaps a professor liked her SOP for a random reason. They are entitled to these things. I really hope the tone of the messages you send them don't sound so entitled, because that is how it comes off.

It sounds like you don't really understand how grad school funding works.
Generally, GPA and GRE are not even close to the only things that are considered for scholarships. A lot of people can explain away reasons for bad grades, perhaps there was some reason they had lower grades like illness. They might have amazing letters of recommendation. They may have done research, which in my opinion comes way above GRE/GPA in the grad schools eyes. They may have some kind of interesting background, minority or first generation student or something. They may come from a much better school than you, which means the GPA holds a lot more meaning than yours. Their statement of purpose may have been right on target with what the school was looking for.
Additionally, seeing as your application was not complete at the time, probably did not hurt you that much, but it definitely did not help.
If you are going to contact them, do it in a really professional way. DON'T mention that someone with a lower GRE/GPA got a scholarship when you didn't. They'll just tell you they factor a lot of things into it.


text:
How to deal with results that are given as exercises
I'm currently writing my thesis in mathematics and in the introductory part I want to give a brief overview over a field I'm not very familiar with. There are some results in the book I'm reading which are stated as exercises for the reader, which I'd like to include as theorems in my thesis. I don't want to prove them, since this part is only meant to give the reader an overview of some basic concepts and to show him the importance of some constructions which I will generalize later (which is the actual bread and butter of the thesis). So how do I deal with this:

Don't give any citation at all and assume these concepts are well known to anyone working in the field? - I wouldn't give the definition of a vector space in my thesis, so this might be justifiable. However, I wouldn't consider those theorems as basic as the definition of vector spaces...
Do a heavy amount of googling to find sone sources which prove those theorems? - This might take a considerable amount of time, so I'd like to avoid it. It might also turn out to be impossible, since the phrasing might be different enough in the original sources so that I just won't find them
Cite the Problem from the book I'm working with? - I don't think I can do this, since the results aren't proved in the reference I would give

Note that none of my results rely on any of these theorems.

Hardly anyone reads math theses these days. So, it really does not matter. Focus instead on what goes into the papers that you will publish.

@BorisBukh Not generally true. Depends on how well the thesis is written and whether it is online. There are at least 2 theses which are brilliantly written and I recommend to my students instead of a textbook.

Don't give any citation at all and assume these concepts are well known to anyone working in the field? - I wouldn't give the definition of a vector space in my thesis, so this might be justifiable. However, I wouldn't consider those theorems as basic as the definition of vector spaces...

The general idea for citations is to include a reference is if you would not assume a typical reader of your thesis/paper to know these results.  Think: will this reference be useful for someone reading this?  For a thesis, one is often a little more liberal with background and references than a paper.  Since you yourself don't seem to know (proofs of) these results, I would include a reference, though of course it's your choice.

Do a heavy amount of googling to find sone sources which prove those theorems? - This might take a considerable amount of time, so I'd like to avoid it. It might also turn out to be impossible, since the phrasing might be different enough in the original sources so that I just won't find them

I think this is wrong attitude to take.  I understand you may be under time pressure, but you should try to understand everything in your thesis as well as you can, including related work.  It's often not feasible to understand proofs of every result you mention (maybe you will many years later), but you should at least know references.  Whenever I write a paper (or writing course notes) I spend a long time reviewing literature.  In addition to making you feel more comfortable about what you're writing, being familiar with the literature is important for your mathematical education.
What I would do is spend an afternoon skimming through other books/surveys on the field.  If it really is something rather basic, there should be another book that goes through this.  If that doesn't work, you can try to prove the exercises on your own as well as ask your advisor if s/he knows a reference where these things are proved.

Cite the Problem from the book I'm working with? - I don't think I can do this, since the results aren't proved in the reference I would give

You can, but I agree it's generally nicer to the reader to provide a reference that has an explicit proof.
All of these questions you asked are things that you should be able to ask your advisor, though it's good if you can show some independence by being able to survey the literature on your own.

In mathematics, if you cite a result, you should really be able provide the proof if somebody asks for it. So I would strongly recommend against option 3.
One thing you might consider is writing the author of the textbook, explaining your situation, and asking if he's willing to send you a proof. Then you can cite it as

problem 8.35 in textbook, proof provided by private communication with [author]

even if he would rather not have a proof of the exercise published.
Of course, if he replies "I think I had a proof when I wrote the textbook, but I've forgotten it now," you might need to come up with a proof in some other way.
There is at least one exercise in a textbook whose proof is highly non-trivial, and was an open problem for several years before a journal paper giving the proof was published (and the only indication in the textbook of this is that part (b) of the problem is "optional").

I've also run into a case in which I couldn't solve an exercise, wrote to the author, and found that the solution the author had in mind doesn't work either (and we didn't know whether the assertion is actually true).

It's not clear to me the exercises the OP is referring to are difficult.  It sounds like the OP doesn't even want to try doing the exercises, which I would say one should attempt before contacting the author.

@AnonymousMathematician Of course, even if the result includes a proof, that's no guarantee the result is correct.

@Kimball: but that's a known and accepted risk; I believe citing a result which has never had a published proof, and for which the author has not seen a proof, is considered unacceptable practice.

@Kimball: Yes, but at least you can evaluate the proof yourself, and it is publicly documented for people to refer to in the future.


text:
As a recent PhD entering jobhunt, should I agree to host a weekly seminar?
I recently graduated and am temporarily employed as a lecturer at the school I graduated from (9 hours a week of teaching, not counting prep time).  There's a weekly seminar on my field of interest, and I've been asked to take over hosting it.  This would involve handling various logistics like planning the meetings, planning lunches, booking the room, etc. etc.  It would be a lot of work...  On the other hand it might be a neat opportunity to network/make connections/etc., but not that much better than the opportunity one would get just by attending the seminar.
Should I do it or should I save that time for working on my own research/jobhunting?

It's in your interest to focus on research, then job search, then teaching, then service. This is service, so lowest priority. See if you can get a student assistant (grad or undergrad) to do a lot of the grunt work, while you handle the higher level logistical stuff. If you can't get some help, doesn't sound like it's worth your time.

Even more so, when a job does come up, do you really want to have a pre-existing commitment of a stupid weekly seminar?

This would have been great to do last year.

I would suggest that you decline. If there are enough researchers in your group to host a decent seminar, then there are enough people with job security to handle the grunt work.
Offer to help out, say, by seeking out and inviting people, chatting them up, and going to dinner with them, but I would avoid any and all grunt work. You have a good excuse.

Think carefully. If you are not successful with your job search (and that has already happened to you once, apparently, as you did not find the job around the time you defended), and you decline to run the seminar, you will spoil your relations with the department chair/head.
To other previous responders: come on, guys, don't you know who's who in the academic food chain positions? The leader of the group considers him/herself busier than other members of the group. Other professors are busy with the research, their own grad students, and other committee assignments, and don't like to be bothered by additional service (which they also view as the lowest priority job, as clearly, and to the point, communicated by Thomas. So the group leader went to the person with the least negotiating power and the greatest amount of time, at least as perceived by other professors -- the new Ph.D., arguably with no other service assignments, no students to teach, etc.
So the overall advice is to weigh your options. If you are certain that you'll find a job elsewhere, feel free to decline. Keep in mind that this is an intertwined issue in that your group leader is to write your recommendation letters, and if you are perceived as non-cooperative colleague, that will make a way to the letters and (fewer) interview invitations. I was given the department seminar series to run in my first year out of Ph.D. tenure track job, considered it fun, but got kicked out of my tenure-track job two years later as I was perceived as doing too much service, and too little research. If you will have the opportunity for a greater deal of interaction with the invited speakers than just sending email on your leader's behalf, this could be valuable. If all you will find yourself doing is reservations and such, then this may not be as good. However, if you have a regular date and time for your meetings, you should be able to reserve the room once for the whole semester.


text:
Is there a reliable indicator for which which NIH RFAs are open to post-docs?
I haven't found any guidance on NIH's websites so far whether or not someone who has a Ph.D. but is not yet full-time faculty (e.g. post-doc) is eligible to be named as a co-PI on an R01 grant.
For that matter, the individual eligibility criteria are really vague-- it's not clear that they even exclude a post-doc from being a sole PI on an R01 grant. That makes me think that I'm looking in entirely the wrong place to see if I am eligible for a given RFA.
Is there a foolproof indicator of whether or not a given RFA is open to post-docs either as sole PIs or co-PIs?
Thanks.

I don't think a post-doc would ever be excluded. But you can always email (or even phone) the PO and ask.

As pointed out below it probably matters more based on your institution than the NIH. (Postdocs cannot be a PI on an R01 at my institution, for example, while Instructors can.)  There are NIH funding mechanisms designed specifically for postdocs.  They are probably in the K-series.  Look at the K99/R00 grant.

Ask your institution's Sponsored Research Office (SRO). These organizations are often called by other names like Office of Sponsored Projects (or Programs), the Sponsored Programs Office, or something similar. It's their job to understand the rules and regulations associated with external grant funding for research institutions.
In my experience with NSF (not NIH), the eligibility requirements for institutions and PIs are spelled out in each RFA/RFP. I have frequently seen limits on the number of proposals that a PI or institution can submit, and there are frequent limits on the types of institutions that may submit (e.g. 4-year, degree granting colleges and universities only, etc.), but I have never seen a limit in the RFA/RFP for the qualifications of the PI or co-PI.
My institution, however, does put limits on who may submit. Post docs, as far as I can remember, are not given blanket authorization to submit. They, and even more junior staff, are allowed to submit grant proposals only with an exception as approved by their unit head (dept. chair, center director, etc.) and, I think, the VP for Research's office. These are, in my experience, always granted for post docs.
That being said, the proposal preparation guide requires you to describe your qualifications for submitting the research, including prior work, prior grant support, and other relevant material. If you haven't been a co-PI before, a proposal with you as PI probably won't look as strong to the review panel. It's probably best to start as a co-PI with a more senior, experienced researcher as PI. This is true even if you will primarily lead the day to day work of the project.
This is all based on my experience with NSF, but I don't think NIH is much different.

It depends on the grant somewhat, I understand that for certain funding vehicles at the NIH they do not want extremely unbalanced PIs.  And also at my institution postdocs are not allowed to apply for most grants.  The NIH does have specific grants/fellowships for postdocs though.


text:
Do any NIH post-doc grants besides the K99/R00 have time limits from graduation?
I didn't immediately find the 4-year death-clock on the K99/R00 grant. I just want to know, is that the only major NIH activity code that restricts eligibility based on time since graduation?
I realize that individual institutes vary a lot in their policies, but I'm trying to get at least a rough idea of which activity codes to filter out before I go through in more detail through the RFAs that remain.

The rules seems to be institute and FOA dependent. There are definitely other FOAs that have timelimits. The one I am most familiar with is the NIDCD Early Career Research (ECR) Award (R21) which has a 7 year time limit from graduation. The NIDCD K22 only allows 2 years of research experience (which is not quite a graduation based time limit).
The NIH also gives preference to Early Stage Investigators for some grants which has a 10 year time limit. That page lists a number of early stage grants which may have time limits. You could also look at the NIH Research and Career Development pages for individual FOAs. Finally, the individual institutes that are relevant to your field probably have the most detailed information.

I'm not sure about the rules on how long since graduating NIH grants begin to be restricted, but there is a general rule that the NIH will only fund postdocs for 5 years total--so if you have already received 5 years funding as a postdoc trainee, you are likely to be excluded from more.  I think it depends on the particular grant though.

Some documentation on this would be helpful. I am pretty sure the limit is only on NRSA funding and not R01 based funding.

There is one additional example I am aware of, which is institute-dependent: the standard NRSA F32 award is often issued for "3 years minus any time that the fellow has already spent in the sponsor's laboratory at the time of the award."  (At least at NIGMS: https://www.nigms.nih.gov/training/indivpostdoc/Pages/PostdocFellowshipDescription.aspx)

That is not a time limit from graduation, but rather a time limit from joining a lab.


text:
Does it matter where you go to medical school?
There are many reports out there that say you should not go get an MBA or JD unless you are going for the Top 5 or Top 10 schools respectively. The rationale is that the lost salary and tuition does not make up for the expected NPV difference (get a professional degree vs. do not get a professional degree).
I have never heard this about medical schools. It seems reasonable to assume that most patients do not inquire about their doctor's alma mater and that there is a lot of standardization in the final board exam. Also, most medical schools have an extremely low dropout/failure rate (<5%). However, there is huge variability among the selectivity of medical schools,  ranging from an average undergraduate GPA and MCAT score of 3.35 and 20 respectively, all the way up to 3.89 and 38.
What advantages does a Duke M.D. have over a Marshall University M.D.? Am I correct in assuming that the average salary distribution over all US medical schools is relatively flat?

In the case of surgery, maybe its not common, but I for sure look up the CV of a someone who is going to drug me and cut me open.

Can you please clarify how this relates to academia?  Right now, it sounds like just a question about the salaries of practicing doctors...

The differences between medical schools are going to be equivalent to the differences between undergraduate schools, i.e. going to a state school like UMass vs. Harvard, you get the brand name from one school, but chances are, the quality of your education should be about the same. All American med schools are certified by the same group to teach med students. Whether or not you're a DO or an MD matters little in most point of care situations as well.

@jakebeal I think of it as http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90/university-rank-stature-how-much-does-it-affect-ones-career-post-ph-d, but for an MD instead of a PhD.

@Compass it is not the same. All medical schools (or at least most of them) are very very good. There are 141 MD granting institutions and for example the unranked Loma Linda Medical School (outside the top half) has an average entering undergrad GPA of 3.77. The average entering GPA at Harvard medical school is a 3.8! That is how close these medical schools are.

@WetLabStudent I'm not sure how what I've said contradicts with what you've said.

@WetLabStudent Whether or not you go to Harvard or UMass is less likely to have an impact on whether or not you get into a good medical school compared to what you actually do during your undergrad.

@compass I agree! I never said otherwise. The point is, that on top of this observation, for medical schools, there actually is no UMass, they are all effectively Harvards. With the exception of a few schools in the Caribbean, all of them admit only extremely qualified students with nearly identical GPAs and MCAT scores. There is both a shortage of doctors and medical programs in the US, this means getting into any medical school (physically located in the US) is extremely prestigious.

There are much higher bars to entry to creating a new medical school than a new law school or MBA program.  So it's very tempting and profitable (or at least looks profitable) for a school to start such a program, which has lead to an oversupply of people with the relevant degrees.  Med schools are much more expensive and difficult to create (in the US, there are 5 states with no accredited medical school), and there is high demand for doctors, at least when the US is considered as a whole.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because while there is possibly a question to be had about research careers in academia and the quality of your med school, this doesn't appear to be that question. Instead, this focuses entirely on practicing doctors.

I think this question is perfectly suit in Health. See this meta question in there: Are questions about the health care system on-topic?

I disagree. There are very little differences between medical schools so long as you do well on your STEP I through STEP III exams. Basically what really matters is how you rank compared to the national average.
I have interviewed residency candidates from around the country-their alma mater means very little to me. Their STEP scores and extracurricular activities matter as well as their personal statements. Don't worry about medical school ranking-just worry about Step exam scores-that will really help you get into any residency program you want.

The consequences of rank apply to medical schools just as they apply to undergraduate or graduate education. A more highly ranked medical school can make it easier to get a residency that you want or acceptance into a better quality residency. It may also make you better prepared to pass board exams.
If you want to do medical research, then you should look for schools that are performing similar research, just as you would for a non-professional graduate program.

Update per comments --
I don't have any experience with medical schools (I knew at 5 I didn't want to be a doctor), so I contacted my resident expert, a relative who both graduated from the Ohio State University School of Medicine and was a professor there. In her words:

Harvard and Yale grads can be more picky about the residency programs
  they apply to. But the other comments are true also [that I sent to her].
  If they almost
  flunk out of school, have an abrasive personality, have poor test
  scores, etc., they will need to set their sights lower for residency.

This is wrong (except for the last sentence), and based on your profile you seem not to have much experience with medical schools. School choice matters much less for medicine because (1) there is a shortage of doctors, every single MD gets a job and (2) there is only 141 accredited MD granting institutions and (3) if you don't get an MD you can't be a doctor (not the same thing as an MBA for an example). School choice is one small factor in securing the top residencies.

@WetLabStudent some of us lowly PhDs (along with Dentists, Vets, and anyone else with a doctorate) might object to "if you don't get an MD you can't be a doctor".

@StrongBad This seems like a pretty obtuse misreading of WetLabStudent's comment.  As a Doctor (of Mathematics), it doesn't both me at all. Does s/he really need to say "if you don't get an MD, you can't be licensed to practice medicine (for humans)"? Using "doctor" to mean "medical doctor" is normal parlance in the US.

@BenWebster I think outside academia doctor means medical doctor, but when medical doctors and academics work together, everyone generally tries to be a little more careful about language.


text:
How to ask a, probably angry, PhD supervisor for a letter of recommendation after graduation from uni?
I was on good terms with my PhD supervisor throughout my studies. After graduation, I gave a talk at a symposium and my PhD supervisor was in the audience. I was planning to add a few sentences of appreciation to my supervisor during my talk, but decided not to (in order to prevent potential awkwardness). After ruminating about the talk, I also noticed that I perhaps took too much credit ("I developed this assay in the past" etc.) and never credited my supervisor once throughout the talk (must have been subconscious, because I don't know why I didn't in hindsight). All of that is true: I developed the experiments on my own and performed them on my own. However, my supervisor has been indispensable when it comes to "meta-knowledge," general guidance and feedback. Overall he seems like one of the nicest professors in our department, so I felt bad. After my talk, he just left the symposium without saying anything to me. Maybe he was in a rush, but I remember he had done it another time in the past, where he was unsatisfied with my performance on a previous talk. Right after the talk, I sent him an appreciation email with candour, but I didn't receive a reply. Over my entire studies, I can only recall a single email of mine that he had ignored. My friend tells me that he was likely busy with travels, but I think it's very likely that he is disappointed for the aforementioned reasons (or another reason I'm not aware of).
I now need a letter of recommendation from him for my next position. I'm confused on what mode of communication I should opt for (email, phone, in-person) and what content should be communicated. Although in-person seems like the best option, I don't think he is rarely in his office and I live far away now. We are both somewhat socially awkward and averse to awkward tension, so I also feel like a phone conversation might not the right approach. Regarding the content: If I'm apologetic, he might not respond out of awkwardness. There's also the small chance that I'm imagining his anger. If it's just a canned or standard request email, and he is indeed angry at me, he may ignore it or, in the worst - admittedly unlikely - case sabotage the letter of recommendation.
What mode and content is likely to lead to the best outcome in this situation?

As you have described it, it sounds very unlikely he isn't talking to you over a missing acknowledgement. Unless the culture where you are is very different form mine, I think it's likely you are overthinking this. But aeismail's answer is a good one.

Sounds like the kind of episode one wakes up late at night anxious about, then the next day, you realize there was absolutely nothing there to be concerned over.

If you were my student, I would fully expect you to take full credit for your work. If I helped you it is good for both of us, but a lot of other people helped your development before we ever met.
As to the letter of recommendation issue, I would do this in two separate parts, separated by a bit of time. First, make contact and thank him for past help and bring him up to date on your current life/research/whatever. If at all possible, do this in person. I don't know what you mean by a "long way" but a visit back to the university to meet old professors (and thank them) is always fun and worthwhile. If I'm the professor, I will be very happy to see you and hear about your current successes both academic and IRL.
This meeting should give you feedback on his feelings about you, though if you are both a bit awkward, it may be difficult to judge.
But a bit later, it needn't be long, ask for the letter of recommendation. Your earlier meeting will give you an idea of how formal you need to make the request. Or, if you are completely comfortable in the first meeting, you could do it then, but don't force it.
As to the answer of aeismail, the video suggestion will work with some people, but not all. If he is a frequent user already then it should be fine. But that, or even a phone call, won't work with everyone (me, for example). In person is best. The more formal the person is, the more important to meet face-to-face, I think. For a generally informal person, first name basis, less formal communication is possible.

We have been pretty formal, but I have done video chat meetings with him before. In this context, it might be a bit awkward though. I don't think he's on campus frequently around this time, but I enquire when he will be there via email.

I would suggest that you do it in a way where you both can see each other face-to-face, whether that's in person or via a video service like Skype or GoToMeeting. I believe this approach works best because it's always easier to see and hear visual clues and body language that might get lost in a phone call or email.
But if he's a supportive advisor, he probably won't be too concerned about it in the long run. Having successful students is a bigger reward in the long run than hearing one of his students give him credit in a presentation.


text:
What typically limits how many fellowships a PhD student can receive?
I'm not asking this question with a personal purpose (I don't have any fellowships and I wouldn't be greedy/unreasonable enough to abuse the system in this way), but I was still wondering out of plain curiosity:
Consider a graduate student who excels in the field and otherwise has many "favorable" attributes. In other words, if the student applies for any given fellowship, the chance that he/she will get it is very high. Given the cooperation of three professors being willing to write as many recommendation letters as the student wants, is there typically any restriction from the university or fellowship organization that would prevent the student from gaining an absurd amount of fellowships?

Generally the organizations offering the fellowships have some rules regarding accepting other sources of funding concurrently.
For example, the Ford Foundation fellowship:

A Ford Foundation Fellow may not accept remuneration from another major fellowship or similar external awards while on Ford Foundation Fellowship tenure; however, limited supplementation from institutional funds, educational benefits from the Veterans Administration, or educational incentive funds may be received concurrently with Ford Foundation support. Fellows receiving support from multiple sources are urged to discuss and negotiate the terms of the funding with all funding agencies and their university.

Universities also typically have policies regarding concurrent fellowships. For example, at the University of a Illinois:

Fellows are prohibited from holding two major awards concurrently (fellowship, traineeship, grant, tuition payment award or comparable support from any government agency, state, federal or foreign, or from any foundation, corporation or similar organization). Any award offer should be reported immediately to the Graduate College Fellowship Office, where the determination will be made whether the two awards may be held concurrently.


text:
Current status "with editor" after a a mix up
My paper was accepted from the Mathematics Magazine. They told me that there are some corrections and changes that I should do and I could find them in the PDF attachment which already appeared in the editorial management system.
The problem is that the PDF was not about my paper.
I sent several mails to let them know about the mix up and finally they answered that "I will inform the editor about the mix up" etc.
Before two months I uploaded a "revised" submission (I made some corrections but not all since I did not have the PDF) but I did not click on "approve revision".
Suddenly, today I got an email which says that they confirm my revision and the status of my paper is "With Editor".
What is happening?

If you're not sure, ask them.  I don't see how anyone here can answer this question, as it's fairly specific to your situation.

@ff524 Basically I would like to know what "With editor" means...

Basically I would like to know what "With editor" means. In that case, I believe this is already answered here.

First of all, congratulations for your paper. With editor means that the editor has to send the paper forward, look here at APS, the Mathematics Magazine might have a different style.


text:
After six months under review and after an e-mail to the editor
I submitted a 3-paged paper to a journal of MAA at November.
I did not get a responce from the editor until the  fifth of May so I decided to send an e-mail to the editor to ask (in a very polite way) if my paper is still under review.
But, I still did not get an answer and now I am not sure what to do.Send another e-mail?
Maybe I am wrong ,but how long should I wait to get a responce for a note which is 3 pages long?Forever?
So, my question is:
Is it appropriate to send another e-mail to the editor or should I wait?

For what it's worth, May 5 was likely in the middle of the end-of-semester rush of projects, make-up student work, writing and giving and grading final exams, meeting with students who need at least Grade X to graduate, etc. In addition to this, your email could have gotten lost in the avalanche of student and administrative emails during this time. On the other hand, presumably an editor would have weathered this many times before . . .
I suggest looking at the calendar for the college/university the editor is affiliated with, and after the spring semester has been officially over about a week, I think it would be reasonable to send another (polite) email.

Yes, it is appropriate after some time. You don't say what the May 5th email said. May 5th was only 11 days ago, so maybe now is not the time yet, but in early June surely you're within your rights to ask what the status is.


text:
How to inform the editor that they sent me the wrong PDF attachment?
I received an email before three weeks which informs me that my paper is accepted for publication but some changes must be made.
(The changes are some spacing issues, or  "put more references" etc.)
In editorial management system they uploaded a PDF attachment in which I was supposed to find all the details.
The problem is, the PDF contains corrections concerning an article which is not mine!
At the beginning, I uploaded a revised version of the paper with comments referring to the problem, but the editors's response was:

"Your most recent revision failed to address some of the comments on
  the marked up version of the document I sent you.  These minor items
  should be fixed..."
"For example, some of the things that appeared in the previous
  revision and were not changed include :page 1;line 7; ..."
"I don't want to repeat the work that I did previously.  You still
  have access to the file.  Upon submission of a revised manuscript,
  please include the LaTeX source..."

Which means that the editor did not even see my comments.
The next day I sent another mail  explaining the problem but I did not receive an answer.
After 5 days I sent another mail to the editor's personal account.
(But, no response again)
My revision is due by 2016.08.12.
What should I do?

You may have to email an administrative contact in or outside the system. Keep trying. DO NOT include a revised version of your paper since that seems to have confused them. Let them know that you received a revision request for a different paper entitled "Whatever the other paper is called" by X and Y and Z, and that you'd like to see if you can get the required revisions request for your paper entitled "Whatever your paper is called" by A and B and C so that you can make the corrections. Even if you already have done them, try not to be confusing by resending the corrections to your paper.
I had an editor send me a PDF of required revisions once with the file named X.pdf. When I contacted him, he was very embarrassed because he had broken the blinding by admitting that X had submitted a paper that was under revision at the journal. Keep trying. Eventually they'll understand.


text:
Open Access for journals : extent of the content remix (CC-BY) license?
I'm a co-editor for an open-access journal (in geography), which is listed on the DOAJ. The scientific committee is somewhat doubtful about the recent change of prerequisites of the DOAJ, especially the mandatory use of a license permitting "content remix"(CC-BY).
I'd like to know if this type of license is frequent or common in your scientific and geographic areas ?

Short answer - CC-BY is most common in OA generally but it's not
  ubiquitous, and you'd not be alone if you didn't use it.

It's certainly a topic of some debate. Generally speaking, humanities academics/journals are more concerned about it than the sciences (see eg the Royal Historical Society position. Concerns about commercial reuse (NC) are usually more common than about derivatives (ND).
CC-BY is by now more or less the standard in the sciences. Almost all all-OA titles that I've dealt with in the earth sciences & biological sciences use this as the default, though there are a small handful that use CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-NC-ND as their standard license (CC-BY-ND is rare), and a few that run on a more traditional "no license but we're always free to read" basis. I have seen CC-0 and CC-BY-SA papers but this is very unusual.
Hybrid titles (subscription journals with a per-article OA option) tend to have more mixed arrangements, with some offering only CC-BY, some a choice of CC licenses, some a generic "free to read" option, etc. Hybrid titles published by the major commercial publishers tend to have a one-size-fits-all license policy regardless of their subject matter.
Some numbers to illustrate this: in 2014 my institution published 93 CC-BY papers, six CC-BY-NC, and four CC-BY-NC-ND. Four of the NC(-ND) papers were in hybrid titles with a choice of license, the others were required by journal policy. As noted, this is a mix of publishing in the earth & biological sciences.
Meanwhile, much of the drive for licensing comes from funding agencies. These tend to either (a) require the CC-BY license (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Research Councils UK), or (b) not specify a license as such (NSF, HEFCE). UK funders have been more aggressive about specifying a fixed license than US ones.

FWIW the major journals in physics seem split between CC-BY, hybrid open access, and traditional all-rights-reserved. Then again we have arXiv.

The arXiv has the option for CC-BY, but uptake is low, because the default option says, essentially, "pick me, if you don't know what the others mean".

@DavidZ Physics also has the SCOAP3 program, one of the more creative models for delivering large-scale OA (& all CC-BY, I think).

Thanks for that comprehensive answer, Andrew. The CC-BY-ND is not uncommon. Our concern is mainly about intellectual property of original content, as our journal contains many original illustrations in vector format (ie. easy to reuse).
For us, the motive to use a CC license is to clarify the subject with an international standard, and to participate in OA directories.
We will continue our research about the licenses used by other journals.

@LaurentJégou - to clarify, CC-BY-ND is certainly uncommon in the scientific fields I've dealt with; it's rarely offered as an option by journals and  I don't recall encountering many examples of papers using this license. I can't speak to other fields, of course!


text:
How to format multiple authors name, affiliation and email in a paper?
I am writing a paper with my teacher and his teacher. I don't know the standard of writing authors name, affiliation and email in the paper. I am using IEEEtran template for an IEEE conference. If the authors are in different department or university there is no problem we can use column author name like this:
     Author one                  Author two                 Author three
   Department one              Department two             Department three
   University one              University two             University three
author.one@uni-one.edu     author.two@uni-two.edu     author.three@uni-three.edu

but what if two of them be in a same department and just two of them has a .edu email address? In this situations we can use another style like this:
        Author one*!, Author two*! and Author three^#
              *Department One, University One
              ^Department two, University two
          !{Author.one, Author.two}@univ-one.edu
                #Author.three@univ-one.edu

or it should be like this?
        Author one*, Author two* and Author three^
             *Department One, University One
          {Author.one, Author.two}@univ-one.edu
             ^Department two, University two
                Author.three@univ-one.edu

My question is this: What is the right format in this case when different authors with different affiliation, department and email should be on a paper?
In my specific, we all are from the same Univ. and Department but they both have .edu email and I don't have one.
Thanks in advance.

Is your question how to format addresses using the IEEEtran template? If so, then this question probably belongs on the TeX Stack Exchange board instead of this one.

@aeismail That was what I had doubt for. but I know how to use tex to write any of those forms. I am looking for the format standard no matter it is latex or word template.

There is no universal format standard. As F'x suggests, you need to use the format prescribed by the organization you're submitting to (and an organization like IEEE should definitely have one).

I would just do something easy to read and unambiguous. If there are some standards, you'll be informed of those by the editors at some point but, most likely, everything not offending the eye will pass.

I don't understand.  What's wrong with the first format?  So what if Department One and Department Two are identical?  Ink is cheap!

@JeffE You're right. It has no problem to list them like the first format. But it's the matter of writing less. And I wanted to hear some professional opinion on this too. I used the second format once and now I think it's a little complicated and confusing but interesting. Little confusion is good. The first format I much easier an clearer. simple is good either. I think it's the matter of personal opinion at the end. no global rule.

We had a similar complicated case in our paper. I'd suggest this as a good way to do it.
For your own case, add a comma after the braces, followed by your email.
Here's how it would look like:
{Author.one, Author.two}@univ-one.edu, Author.three@univ-ten.edu

I am assuming your username tells the reader that it is yours (has your lastname, initials or so). Additionally, do your best to sort the emails such that they follow the same order of authors.

Just look up previous conference proceedings and do the same!


text:
How are older associate professors viewed in academia in the USA and elsewhere?
Some U.K. universities are moving from the system of lecturer->senior lecturer->reader->professor to the American system of assistant professor->associate professor->full professor.  However I don't think this is going to reduce the confusion abroad regarding the U.K. system.  AFAICS in the US, most academics that stay in academia end up as full professors, where as most academics in the U.K. are never promoted to professor (it is more equivalent to an endowed or named chair in the US?).  From my minimal research I'd estimate that in the US ~2/3 end up as full professor but only perhaps ~1/3 in the U.K.
This means in the U.K. there are quite a lot of older (50s/60s) academics that are senior lecturers and likely to remain that way until they retire.  How are associate professors in their 50s and 60s viewed in the US system?  Are they viewed, if not as "failures", then as "unsuccessful" or "second rate"?
Asking for a friend ;o)

@downvoter  - an indication of the problem would be welcome.

FWIW, this site suggests that only ~10% of U.K. academics (as of 2016) were professors, so I may have over-estimated the U.K. position somewhat https://professors.leeds.ac.uk/what-is-a-professor/

Some actual data for the U.K. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/files/pr212.png I think, judging by the scales, "other senior academic" means "reader" and equivalents, and that lecturer and senior lecturer are lumped in with lecturer (unfortunately).

I'm wondering if the down votes are indicating this is a sensitive subject, which implies that older associate professors in the US are not as well regarded as older senior lecturers are in the U.K.

Until she won a Nobel Prize, Donna Strickland (Canadian, not American) had apparently never bothered to apply for promotion to full professor.

@ZeroTheHero there is hope for "my friend" yet then?  All he has to do is win a Nobel prize ;o)  Seems to be related to the lack of an increase in pay (https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2018/10/25/nobel-laureate-donna-strickland-is-now-full-professor.html).  In the U.K. there certainly is a minimum pay increase that goes with the title.  However "I've now been encouraged by many people to apply and so I did apply and I have now been made, full professor. I'm happy about that," suggests there is perhaps more to it than that.

IMO there is a little more “feel good”, prestige and bragging rights but my life did not change in any fundamental way when I got promoted.  The main reason I applied was so that people would stop asking why I hadn’t applied.  This is unlike getting tenure, which is a much more important milestone in terms of lifestyle.

@ZeroTheHero In the U.K. it is the other way round, while we don't really have "tenure" as such, we do have a probationary period, but passing probation is not generally a huge hurdle, but promotion to prof has very high requirements.  I didn't notice passing probation, just came and went through doing a competent job of things. The only promotion I have had was lecturer->senior lecturer and that did change things fundamentally as (like the promotion to prof) it is a different pay scale.

I think the lack of replies to this question and the downvotes does indeed suggest that this is a sensitive subject, as I thought.

Some are unsuccessful, of course. Others just don't see a need for advancement and the efforts it would take to earn full professorship. If salary is good and the many perks are comfortable then it is fine to continue as you are. The frantic paper chase of young faculty doesn't necessarily hold the same appeal as you get older and comfortable.
As in the UK, some places have very high standards for full professorship and some others have an informal quota. If you have a lot of aging Full Professors it is hard to bring in new faculty with new(er) ideas. That isn't a universal, of course.
Some people don't want to participate in all of the three main parts of the university mission (research, teaching, and service). If a university thinks they are all equally important (not all do, of course), then such a person would be at a disadvantage in promotion.
I question whether "most" US professors wind up as full. Perhaps, but I'd need to see the numbers. I know some who have not. Some of them weren't seen as "team players", though, and were unlikely to see a vote to advance from their peers.
In parts of EU, also, a department may be limited to one "Full Professor" at a time. But it has a quite different meaning than in the US. Perhaps more like "head of department" or "chair". "Professor" is, after all, just a word that is interpreted, mostly, in a local context.

Thanks @Buffy, useful info.  I was more interested in how they are viewed, rather than how the view themselves.  If there is an, err, association between associate professors and not being a team player, then I think my friend would find that extremely objectionable!  Unfortunately in the U.K. the salaries are (increasingly) not good and the perks diminishing.

"Not a team player" is a bit of a euphemism for saboteur. Maybe not quite that strong, but someone who's practice diminishes the department, rather than enhancing it. Not "extremely introverted and does their own thing, though." The latter are probably fine.

I don't think my friend would view either as complementary (given their activity), but one is a lot less complementary than the other!

@DikranMarsupial there are always rivalries, especially in the UK where the number of full professors is often capped.  In some places,  applying this year rather than next year can be a very strategic decision.  Also in the UK tenure is not as definite as it is in US, so getting promoted is an extra layer of protection.


text:
Explaining switch of research interests in Statement of Purpose
For most of my Masters studies, I worked in the area of Quantum computation and wrote my thesis on that. But following that, I lost my interest and switched to Computer Vision and worked as an intern for a few months. Now I plan to pursue a PhD in the field of Computer Vision even though my Masters thesis was on a different topic. How should I convince the admission committee about this switch ?
I had published 2 papers while working on Quantum computations (one from my Thesis and another one as a student job) and 1 in Computer Vision from my internship. But I was not interested in Quantum computations because it consisted mostly coding and there was no hardware to work on (at least in my university). Whereas computer vision is a branch I am very comfortable with since I directly get to see the impact of the changes in algorithm visually. I also have very good grades in the area related to computer vision. But I cannot really frame a convincing story as "visual feedback" is not enough concrete to convince a potential guide.
Please give me your inputs. Thank you.

You don't have to convince the admission committee about the switch.
You do have to convince the admission committee that you are able to complete a PhD in Computer Vision.
Work out what skills will be needed, and present your evidence that you have those skills.
Work out what knowledge will be needed as a prerequisite, and present your evidence that you have that knowledge.
Work out what the other pre-requisities are (funding, contributing to the internal life of the department, whatever), and present the evidence for that too.


text:
Do British universities expect the research PhD applicant to know research methods before they write application proposal?
Do British universities expect the research PhD applicant to know research methods before they write application proposal?
I studied research methods in the masters but it has been sometime now. Do I have to revisit research methods or can I present the proposal as if I have not studied research methods before?

British universities have recently begun to adopt the MRes (Master's of/by Research) as the preferred pathway for new PhD candidates who may not have a full set of research skills.
This typically involves some taught causes, as well as hand-holding through some preliminary research which may then form the basis of your PhD.
It offers you a couple of advantages: it adds a qualification that you'll have earnt after one year, so  you'll get early rewards. And you can decide after a year whether academic research is for you; and whether or not you can work with that department. If so, you've made progress in your research already. If not, then you can leave amicably with a Master's degree and a new network of academic contacts.
It offers the university an advantage too: it gives an additional point at which the candidate's abilities can be assessed.

what if the university does not offer this MRes path? Do you mean it is a must that I revisit my research skills? even for the preliminary application to the university?