text:
What are some of the smart ways of finding related literature online
I am in my first year of PhD. I spend a lot of time reading literature related to my broad area of research. I find reading very enjoyable, but finding relevant content online takes up a lot of time. Are there any tricks that people often use to reduce the search time in search engines like "google scholar" (or any other search engines or recommender systems) ?
One thing that I recently learnt was to use the cited by button against each paper in google scholar. I find a relevant paper. Even if it is an old paper, I can find newer works which are based on the original paper and read through them.
Please share some tricks/hacks or tips that help you reduce your time in searching papers online?
PS - Let me confess that in addition to learning some tricks to increase my productivity, I am also interested to integrate the possible suggestions that I receive here into metrics and integrate them into recommender systems for citation networks, something which I wish to pursue as a hobby project.

I think there is an interesting line of thinking here, but at present this doesn't fit the Stack Exchange format and this is basically asking for a list or opinion poll. This is also addressed in a few other answers, which themselves might likely be closed if they were asked today. But you might have a look around: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/6105/what-is-the-best-way-of-keeping-track-of-academic-readings-and-persons?rq=1 and http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5585/how-does-one-keep-herself-updated-with-new-research-without-forgetting-older-res/

I prefer using advanced searches in digital library sites like ACM-DL, IEEE Xplore, and Elsevier ScienceDirect.
For instance when you search for a particular keyword (e.g., image retrieval) in general search, you would be bombarded with many papers related to the keyword. While most of which is not even directly connected to he matter. In advanced search, you are given the feature to add constraints such as searching for "image retrieval" only within the title. Although this might remove some of the actually related papers, you could be assured that nearly all of the papers resulted from this search is directly connected to your keyword.

thanks for the comment. I find such features of filtering is existing in reco engines/Search engines of various domains. Even Amazon provides filtering items by various aspects/facets.
I am trying to find some methods that is more unique to citation papers.


text:
Should my advisor be on these papers?
I'm a PhD student.
My advisor told me I need x number of papers to graduate.
I am on a grant, but the Co-PI delays submission of papers I write (he has a company and he tries to patent them).
So I conceive of ideas (un related to the grant), write the papers and send them to my advisor, with him as an author. My advisor doesn't read them or provide edits, but tells me to proceed with submission. The papers get accepted. He doesn't read any of the papers of the students in the lab, but expects authorship because he funds us.
I am not sure how I feel about this ethically. Of course, I want a PhD, so I have no choice but to comply; however, is this ethical?

Can you clarify: What field are you in? Is your advisor the same as the Co-PI you talk about? Sound like to different people, but what is their relationship to you and your PhD thesis research and how do they relate to each other? Are you all in the same lab or department?

How do you know your advisor doesn't read your papers? Is that what they told you? Are you happy with the journals in which they were accepted? Have you had someone else read your papers for feedback and do they have edits? In other words, are you an exceptionally good writer or is your advisor tending towards some sloppy/carefree approaches in supervision and mentoring?

By the Vancouver guidelines of authorship it is recommended that one should have contributed to at least 1 dimension to be offered co-authorship and then contribute to a second dimension. For example, usually the PI contributes with Funding and/or Resources which makes them eligible to co-authorship. Then they can fill up 2 dimensions by helping reviewing your draft.

From your text it is not clear whether you are enforced in any way by your advisor to add him as an author. Did you try out to not do it, or ask him whether this is expected? Was there clear communication from his side that you need to do that?

This depends on the field and what it means that the professor "funds" you. In some fields, in which it is impossible to do the research without the professor's support because they provide the lab and also the general direction of the research done there, it is normal for the PI to be listed as an author, usually in a special position, often last. In those fields everyone understands that the PI didn't actually contribute directly to what is in that particular paper, but made it possible for it to exist at all.
In other fields, such as math, and even if you are working on an RA funded by a grant that the professor holds, it would be unusual for the professor to be listed as author unless they made some substantial contribution to the paper, though not necessarily contributing to the actual writing process.
There are probably intermediate cases as well, but these seem to be the outer bounds.
It is difficult for lots of people in one field to understand the practices of the other fields. "Why would (wouldn't) they do that?"
If your ideas and practices are really unrelated to your participation under the grant, you probably have a case for sole-authorship, but it might be unusual in your field. "Why did they DO that?"
An orthogonal concern, however, is that it is usually a bad career move to fight with your supervisor. Perhaps better off to let it go and accept the inevitable, keeping in their good graces, getting a good recommendation, and moving on to an independent position. There may be some advantage in some fields also, to have your name listed with theirs in publications.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Making latex sourcefiles publicly available by default
Question: where can I find (legal/pragmatic) information about having latex source files for scientific articles publicly available on github?
Or, how would you deal with it?
Problem description:
I like using git for collaborative tex'ing. So why not use it for scientific articles as well? Put up a github repo, collaborate, submit to arxiv while tagging the corresponding commit, incorporating reviewers suggestions, etc. Also, it comes at the additional benefit that not only a compiled preprint on arxiv is available but also your latex sourcefiles. This I think is desirable in terms of transparency and also others can easily reuse/extend complex latex bits you have in your articles.
Most publishers don't have a problem with arxiv preprints. But what about github repos? They don't contain the pdf, but in general, everyone would be able to compile the stuff from the source files on github. Would the source code on github then considered the same as the compiled preprint on arxiv?
I feel like the authors I know, that are using github, they might even just use github without thinking about the potential legal consequences (yes because it seems rather unlikely someone searches through the github repo). Also, if one knows upfront where the article might be submitted to, one can check the legal situation for that particular conference/journal. But sometimes one doesn't know beforehand, so one could end up having the latex source files publicly on the web, for a publication where this is not allowed?
I am looking for a pragmatic answer to this problem, as I think using github for scientific writing is just very efficient and good. Having the sourcefiles in addition to the compiled preprint available seems also desirable to me.

I cannot really understand your question. You can put your tex src files on git and it has advantages (lot of us do it already). But why must this repo be public? If you want to put tex src files publicly (which is not always optimal, since you may have commented out many text parts that may be used in future versions), why use the same template used by the journal? Also, arxiv allows to publicly share tex src files? Why use git for that?

Consider using private repos, for example on bitbucket.

Yes, a lot of people do it. If it is private there shouldn't be any problems. Some do it even public (perhaps unknowingly that so far only really arxiv has the special standing as tolerated preprint arxiv). But the intention would be to in addition to the compiled preprint make the source code for it publicly available -- why? It is more transparent, easier for others to reuse/extend -- e.g. if you have complex tikz plots, derivations or the like in there. Hence, a private repo is not really an option. The question is about the standing of public gitrepos compared to compiled files on arxiv.

@FrankMert Yes, but arxiv allows to download the src files. What more you want?

I'm afraid, I must have missed that. So you can use a private repo, wrap up your arxiv preprint, maybe tag the corresponding commit, accompany it by it's source files, graphics etc and upload it to arxiv? Yes, then access to the full github repo is lapsed. Then pdf+latex sourcefiles+graphics are available on arxiv -- and this shouldn't generally be a problem for any publisher, so no need to know beforehand where you're going to submit your work to?

Are you sure you want your works-in-progress visible by all? Open science is good in principle, but sadly there is a good argument for keeping things you are currently working on somewhat private.

You're mainly talking about the public in-progress git here? Agreed. Arxiving could make it easier to be plagiarised, but also then easier to settle the plagiarism dispute as your preprint is out there.

It is a very common practice for authors to include the LaTeX source files within an arXiv submission. I don't understand why a publisher who is okay with a preprint being published would not be okay with the LaTeX source being published with the rest on arXiv.
Most information in a PDF file can be easily plagiarized (though things like extracting the actual data points in a plot may be tricky). Postscript files are even easier to plagiarize. The advantage of keeping the source code is that the document will remain editable and compilable forever. If a publisher places a blanket ban on publishing paper source code because of concerns such as plagiarism, well... they're doing it wrong.

Good to hear that this is common practice in some fields already!
Ignoring whether it makes sense or not, do publishers in general have problems with arxiv preprints (pdf+source+graphics)? I think the main concern of authors is, that some might have a problem with it and others not and noone is going to check every potential publisher their work might be submitted to -- hence, the work ends up not being arxived. If this is not the case, this best practive should definitely be pushed in other fields to become best practice!

@FrankMert This is entirely field-specific. For example, in computer science, there is generally no problem.  In biology, however, there is usually a problem.

I'm not aware of any publishers that actually make the distinction between the allowed file formats of a published preprint. In my experience it's very rare that a paper which is written in LaTeX is uploaded to the arXiv without the source code. Looking at the new submissions on all the arXiv subs, the very vast majority of submissions already include the source files (and most of the rest probably weren't written in LaTeX). It already is best practice.

@jakebeal do the publishers dislike authors publishing preprints, or only with authors publishing the paper's source code?

@FrankMert This is both field-specific and journal-specific. In general terms, most publishers are okay with preprints, and very few have an explicit blanket ban, but often individual journals will prohibit them. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy for a sense of the variation here.

@FrankMert In addition to Andrew's link (which shows a tiny subset), the SHERPA/RoMEO database may be informative.  It's not addressing exactly the same question, but there is a strong correlation.

All in all, that means one cannot really post to arxiv (including source code) without risking the chance to publish with some publishers, while the source code itself seems to make no difference here. This is really bad. So you either arxiv and hope you won't find yourself in the position wanting to publish with this one particular publisher, or you don't arxiv which keeps you all the options open. Downside, you're not arxiving.

If you use LaTeX source, arXiv will frequently detect that and refuse to allow you to upload just the PDF. So rather than it being "very common practice", the uploading of source files is almost required.

If you upload your papers to arXiv, then your Latex source is already publicly available there (click "other formats" and then "download source").  So the only difference is that the source would also be available on Github.
There is no legal issue with this unless you sign an agreement that forbids it.  In that case, the publisher could ask you to remove the manuscript from Github.

That would mean, it would need to be removed after signing this contract. Ok, that would be doable. My point is just that noone really can foresee and check any potential publisher and it's legal regulations. I think most publishers don't even mention source files or github, only explicitly only allow arxiv for preprints. Dumb question on the side, can arxiv preprints be removed in case a publisher forces one to do so? (Ignoring, that such publishers shoud -imho- be avoided anyway.)

http://arxiv.org/help/withdraw

Sorry, was just about to crawl through arxiv site as well. Yeah, so that basically means, it could happen, that a publishers asks you to remove a preprint from arxiv while you cannot really remove it anymore So it potentially could mean you canot publish with certain publishers once your preprint is out there. Well, better to choose another publisher then anyway :-)

Let's separate out three distinct proposals that are somewhat blended together in your original question.  Presented in order of increasing specificity, these are:

Using git (or another similar source control system) for collaborative LaTeX paper-writing
Hosting these on a pseudo-archival external repository host, such as Github
Hosting them on Github in particular

For #1, I think that anybody doing collaborative work in LaTeX benefits greatly by adopting a good source control system, since LaTeX fits the model of source code so well.  Depending on your preferences and the nature of your document, you might find SVN, Mercurial, Git, or even some other mechanism most effective.
For #2, it's important to ask what the goal is.  Remember, repository services like Github and Bitbucket are NOT archival, despite their age in internet-years.  We have no idea whether they will actually be able to survive for a couple more decades (let alone for multiple centuries, like some journals).  So if you want long-term archival storage, arXiv is currently the way to go, not a repository service.  An external repository, however, means a project is generally more reliable than one's own servers, and makes it easy to manage a project jointly.  Some make it easy to host private repositories (Bitbucket, for example, lets you host an unlimited number for free if you are affiliated with a university), others make it harder (with Github, you have to pay a fee to have private repositories).  Still, it's hard to see much down-side to using a private externally hosted repository instead of a locally hosted repository, as long as the information is merely confidential and not legally restricted (e.g., by IP or export control considerations).
For #3, then, if you want to use Github in particular, right now you've got to either pay money or be comfortable with a fully publicly observable project.  Sometimes that's a good thing (I use it this way for standards development, where we want the whole history to be hanging out in public), and sometimes that's a bad thing (do you really want your LaTeX comments cursing Reviewer #3 to be recorded for all to see?).
In short: use source control for LaTeX, hosting externally can be great, but Github's sometimes a poor choice of external host service.

For the discussion about 2 and 3, this is an okay guide. There are plenty of non-GitHub hosting services that offers (even unlimited number of) private repos for free. And if you are affiliated with a university, check if they provide something similar. Both my current employer and my future employer offer institutional hosting of Git repos. So you don't even need to depend on a 3rd party private company.

Do you know the archiving policies of arXiv? See this question of mine.

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


text:
How to protect the copyright of the thesis draft?
I just finished the draft of my thesis and want someone else to do a proofreading on it because I am not a native speaker of English. I wonder if any things I shall do to protect the copyright of the draft before I pass it to others?

Can you clarify what it is that you want to protect? Because it might be that it's not solved by copyrights.

If you live in the US or any other country that observes the rules of the Berne Convention, your work is automatically protected by copyright as soon as it is saved to a fixed medium (which may be your hard drive, a printout, or scribbles in a notebook).
So if your work is written down, it's already protected with respect to copyright.
There may be other things about the draft that you wish to protect - for example, you may wish to ask the proofreader not to speak about your ideas with anyone else - but that is not a copyright issue.

Could you please talk about last paragraph of your answer a little more? May be in form of a comment if you find it irrelevant to edit your answer to the original question. Thank you.

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


text:
Is it appropriate to call professor?
I exchanged an email with a professor on Thursday and he asked me if I am available to call him on a specific time next Monday. I replied the email to confirm the time but no reply from him. Therefore, I resent the email on Friday to re- confirm that he knows that I will make the call. However, no reply as well. So I am wondering if it is appropriate for me to call him at the time he indicated next Monday even without his reply?

Sure. You have booked a time, make the call. If you want to be sure, ask him over the phone if it is still a good time.
Academics are busy and slow responders, so since you confirmed your emails may have been given the lowest priority.

So I just call him as scheduled on Monday and ask him then if it is still a good time to talk, right?

When he has asked you to call him by phone; call him in the office hours to the provided phone number.
May be he knew he won't have access to his email on the following days and he asked you to have a telephone conversation instead. That may be why he is not responding your email too.


text:
Is it bad practice to study or reference the work of an academic who has fallen from grace?
I was recently reading a textbook, written by a professor from an elite university, which I was finding to be very informative and well-written. Excited to learn of other works or talks by this individual, I searched for him on Google, but was extremely dismayed to find the results page full of news articles about his improper personal conduct and trouble with the law that resulted in his being forced to retire from teaching.
I'm now unsure whether I should continue reading his textbooks--they appear to be correct, well-written and insightful, but I might feel embarrassed now to keep them on my bookshelf or tell someone I had studied them. Should I avoid reading and learning from his work? And, more out of curiosity, should individuals publishing work in his field avoid referencing his texts or published research?
I left out a lot of the specifics, so more general thoughts or comments about this are welcomed.

This is silly. Unless he faked his research, you should study his work.

Citation is not endorsement. Nor is reading (obviously) or continuing someone's research.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VWCHlwkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

Here is a similar question ... http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/84829/

@ScottSeidman are you presenting Turing as an example of a disgraced academic?

An academic in  trouble with the law, who thankfully was not ignored.  @Ukko

Possible duplicate of How does it affect the treatment of a mathematician's results, if that mathematician was a Nazi?

@justin Walter Lewin?

Even professors with nose hair can be good.

The only question is whether his or her actions compromise their science. Faking results is the obvious case, but a psychologist abusing clients, or an anthropologist molesting indigenous children, or an economist failing to disclose industry grants would make me question the validity of their results.

It may be a problem if he is required to speak at a conference, but a simple citation is okay.

People say only if they faked their research. I say Sigmund Freud.

I feel bad for that professor. Personally I think that academics is a very dark world where most professor eats each other. Especially in small schools. Perhaps he/she is not able to befriend or even becomes enemy with those hypocrites, but that does not mean he/she is bad at research. Even at teaching evaluation, it can be rigged by putting extra abnormal teaching burden/large class on him/her or he/she can get laid off by the so-called "improper personal conduct" set up by the "community". I am not a professor, but this situation happens to PhD student (me) as well.

No, it's not bad prwctice. Surely one can separate the art from the artist.

Has the world gone politically correct mad while I was sleeping? This is outright silly

@OldBunny2800 That's related, but it's not a "duplicate". There's a big difference between being in trouble with the law on a small scale (e.g. theft, embezzlement, fraud) and being a Nazi (e.g. developing weapons of mass destruction, mass murder, extreme prejudice).

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0605038 Euler died in a reconnaissance flight over the Sea of Azov, during World War II. He had joined the Luftwaffe a few months earlier.

"I might feel embarrassed now to keep them on my bookshelf or tell someone I had studied them ..." This is up to you. "...should individuals publishing work in his field avoid referencing his texts or published research..." It's up to them (unless they cannot find a replacement).

No, it's generally not a bad practice.  For a closely related question, see How does it affect the treatment of a mathematician's results, if that mathematician was a Nazi?.

Should individuals publishing work in his field avoid referencing his texts or published research?

His published research: for sure no, not avoid references to his research; the linked question covers this well.
As for his textbooks: Most often one is not forced to reference any particular text, as there are other texts that do the same.  (Perhaps "there are other texts that do the same" ought to be the definition of a text rather than a research article or monograph, but there are exceptions to this definition.)  I think personal preferences can and do come in when choosing which text to reference: for instance, I would be happier to reference a text that is freely available online, or if I don't like (academically speaking) a text generally then I might try to replace a citation to it by a citation somewhere else, even if that's a little trouble.  (I remember doing that recently in a joint paper: a coauthor cited a text I didn't like.  I got him to (find and) cite another one instead!) But if Dr. Fallen's text is the unique source for something, you must cite it, and if you unambiguously feel that it's the best source, you probably should cite it.
As for your studying: I see no argument whatsoever against studying the good text of a bad person.  In fact, "bad person" is a kind of reification.  Everyone does good things and bad things; when we say someone is a "bad person," we mean that our evaluation of their actions (that we know of) is weighted towards the bad.  But avoiding or trying to nullify the good actions of a bad person is...bad.  We should encourage, reward and make use of the good behavior in everyone, right?
I do have one proviso: you may not want to financially support Dr. Fallen, for instance if you suspect that financial support would somehow abet his reprehensible activities.  So you may well not want to buy his book if you haven't already.  If you feel that citing Dr. Fallen's text in a situation where you could also cite another (both are secondary sources) could induce others to financially support him, then maybe that's an ethical reason for choosing a different citation even if you personally think Dr. Fallen's text explains it better: this is a bit of an unlikely edge case, I think.

Another edge case might be if an academic's fall from grace is related to research fraud or something that might be relevant to the accuracy of their discoveries

@k_g: Agreed, that would be a much different matter.  I took from the OP's question that this was not the case.

Not so different case, imo: You still cite him, with due caution and some double-checking, for his original, valid ideas. No reason to steal from him, just because he's a thief.

I think this covers all the issues very well, except that in some cases there is a clearly best textbook for learning from (or reference).  In that case the decision is harder (especially if you're going to recommend it in a teaching situation).

@Karl: Research fraud includes more than just theft of others' work.  In practice can be very difficult to tell whether research fraud has been committed in an academic work.  Academia addresses this mostly by trust and imparting the highest possible taboo on research fraud.  Once you know that an academic has published enough fraudulent work in order to "fall from grace," it does seem like a good idea to avoid reading and using their work, because you may not be in a position to properly vet it.

@PeteL.Clark Why would I use work where I cannot judge it's validity? If I cannot judge it, I guess it's either irrelevant for my work or I'm the wrong guy for my job.

Btw.: Taboos only frighten the uneducated. That's not how the scientific world operates. It's simply that any relevant fake becomes obvious within a very short time. You must be either working safely in a forgotten corner or be in total panic to attempt it. The famous cases of of the last years prove the latter point.

@Karl: "It's simply that any relevant fake becomes obvious within a very short time." Well, that's simply not true.  You can read about some counterexamples here: http://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2012/02/the-10-greatest-cases-of-fraud-in-university-research/.  There are unfortunately hundreds and thousands more where that came from.  "Why would I use work where I cannot judge it's [sic] validity?"  This is a good question to ask on this site if you actually want to know the answer: there are several reasons.  One easy one: you don't watch the experiments being performed.

@PeteL.Clark (I'm sorry for the superfluous apostroph.) I don't need to watch other's experiments, I need to be convinced they are reproducible, before building on them. And yes, I work in a subject where repetition is usually faster, cheaper and easier than in medicine or psychology. And I have all sympathy for outside victims (patients, taxpayers,etc) of scientific fakery, but that's not the point of the present questions, is it?

Case in point, Frege turned out to be a staunch antisemite and misogynist. We still use the foundations he laid to mathematical logic, and I'm sure that also in philosophy they still use his arguments.

What about results from unethical research? I would say one shouldnt cite research conducted by Mengele and others doing similiar..

Unless that fall from grace precludes being able to take their science seriously (see: Andrew Wakefield), there is no reason to avoid their work. As other people have mentioned, a citation is not a personal endorsement of an individual as a good and decent human being. It is a pointer to a body of scientific work.

Science is supposed to be about facts. People are very much geared toward good vs evil, and choosing sides.
Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson, Tom Cruise, Jane Fonda, .....
At one time in history each of these people produced some form of art/entertainment that resonated with a large number of people, and then they did something that a large portion of the population found objectionable. Does that make the things they created bad?
Our culture has decided that if someone does something we don't like, we don't like anything they are associated with... until they are dead. Once they are dead we can like their work again. I would argue that it would only be an ethical issue if the work itself were obtained in an unethical way. For instance, if someone tortured a bunch of children just to see how children responded to being tortured.

Michael Jackson was acquitted.

@CountIblis: O.J. was also acquitted.

Also, see the general loss of taste for the works of Marion Zimmer Bradley in SF/F fandom. Her books aren't now suddenly really that bad, but it's become a bit embarrassing to be seen with them. My local library has a giveaway shelf for donated books that they don't want, and I wasn't surprised to see The Mists of Avalon on it one day.

Here's an example of how one author dealt with this issue: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0511366
The first page mentions a result by one T.J. Kaczynski, "better known for other work".
The result is mathematically sound, it's relevant to the paper, and Kaczynski discovered it, so it's entirely appropriate to cite him - it would be weird to depend on a result without citing a source, and dishonest to deny the attribution. But the author probably felt weird about referencing somebody who's better known as a notorious terrorist without acknowledging that side of his existence.

I suppose it would depend largely upon the reason for the fall from grace.  If the fall was due to falsifying data, that would be a big red flag for serious citation (unless you're pointing out the the conclusions may be false).
It gets more interesting if this involves research that does not meet ethical standards.  Mengele did "research", and I suppose there are serious people who can tell you whether  any of his results were valid -- but he treated humans as less than human.
Then, of course, are people who fell from grace for reasons that would be considered non-reasons today.  I would hope that I don't know too many people who would refuse to cite Turing because of his sexual preferences (though, I confess, I have zero knowledge about how he was regarded in contemporary academic circles, he certainly had detractors in government).

A good answer should address not just the title of the question, but the body of the question. The OP writes of the researcher's "improper personal conduct and trouble with the law that resulted in his being forced to retire from teaching"; your answer doesn't seem to cover that situation at all.

@ruakh, in fact, Turing "was in trouble with the law", etc.

@paulgarrett: By your "etc.", I take it that you consider Turing's "personal conduct" to have been "improper"? If this answer intends to imply that we should ignore our own current standards because people in the future might realize that our current standards are misguided, then that should really be stated explicitly, because it's not at all obvious from the current text.

@ruakh, how in the world do you draw any conclusion on Paul''s views from that comment?

(Thx to @ScottSeidman for noting an issue of interpretation...!!!!) No, I do not view A. Turing's "personal conduct" to have been "illegal/blah". The point was the absurdity of his criminalization!!! That is, to be clear, the point is the idiocy, the pointlessness, of persecution of people who are "not sufficiently conformist", etc.

@ScottSeidman: Well, if Paul wishes to argue that your example of Turing matches the OP's description -- "improper personal conduct and trouble with the law that resulted in his being forced to retire from teaching" -- then he needs to argue that Turing's personal conduct was improper. (In fact, I rather suspect that he does not believe that; but without it, his comment makes no sense, and his selective quoting is disingenuous.)

@ruakh, I really don't want to argue, but Paul''s point only requires that somebody, at some time, considered Turing''s conduct problematic.

@ScottSeidman, Mengele isn't a good example -- his work is better described as "medical-themed torture", and generally has little scientific value.  A better example would be Sigmund Rascher's work on hypothermia and freezing.

@mark, Mengele is certainly one extreme example.  He certainly consdered his twin studies to be research, and I imagine his contemporary eugenicists did as well. Eugenics was a huge science of the times.  Rascher is certainly a second example.  As an aside,  MDs  joined the nazi party at a rate much higher than the population at large, and were proponents of eugenics  in general.

If the "improper personal conduct and trouble with the law" had potential to make the professor's work questionable, then his work should be excluded from serious consideration.
In many cases, the author's crimes have nothing to do with their research, and if the facts/research/conclusions are true, then by all rights there should be no reason to avoid using it. However, there remains a fear of "crime by association" and it's up to each reader whether they are able to get past the author's or researchers' crime or activity to be able to use the knowledge they wrote about. Sometimes it is the only place to find such information. If that is not the case, some may feel better quoting it from a secondary source in order to avoid the association with the original author.
As an example, in the Numismatic field, there was a researcher who wrote a great encyclopedia that had a ton of research behind it and basically became many people's "bible" on coins. It came to light that the man was a pedophile - many thought this tainted the work he had done, but his proclivities had nothing to do with the cold hard facts of coin mintages and coin design. Seeing as it was the only reference with some information (still to this day), it will be quoted but always with reluctance; the quoter usually finds a way to express their dismay with the author, as if to make clear that they do not condone the author's crimes.
In the end, if the professor's works are factual, then it's up to you; the facts stated won't be any more wrong or right because of what he did in his personal life, but you could also be judged by people who will mentally combine the researcher with the research. So if it matters to you, you may want to gauge your audience's ability to separate the work from the author before citing him or having his books clearly visible on your bookshelf.

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


text:
Are all math majors expected to get a perfect score on quantitative reasoning?
I just took the revised GRE general test. As a math major preparing to apply to math PhD programs, it was kind of surprising to see that my quantitative reasoning score was just 167, whereas my verbal reasoning score was 169. I attribute this to the fact that my anxiety about the exam prevented me from finishing all of the quantitative questions, which required a moderate amount of concentration; I finished the verbal portion quickly since it was just a matter of being able to read carefully and know fancy words. Should I retake the test and try to get a 169 or 170 in the quantitative portion? Or is my score good enough that it doesn't really matter?

What is the percentile ranking of that score?

@NateEldredge It's 94th percentile (for the math score).

The kind of math on the GRE is quite different from the math of a math grad student.  I wouldn't worry about it.

Your score on the math subject test is a much more important factor.

It would be interesting to know what kind of confidence interval ETS claims for GRE scores. I would not be at all surprised if the difference between 167 and 170 were statistically insignificant. And one would hope that a mathematics admission committee, of all people, would understand that.

At Texas A&M, we typically admit graduate student applicants with quantitative GRE scores down to somewhere between 160 and 165. So your 167 is totally fine, in fact I would say it's in the top 1/2 of those we accept. No need to worry.

I've been on the graduate admissions committee in my math department a few times, and we never pay much attention to the general GRE score.  Even the math GRE score is not a big concern, unless it is egregious.
By the way, here are a couple of related questions:
How does a low quantitative score on GRE general exam affect admissions to mathematics PhD programs?
What is the median math GRE subject score for admission to a Group 2 or 3 PhD program in applied mathematics?


text:
Is it common for universities to have scientific development plans?
Many times, research teams and departments just perform research on topics that the Department Chair or Research Head initiate -- but do some universities structure their research, postdocs, and departments according to an encompassing plan or agenda?

Universities love to add bureaucratic layers and it is quite common for a university (or schools within universities) to carry out strategic planning to identify research priorities. A quick search reveals
Harvard Medical School's strategic plan is to "Seize rapidly expanding opportunities in biomedical research to increase human well-being" and identifies human genetics, therapeutic discovery, neuroscience, bioengineering, immunology and microbial sciences, stem cell and regenerative biology, and systems biology as key areas that have the potential to connect fundamental science with clinical applications.
Boston University's strategic plan includes a an "emphasis on interdisciplinary research and graduate education in order to expand our leadership in important fields and the collaborative atmosphere across our campuses." They are "especially targeting" Data Science, Engineering Biology, Global Health, Infectious Diseases, Neuroscience, Photonics, and Urban Health.
University of Nottingham's research priority areas of Cultures and Communication, Digital Futures, Health and Wellbeing, Sustainable Societies, and Transformative Technologies

Documents that look impressive to outsiders based on their mere volume are created, yes. But are they in any way linked to what is actually happening with the research at the institution? My impression is that frequently, so-called "mission statements" are more like empty marketing phrases by the PR department (or, granted, PR-conscious professors) than anything that has a real bearing on the scientific workings of the university; possibly with the "mission statement" being written after the fact, describing the current competences and some likely extrapolation into the future.

In the United States, at least, this does not generally happen except at a very coarse level.  Thus, for example, many universities engage in "cluster hiring" in which a number of positions are hired together as a strategic investment in making something interesting happen in a particular area, often coupled with some internal monies being set aside to support collaboration between those hires.  Likewise, a department may often decide to hire in a particular area where they wish to grow or to shore up weakness, or a university may set up an internal funding program for something that it is interested in.
Once faculty have been hired, however, the traditions of scientific freedom of inquiry mean that it would be looked on very askance for any person or group to try to assign faculty to work on specific research projects as part of their job.

Isn't cluster hiring and targeted internal funding a scientific plan?

@StrongBad Absolutely, on a very coarse level, as noted in my answer.  It's nothing like the much more precise and structured targets that you will often see in other parts of the scientific community, such as the organizations that directly construct and operate large shared resources like telescopes, particle colliders, or gene banks.

Typically not in academic departments, but many universities have organized research units that are not academic departments, don't offer degrees, and don't teach courses (to first order) but they do compete for research grants, hire research professionals, and do conduct research. There can be some centralized strategizing about what such units should pursue, though they are probably more often allowed to run quite independently. I work for such a center which also provides supercomputing resources to the university, state, and country as well as doing stuff that looks like academic research.

Thanks for the answer! How are these organized, strategic research units called? I wonder what positions exist in them? Obviously not professorships, so ate employees position titles like Scientist, Advisor, or....??

My university calls them Organized Research Units, but I don't think this category is all that common. They might be known elsewhere as centers, or institutes, or other synonyms. We hire Research Associates, Research Scientists, Postdocs and other categories of folks.

research teams and departments just perform research on topics that the Department Chair or Research Head initiate

Other than in very broad terms (barely beyond the decision which institutes are set up and financed), things are even much less directed: Especially in universities, research teams and departments in many cases perform research whose direction is very much determined by the personal interests of the researchers in those teams, and also vaguely influenced by whatever grants happened to have lately been acquired.

do some universities structure their research, postdocs, and departments according to an encompassing plan or agenda?

It happens on various levels, but usually not in the form of a big masterplan that encompasses all research, but rather as single strategic moves:

A university may choose to support a specific area that the university wants to strengthen in its profile.
Likewise, an institute may choose to intentionally find a researcher who works on a particular area to widen the institute's portfolio in that area and thereby increase chances to get related grants in the future.

So, these structured efforts run in parallel with a large amount of less structured (or rather, "self-directing") research going on.

What's the downvote for?


text:
What is the difference between "docent" (lecturer) and "Universitair docent" (Asst. Prof.) in the Dutch system?
I see many job openings for "docent" or "Universitair docent" on Dutch job boards. Curious, I checked out Wikipedia for more info and, while I learned about the structure there, it isn't clear to me what the differences in the two profiles are. The salary scale is the same, after all.
Also, if I apply for a "docent" position, is it feasible to request that I be considered as a "Universitair docent" in light of my exemplary experience and so on?

"Docent" or "D" or "gepromoveerd docent" is a teaching-only position (or with a minimum amount of research time, like 20%), while a "Universitair Docent" or "UD" is someone who has much more research time (e.g., 40%).
Also, there are much more tenured UD's ("UD met een vast contract") than tenured D's.
After I finished my PhD, I was docent for a year (basically because I did not get an UD position), basically teaching a lot, then I became UD, and now I'm a tenured UD.
While there are some exceptions, a rule of thumb could be that a D-position is a teaching-only and often something temporarily, while a UD position is something that can be potentially permanent and involves research time.

Thanks! This position doesn't seem to be so focused on teaching. Actually, they ask for more research and supervision related responsibilities. Sounds more like UD than D, no? Do you think HR would be open to reconsideration if I make a gentle suggestion?

You can always ask. It might also be that they have certain quota. For example, in my department, the ratio D/UD/UHD/HL has to be the same across different groups, so one group cannot simply hire only UDs. But whatever you do, EVERYONE will understand that you ultimately want to be an UD. For example, when I was D, there was a mutual understanding that I did this as a temporarily solution.

@Teusz in NL, supervision is considered teaching.

@damian Is it possible to go from Docent to Universitair Docent? I'm finishing my PhD and was offered a Docent position. I discussed with my supervisor and he never heard of such a position and thinks it would be really difficult to migrate to AP later. He suggests going for a Postdoc. Do you have any thoughts about it?

In fact, I did that. After my PhD, I was a "docent" (100% teaching) for 9 months or so, and a "universitair docent" (=assistant professor) afterwards. It's actually quite common, I'd say. The problem is that if you are too long on the 'docent' position without research time, you simply may get out of touch with research/publishing, which may create problems in the long run.


text:
What content in “research design”, aside from the fundamentals, should be taught?
I’m teaching a course in technical research methods for graduate students. As luck would have it, I have an extra week because a guest lecturer canceled.
Can you think of any content that if not typically taught in a research methods course but would be useful to graduate students?
Ideas:

helping them make LinkedIn / ResearchGate profiles or something similar
How to make your thesis into a publication
Avenues of publication for a thesis (difference between thesis and publication)
… what else?

One option is to ask the guest for any information about what they intended to "cover" an do something like that yourself if you think it has value. They might yield some notes.
But another idea is to make that week into a seminar of sorts in which students discuss possible research plans and you and members of the class comment on them to make them better. If the scale is reasonable then this might be valuable for the students.
If the week consists of several sessions then you might actually invite a colleague to each of them so that they might also comment as part of the seminar. No preparation would be needed so it wouldn't be too hard for another faculty member to participate.
"Teaching" can mean a lot more than delivering material.


text:
What kind of science jobs are there at the European level?
I'm thinking about opportunities for PhDs beyond the traditional academic route, for example in policy. I'm curious then, to hear about what kind of work there is at the level of the European Commission. Googling the keywords just brings me an endless stream of commission webpages, plenty of jobs in the massive associated bureaucracy, but little idea of what kind of opportunities there may be, or what kinds of profiles are optimal.
Any input you guys may have would be very much appreciated.
Thanks.


text:
How to refer to an Academic, NGO and private partnership organization?
What would you call an umbrella organization that unites a university faculty, an extra-academic non-profit research center, and a NGO?
These organizations plan to pool resources to facilitate scientific research, apply for grants, and co-publish. As there are advantages to developing a single entity to those ends, we plan to form an umbrella organization. But how to call it: a hub, a research centre, a working group… it seems there are no standard terms.
Do you guys have any experience with such entities and how they are called?

In my experience, an organization that organizes activities across multiple organizations would be called a coalition.

or consortium (and at this point one can start looking up synonyms!)

Coalition sounds like political bloc, no?

No, coalition is used for health and social services. For example, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

I've seen "Partnership" used as well.


text:
What’s included in a press kit for a research project?
I work at a research lab. During a periodic review, the board asked us to add a press kit related to our research. I surveyed a bunch of similar projects and found a huge array of content referred to as “press kits”.
Is there best practice for what’s included in research group press kits?
Before you suggest I ask the board, I should tell you that we nodded sagely when they delivered their advice from on high and didn’t have the gall to seem unsure. Any tips appreciated! The next review is coming up!

I just go to our Media Relations folks to chat about what would be good for a given project. They do this all the time and know what their contacts would generally like and actually use. It is unlikely you are the first at your institution to put together a press kit on a project. Go to the professionals.

If your department has a Public Relations unit, it may be worthwhile asking them for advice. We recently had the PR unit in our department interview us and prepare some materials for further distribution. They did a reasonable job at translating my technical talk to everyday language.

1. What is a press kit?
A press kit is usually a collection of information and resources that can be used by reporters and publishers. The idea behind a press kit is to make the reporter's job super easy. They are not experts in the field and require help translating your research approach and outcomes to something the layman reading their publication can understand.
2. Research press kit contents
Press kits usually include photos, graphs, and summaries of your work, in everyday language. It is a mini article with all the basics and explanations required for someone to take and write an accurate article on your work. The more effort you put in to clearly write your summary and link it to non expert concepts the better. The degree to which you need to simplify it heavily depends on the publication's audience, so often a few variants are produced for a press kit that is to be widely distributed.
3. Motivation
It is simple really, the more visibility your research receives the more likely it will be used, cited, or attract funding and the better it is for your university's reputation and visibility.


text:
What should I do with a master student's online report that made my work look like his?
I have a published a conference paper (in 2014) that has been used recently by a master student (whom I do not know) to write a paper for a master's class discussing a paper. In his work he cites my work and the title he put on researchgate.net is: Analysis Report on [my work].
Issues:

In the work itself the title does not contain Analysis report on.
He copied images of my work without referring to the original source.
The report is written (although it might not be on purpose) as if he did the work.

Since this work is for a master project I do not mind these issues that much, however it is published on ResearchGate and not clear that it is a report explaining a conference paper.
Should I ignore it our should I contact the student asking to remove the work?

Write him a nice mail how he could improve that report. Perhaps he will?

Thanks, I actually did write him and he now removed it until he has an updated version.

So would I. Communicado! ;-)

While ignoring might be an option as the impact of this student's report is not so high, not doing anything will educate students that it is okay to plagiarize or follow incorrect citing procedures. As such, which is also as a recommendation by ResearchGate, it is best to contact the author of this report and inform him of the issues.
ResearchGate does not have the policy to intervene, but if such situation occurs with actual published articles, one can contact the editor of the journal to file a plagiarism complaint, after which further action by the editors will be undertaken.

Ignore it. There are lots of bad papers out there that will never be noticed and/or cited -- and given the title, everyone who happens to come across it will realize that the original source is your paper.
Spare your worries for the important questions in life, for example on writing the follow-up paper that clearly explains why the original paper you wrote is so important!

Thanks for the answer, the issue didn't keep me awake during the night, it just was the first time I encountered this situation and I did not know how to handle correctly.


text:
How should I display scientific and non-scientific functions at the university on my email signature?
I am an Associate Professor at a British University who also has a function as Coordinator for a research team.
Should my signature and business card be:

Assoc. Prof. Dr. T. Koznin (? Assoc. Prof. T. Kozin, PhD)
Cöordinator, A Research Team
University of Pleasure

Or:

Dr. T. Koznin
Associate Prof., Faculty of Cheesecake
Cöordinator, A Research Team
University of Pleasure

I wonder:

Is it strange or redundant to have "Assoc. Prof." before Dr.?

Which of those rows is the "non-scientific function"?

"Coordinator", @FedericoPoloni , although it involves science, it's also political/bureucratic

Normally, someone from administration will have guidelines on the writing and layout of official university stationary, which normally includes business cards. You should check with your departmental clerical staff about these rules and procedures; you may not have freedom in this area, and end up with a print order that must be destroyed. There are often policies on email signature on official addresses also. You need to appreciate the magnitude of the bureaucracy that steers the leviathan of a UK university.
That said, you are confusing your hired position with your titles. They are different. A professor, of any kind (Emeritus, Full, etc) normally just uses the title of Professor. The nature of your appointment Associate Professor for a research group is not part of your nominal titles. It also depends on whether your name is used in a context where full academic attributions are also used. Pre-nominal titles do not compound in the UK as they do in the Germanic style, (except in certain circumstances), however we do tend to list all qualifications, not just postgraduate ones.
Simple style:

Prof. T. Koznin
  Associate Professor of Hard Maths
  University of Blogshire

Fully Qualified:

Prof. T. Koznin, BSc, MSc, PhD
  Associate Professor of Hard Maths
  University of Blogshire

An example of extreme compounding titles:

Eur Ing Prof Sir J Cholmondley-Warner BSc PhD MRCP MRSE CBE
  Emeritus Professor of Fine Whining
  Faculty of Laggards
  University of Midshires

I just gave the last one to illustrate how complicated the rules of formal correct academic titling can be here (and I did not choose an academic Peer - that was even too complicated for me).

Footnote for UK academics: Some institutions have taken to using the title Associate Professor for Grade 9 posts which at other institutions are graded as Senior Lecturer or Reader. They feel it enhances their ability to attract research staff from abroad who do not understand our grading system in order improve their REF. Its a way of attracting contributors without paying the Grade 10 professorial scale.


text:
How do you organise scientific articles with and without annotations?
Like most of you, I read several scientific articles every week and annotate them on my tablet.
Do you know of a useful way to organise "clean" vs "annotated" articles in a way that is searchable and mobile-device friendly?
I use Papers now, but it isn't useful to have two copies of everything: a clean one and an annotated one.
Maybe one of you guys have a brilliant method to deal with this.

Nope. I like the annotations there (but for myself only, so I store two versions...

What OS do you use?

iOS exclusively

"Like most of you, [...] and annotate them on my tablet":  Many people don't annotate articles, and probably a lot more don't even use tablets (I'm one who neither annotates articles nor use tablets, and I know many others who don't do it either).

Mendeley

This should cover nearly all your requirements -- with or without annotation.
Although my personal choice would be BibDesk (which I use nearly every day), Mendeley hits it for a cross-platform mobile-friendly experience.


text:
How do you and your lab use orcID?
We have been asked by the powers that be to move away from Academia.edu and ResearchGate and adopt services like orcID.
https://orcid.org
The one big thing missing in orcID is that there’s nowhere to describe the lab or research team, all groups are on the faculty level only.
Do any of you have some creative work-around?

I think this is what you want: https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/mission  ORCID has very little to do with Academia.edu and ResearchGate.  It's not for research teams.

It’s for research dissemination, which is my main interest

@Teusz It's not for research dissemination. It's to uniquely identify you as an author.

Maybe to check:
https://orcid.org/content/best-practices-research-organizations

Having previously worked with ORCID and helped labs and groups add ORCID iDs to their workflows, I can share about how labs/research groups use ORCID:

As others have mentioned, ORCID iDs are to identify individuals -- they distinguish you from other researchers who may share your name. A lab or group should not obtain an ORCID iD for their singular "lab" identity as that violates the terms of use. (n.b. ORCID iDs created for what appear to be non-individuals are regularly reported to ORCID by members of the ORCID community. Check Twiter -- you'll see call outs.)

Every individual who creates an ORCID iD has an ORCID record -- a web page which lists things connected to their ORCID iD. These things can be added by the individual or by systems they grant permission to update their ORCID record, such as a journal with whom they publish or their employing institution.

Unlike Academia.edu and ResearchGate, ORCID does not allow you to store manuscripts, preprints, etc. You can however use preprint servers, zenodo, figshare, etc., connect your ORCID iD to your account in those systems, and then Crossref or DataCite will add your papers to your ORCID record.

Research labs or groups may have multiple ORCID goals:

Collecting the individual research members' ORCID iDs so the lab/group has them on record

Adding their lab/group affiliation to the research members' ORCID records -- so when the researcher submits a grant application or manuscript, the submission system will read their lab/group affiliation from the ORCID record

Using those iDs, regularly searching research information systems, such as Crossref, Dimensions, and Web of Science, for their members' works, grants, and more (only works when the members connect their ORCID iDs during submission or proofing)

Using those iDs, regularly accessing their ORCID records (programmatically) to learn of any new works, grants, research resources (facilities, labs, collections, etc.), memberships, etc. connected to their ORCID records

Physical labs with equipment, facilities, etc. used for research which have an access approval process may collect ORCID iDs during submission so they can record use of their facility as a "research resource" on researchers' ORCID records. More about this here.


text:
How to step down gracefully
I have a tenure track position at a European university. Owing to some serious health issues in my family I will move to be closer to them.
I will resign before the term is over (but will try to keep on 1 day/mo to contribute to a small project and hopefully keep my title, I’m about to be promoted to Full Professor but I’m not sure how the faculty will react once they learn this).
No one knows this.
What’s the best way to move forward to preserve my relationship with the faculty?

Are you worried that it will put the promotion in doubt or just the question exactly as you asked it?

Honestly: I’m worried about both (even if the promotion was based on work previously done... there are expectations)

Feels sneaky to accept the position first and then level this bombshell... tho it would be pragmatic in a sense

I don't know how things work in Europe, but I would assume that if you truly resign, you are done at this university. No title, no one day of work per month, no nothing.  So if you want to eventually come back, I would look into some form of long-term leave instead of resigning.

Can you take unpaid leave? If you have to move permanently, then this wouldn't help -- but if a year would be enough to deal with the health issues you mentioned, then that might be a workable solution. Best wishes to you.

@NateEldredge in that case maybe not “resign” but reduce to one day a month if they allow

If the health situation is temporary, perhaps an unpaid leave might be an option. If not, then you would really have to negotiate, but I think no institution can afford a position to be left effectively open. Depending on country, appointment of a replacement full position may take a long time, plus, the funding for an extra day per week is not necessarily available.

Assuming you have a good relationship with the faculty at the moment:
I would discuss the situation honestly with your head of department or other appropriate person. It sounds like you have a good reason to want to be closer to your family. It also sounds as though you genuinely want to maintain links with the university. Those are reasonable goals, and if your department values you they will try to support them. Maybe you can keep a day or two a week, maybe you can work remotely, maybe you can visit for a week every two months... hopefully you can explore options and find something that works for everybody.

I agree with this advice.  If your mind is made up to go, there is nothing to be gained by keeping it to yourself any longer.  Talk to your superiors and see what options there might be.

The future is unknown. I suggest that you accept the promotion and also offer to continue your associations as much as possible given the family constraints you are facing. I don't see it as sneaky, as you have earned the promotion. It would only be sneaky, I think, if you had pre-planned every aspect of it.
I suspect that people will be reasonable, even if they are disappointed to lose some of your participation.
You might ease the shock a bit for them if they know that there is a situation beyond your control that you will be forced to deal with and that will require changes.
But, perhaps you can contribute more than you think, given today's communication capabilities. You needn't be "on site" to have an impact, I suspect. Time may be the biggest issue, rather than distance, and that would be the case even if you don't relocate.


text:
Tips for managing a panel at a conference
My advisor invited me to host a panel at a conference next week because she is on vacation and of course I said yes right away without thinking.
But now I realize I should asked more questions, because I don’t really know what to do.
What are some good tips on how to be a great host for a panel? For ex, maybe I should get everyone’s presentation in advance on the same pin drive so we don’t need to switch between presentations all the time. That’s obvious. But what else?

If you had a bit more time, I'd suggest that you contact each of the participants and ask them a few questions. It may be too late for that, but they will probably want to know the order of presentation.
They will certainly want to know how much time they each have and how you should (or should not) signal them as the end of their slot approaches.
You need to know how questions from the audience are handled at the conference - after each presentation - all together at the end - not at all. Make sure that there is time for questions, if allowed.
If someone ends early, it is usually appropriate to delay the start of the next speaker so that those people who want to hear only part of the panel have time to arrive and/or leave without disruption. But that may vary with local custom.
If possible, try to meet the presenters before the panel session.
Coordinate with any volunteers that are available for such things as water or special needs.
Get there early to make sure the setup is correct.

Some basics from my experience as a panel chair: At the bare minimum, email all of the presenters in advance about their AV/tech needs. As a panel chair, you will need to make sure that each presenter doesn't go over the necessary time limit. You can tell them at the panel that you will signal at them when they have, say, 5 minutes left, or 1 minute left. You can do this with your hands or with a sheet of paper with the time left on it. Make sure to meet the presenters beforehand so that you can know how to pronounce their names correctly, too. You might want to read a short bio in addition to the introduction of each speaker; it depends on the conference.


text:
Software to help planning a course
I’m teaching a few classes next semester and feel scattered. Can you recommend some software to help me plan out a course so on each day I can see what topic I’m teaching, activities planned, homework to assign etc? Would be great to have a nice overview though I could just use excel too if need be. Thanks!

There are a bunch of software to do this. First, check with your institution because they might already have one. This can totally depend on where you are but in the US, Canvas is very popular, but I believe you need institution or individual subscription for that. Google classroom is another cool solution which is free of cost. Both these are good and kind of widespread. Other than these there are countless number of software that you can find, and they all have their pros and cons.


text:
When should I publish in interdisciplinary versus subject-specific scientific journals?
Most science research is published in subject-specific journals, of which there are many. However, there are a relatively small number of interdisciplinary journals, some of which are the most highly cited of all journals (Nature, Science); others have impact factors comparable to subject-specific journals (e.g., PLOS ONE, J. R. Soc. Interface, etc.).
If we discount arguments around open science and similar business model arguments (which could favor journals like PLOS ONE), and assume that the purpose of publishing is simply to get your research read (and cited) by the largest "relevant audience", when should one publish in an interdisciplinary journal versus a subject-specific journal (assuming they have comparable impact factors)? (Are there any papers out there that compare the fate of publications [or their authors!] in the two different types of journal?)
Thanks in advance.

My opinion on this is as follows. If your research advances the state of the art of field X, either by adding new knowledge specifically to X or improving existing methods/knowledge in X, you should submit to an X-specific journal. If your paper improves knowledge in field Y using methods from field X, I would either publish in a journal specific to Y, or in an Y,X interdisciplinary journal.

+1 For your second sentence, which answers a question I've been thinking about, but never got around to asking: If I use methods from field X to address a topic in field Y, should I publish in X journals or Y journals?

This is of course only my opinion. But, for example, I have found it very hard in computer science to get accepted to a journal that applies pretty standard CS methodology to advance some other field unless you also greatly improve the state of the art of the methodology itself.

I have, on one occasion, published a paper in a CS journal that applied some state-of-the-art technology to another field. I did not develop the state-of-the-art technology in question, but it was brand new technology. I guess that is why it was accepted.

If the scope of your research is so wide that audience of subject-specific journal would require prerequisite knowledge other than the predefined scope of the journal then I'd be publishing in the interdisciplinary journal if I were you.
I don't to expect to read an article in computer science specific journal and encounter an article about useful application of computer science in some other scientific field.

I think the most important factor is who you (and the editor/reviewers) think should read the paper. Nature has a very broad readership from different fields - if your results are relevant for this broad audience, send there. PLoS ONE is also multidisciplinary, but has a different audience then Nature. If your results are relevant to a more specific field, send to a field-specific journal.
In fact, in some cases, you could even have a work that is mainly in field X, but you feel an audience from field Y should be exposed to it and send it to the "less fitting" journal of field Y.


text:
How to Acknowledge mail related to PhD Proposal?
I had applied for PhD Scholarship. Today i received a email from that foundation. They told me
"As soon as you are ready with your PhD Study Proposal, please send it to Prof X"
How to Acknowledge this mail in formal way that i am going to send my PhD Proposal to Prof X as soon as it is ready?

Did the foundation ask for an acknowledgement? If not, there is no need to reply, imo.

They send this mail to group of people. I am not sure whether acknowledge this mail or not

I'd probably go with "thank you for this opportunity for support.  I anticipate that I will be sending this document by xx/xx/xxxx"  This way, if they need it sooner, they might let you know.

It is safe to assume that the receipt of an e-mail that has been sent to a group of people and that does not explicitly ask otherwise does not have to be acknowledged. They can be treated as an FYI.
If the sender does need a confirmation, they will get back to you.