text:
Should a reference letter for a student always be positive?
I am finding the following moral problem, and possibly people with more experience could help me.
One of my Master students (who recently finished his master studies) is applying for PhD positions. Despite my good scientific opinion about him (and his master thesis research), my personal opinion is starting to change. He is a good student, but not an exceptional student. This means that he can of course prepare a good PhD. The problem comes when I start suggesting places he could apply (and you know, getting PhD funding is not straightforward), he has many obstructions: things like 'I do not like this country', 'in this country phd's are of 3 years and with teaching', 'The subject of this phd is the same area of my master, but not directly related', and things like these.
I am happy to help, but this is becoming tiring. As a master thesis advisor I am the one who is expected to write the recommendation letter.  After having these encounters I do not feel I should write a very positive letter.
How should I manage this situation?

You did your job suggesting places. It is his responsibility to find one. If you agree to write a recommendation letter, you need to be honest, but if you think you need to "shoot down" the student to be honest, you'd rather not write one. Or you focus on the positive aspects of the student - after all, when he has made a decision, his indecisiveness is not PhD-relevant, I do not see why that should be in the reference, unless it affects his work.

@CaptainEmacs Can you please make this comment an answer, so that I can vote it up?

Related (but somewhat different): https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2717/what-to-do-if-asked-to-write-a-letter-of-recommendation-for-a-weak-candidate

A little OT, but tbh I fail to see why the student being picky about where he wants to do his PhD is a problem... Even more enough to change the view on LoRs...

I don't see that the student's "obstructions" are at all out of line.

Like SAH, I don't see that the objections you listed are at all unreasonable.    Basically you think he's not exceptional so he shouldn't be picky in where he applies.  I wish I had put more careful thought myself into where to apply.  This may be tiring for you, but it is a major life decision for the student with repercussions that will last for some time.

So, what you're saying is, because you find this student slightly too picky about graduate schools, you would like to destroy their career.  Listen to yourself.  Does that sound remotely ethical to you?

@BenWebster Ouch. Do you think he would be posting here if he cared as little about the student as you're suggesting?  Perhaps you need to listen to yourself.  Why so hostile?

@BobRodes Because I really think what the OP is saying is incredibly unfair to the student.  The OP's complaint is that the student doesn't want to take the OP's advice about applying to grad school (with, as other people people have pointed out, reasons that don't sound totally insane), and the OP's response is to write a bad letter for someone of whom they have a "good scientific opinion," at a point when they have incredible power over this person's career.

@BobRodes And now the OP is asking random yahoos on the internet to give them permission to go ahead and do this.  Well, at least one random yahoo does not approve.

@BenWester: I completely disagree: I know other senior professors, with more experience than me, that denied to write him a letter with some excuses (later they told me the real reasons: they do not believe he should do phd studies), so they put on me even stronger the ball on my roof concerning the letter (as I am the master thesis advisor, and I am supposed to be one of the writers). To put an example, he got an interview in a good place, he went, did the interview and just after he wanted to withdraw the application because the position was with some teaching...

I do think that, although the student's academic record is important in writing them a letter, the letter also covers other attributes such as the ability to work with others - including the ability to respond well to advice.

@BenWebster My reading of the OP's question differs from yours.  "I do not feel I should write a very positive letter" suggests to me that he doesn't want to write a positive letter, not that he wants to write a negative one.  Apparently he doesn't want to write a negative one either, because if he weren't conflicted about what to do he wouldn't ask for help.  Your reading is obviously different.

@Gaussian-Matter: Are you serious about this question? What if he doesn't like this country? Does every PhD student have to love this country? And so what if he prefers a program that doesn't have a teaching component? Why are you blaming him for having opinions that different from yours instead of appreciating the fact that he's being honest about them with you instead of hiding them from you?

@Mehrdad: YES, I am serious about this question, and this is why I am posting it here. I completely understand that some of my proposals should not like him (I have been an student before, looking for PhD, so I do know what is this). Concerning this specific thing of the countries, I proposed multiple several places in multiple countries (France, UK, Italy), with a good graduate programs, but in all cases there is some obstruction. When we found a place he liked, then he had some teaching duties (in my point of view are necessary in education): my finite list of suggestions will soon finish...

@Gaussian-Matter I think it is commendable that he rejected the position if he would be forced to teach against his will. There are far too many forced unwilling teachers, and it is usually horrible for the students. (The importance of teaching in an academic career is another thing that you may want to talk with him about).

This answer is really more a comment, but way too long for one. I still think it speaks to the spirit of your question, which, through the lines and in several comments you later added, appears to also include: Should I write a letter if my colleagues don't agree that my student should pursue a Ph.D.? Should a letter only address academic merit? What is a reasonable limit to the number of letters I am expected to write, including those that end up not being used? Can I take back that I will write letters? Here are some thoughts about the above, and your question proper.

Other answers have addressed if a letter should be positive. I agree that, by and large, it should be. I know of a professor who, when he felt he couldn't write a good letter, wrote a few informal lines of what he felt he could write (which wasn't good), and showed them to the asking student. It's unconventional, but maybe one way of convincing a student to go elsewhere (this doesn't address your special responsibility as a Masters supervisor)
Your colleagues' opinion. Your two comments present the situation a bit differently - one saying that they seem to have given excuses (too busy and such), the other that they feel your student shouldn't do a Ph.D. (no reason shared here). A letter addresses almost exclusively if you feel someone is academically qualified to do a Ph.D., and to a lesser extent obviously also a student's personality as it influences likely success in their studies. For both, and as long as your colleagues don't share facts that could change your academically very positive opinion, what they say and do should not matter. It sounds as if this is one of your first times to write letters. One of the amazing side-effects of being an (assistant) professor is a large degree of independence, and I think you should cherish it. It's understandable that your colleagues' reaction makes you question your own judgement; but in that case I suggest being more upfront and inquisitive: ask them directly, off the record, "Are you really only too busy, or am I missing something? If you have reasons that escaped my attention, I would value your feedback." And when you have all the facts, make your own decision
Should a letter address only address academic merit? Are non-academic factors legitimate reasons for a student to consider? Relevant non-academic reasons can certainly influence your decision to write a letter (e.g., lack of maturity or persistence, poor team-worker); and if you write a letter, you are free to allude to them (which I would tell the student though). However, in this case, allow me to say that as a mentor, you should have ensured that what happened, wouldn't have happened. When you discuss letters in the future, bring up what else matters to the student - before writing any letters. I find it quite understandable that a student prefers not to study in country X, or, in a short program of only 3 years, to be on a fellowship as opposed to having to also teach. If you disagree, present your reasons in this initial discussion, and see if you can convince the student; and if you can't, such universities should not be in the application pool. When I applied, one of my letter-writers tried hard to convince me to remove Princeton from my pool (he had taught there, and found the location dreadful), while making other universities in far-off places (Twin Cities, say) palatable underlining he loved the people there (among others). He failed in the first, and succeeded in the second; so both ended up in my pool. Don't take this (too) personal: it's your student's life
Number of letters. As others have said, on the order of 10 seems certainly normal. I had 15-ish, 20 years back, as I lacked a sense of the strength of my background, and we discussed this too - I was told it was excessive, but people still helped me at this large number when I asked them to please agree. So discuss a number of letters you are willing to write in advance as well. This number will vary (how busy are you? How strongly do you believe in the candidate?), but don't later adjust it down except for very good reasons. Withdrawing an application at a good school is unfortunate and disappointing, but see (3), and it happened for a reason at least some understand. Don't take it personal; just deduct one from the agreed-upon number
Can you take back writing letters? Only for better reasons than i see here, if I understood what happened correctly. Factual information by your colleagues (which shouldn't usually include performance in their classes, but, say, aspects of the student's personality that didn't manifest with you) could lead to legitimate reasons to renege, but they should be very convincing

These were just some thoughts, which I hope weren't too off-base, and I also hope you maybe find of some use.

Beware that in Europe the culture of recommendation letters is quite different from the US: I've never seen anyone around here writing ten different recommendation letters for a candidate.

@Massimo: Yes, I agree. I am from central Europe, and so familiar with this. What I write about the number applies mostly to the US (all but one of my applicators were there); and 15 is pretty stupid in hindsight even for the U.S. :)

Out of curiosity, why would you write 15 different letters? Can't you just send the same one 15 times? Why would you modify your letter if it's about the same student but a different school?

@terdon: When I applied, I assumed that was more or less the case. I read several allusions on ASE to people heavily tailoring their letters to schools, so I'm probably not the best person to answer this...As to the work involved, more letters are still more work (e.g., as/if the recommender mails them directly to the departments).

The general answer is yes, a reference letter should always be positive.  If one cannot write a positive letter for a student, one should decline to write a reference.
In this case, the student is having difficulty, perhaps even internal conflict, in choosing programs to which to apply.  Captain Emacs has it right in the comments; that's not relevant to his ability to complete a Ph.D. program.  If repeated requests to suggest programs are becoming tiring for you, say, "Repeated requests to suggest programs are becoming tiring for me.  You are an adult.  Find and select the program that you believe will suit you best.  I've already suggested those I believe will best suit you."
While you are having that discussion, set a limit, perhaps three to five, on the number of recommendation letters you will write.  Applications are usually kept to a reasonable number by the fact of application fees, but sometimes students get carried away anyway.

Five is a pretty small number of schools to apply to, and three is a huge risk. Out of all the people I know who applied to graduate school, I don't think a single person applied to less than eight, with the mode being around 10-12. Putting a limit sounds fine, but putting an unrealistically small limit can be harmful.

It is not always possible to decline writing a letter when, due to your position, one is expected. The graduate school admission committee may require one specifically from the previous supervisor.

The graduate school admission committee may require one specifically from the previous supervisor. — This requirement is the student's problem, though, not the advisor's. @user8001

@RogerFan It really depends on the country or region: those I know who applied within Europe made no more than 3-5 applications (when I was a student, I applied to 4).

@RogerFan I suspect some of this in the US is that the mentality of applying for a lot of undergraduate programs is bleeding over into graduate admissions as well.  That said, I agree that 3 is unrealistically low.  There's just a bit too much randomness in the process for me to feel comfortable making a recommendation like that.  But probably the 10th place you apply isn't adding very much.  I also wouldn't put an upper limit on the number of applications I'll write for (OK, maybe an implicit one of 20 or something); it's the student's business if they want to expend the application fees.

In Europe things work completely different. I am Professor in Germany and no one applies to more of 5 graduate programs. At least in my field...

It is true that letters should be positive, but there are of course degrees of positive. Some students will get "more positive" letters than others. I agree, of course, that if a professor can't say anything positive then it is better to decline to write the letter.

Your recommendation letter is supposed to be about how good you think he'd be at studying for a PhD, not how good you think he was(n't) at selecting a programme. Unless you think his uncertainty/awkwardness about where he wants to study will affect his actual study once he gets wherever he goes, it really isn't relevant to his letter of recommendation.
I appreciate that giving advice to this student about where to apply has become tedious but punishing them by writing a bad letter of recommendation isn't an appropriate way to deal with that. Rather, you should deal with it by better managing the amount of time you spend giving this advice, which may well boil down to saying that you've already made lots of suggestion and you don't have any more advice to give.

Seems to me that the OP has a concern about being honest, and doesn't feel that it's appropriate to slam the student in a letter of recommendation any more than anyone else does.  That's why he's asking for advice, I would think.  But it's a good point that the student's finding problems with all of the advisor's recommendations doesn't have much to do with his ability to complete a PhD program.

@BobRodes: it is a fine line to discern, but it seems to me that a student who is borderline in aptitude, and who also has challenges taking advice from this professor, may have challenges taking advice from other professors, including a future advisor. If that is the case, then the issue here does have something to do with the student's ability to complete a PhD program. Aptitude in a subject is not the only thing required to complete a PhD, as we all know.

@OswaldVeblen I agree that, if the asker feels that the student's behaviour directly affects their ability to complete a PhD then that is relevant to a LoR. But that wasn't the impression I got from the question.

Possibly I didn't express myself correctly, but this is definitely the point. I am measuring the personal capabilities (and not only the scientific ones) to deal with a phd. This include a lot of skills as all you you know.

@OswaldVeblen That's certainly a valid concern as well.

It sounds like your objections are less about the content of the letters, but in wasting your time writing the letters for programs that you think are a poor fit, or aren't the places where you think your student should be applying.
You should have a frank and honest conversation with your student about that - it's reasonable for you to ask for such a conversation given your role. If they continue to persist, you need to decide whether or not you'll continue to write letters for them given they're headed down a path you don't necessarily support.

Definitely I have no problems on writing letters, that is part of the work. The problem is that I am suppossed to write it (I am the master thesis supervisor) and other senior professors didn't want to write letters. All of them gave some excuses not to write them (too busy, too long ago to have an opinion, ...) but it is me who has to deal with to talk with him and say 'look, possibly it is not a good idea for you to apply for a phd position'


text:
Level of detail when reviewing the language of a low quality paper
I am currently reviewing a computer science conference paper. I like to give constructive feedback both related to the content as well as for language issues, such as typos or grammatical mistakes.
The paper I'm currently reviewing has significant language flaws. Mentioning each and every typo, wrong word order, and grammar issue would take me about an hour.  The paper will likely be rejected anyway, so I am not sure if these language suggestions will even be used. It would be different if the paper were likely to be accepted, because improving the language would further improve the quality of the paper.
Does it make sense to give thorough and detailed feedback on a poorly written paper's language quality in a review if the paper will likely be rejected?

You are a reviewer, not a proofreader. Possibly related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/60576/can-i-as-a-reviewer-tell-authors-to-get-a-native-english-speaker-to-proofread

For this type of paper, I'll often list every problem in the first paragraph only, and then say that the rest of the paper has similar issues.  That makes the point that the writing is beyond redemption, offers some help to the authors in pointing out types of problems, and doesn't take up too much of your time.

From Alan Jay Smith's The Task of the Referee:

Refereeing a paper can require considerable time and effort; don't waste that effort on a detailed critique of a badly flawed paper that can never
  be made publishable. Finding one or more fatal and uncorrectable flaws excuses the referee from checking all subsequent details.

The trick is to determine what is indeed "fatal". If you believe that your corrections have some non-trivial chance of improving a published paper at some point (possibly in a less-competitive venue), go ahead and make them, as you are contributing something to the body of literature. Otherwise, do not waste your time.
As an addendum, you are not a copyeditor, but a scientific reviewer. Ways to deal with papers with many language/grammar issues include:

If grammatical errors are very numerous, point out classes of errors, instead of individual ones.
Focus on errors which actually obscure scientific meaning, and let ones which are merely poor or nonstandard style go.

Thank you for the ref, I never saw it before, but it's really great and full of useful insights!

For a CS conference paper, I'd go slightly farther than this and say, "don't waste that effort on a detailed critique of a badly flawed paper where you wouldn't trust the authors to fix those flaws without you needing to see it again." Journal papers have scope for multiple rounds of revise and referee; conference papers don't.

I don't remember which conference it was, but it was suggested reading for a review at some point - I was also very happy to find it!

My interpretation of the question is as follows: you are asking if in your report you should spend time correcting all the grammar errors, spelling errors, etc., of which there are many of, especially since the paper will be rejected anyways.
First of all, the answer is completely independent of whether the paper will be rejected or not. The effort you put into a review should not depend on whether you intend to reject it or not - that defeats the entire purpose of a review.
Secondly, you claim that the paper will be rejected anyways, which implies that the errors in writing have no significant influence on the scientific content of said paper. If true, state this explicitly in your review. This ensures that no unwanted misunderstandings occur (since you shouldn't reject a paper due to language errors alone, at worst you should require a major revision prior to accepting it).
Now, should you list all/most of the errors? No. That would come off as quite condescending and probably not useful at all. Instead, you should mention what tendencies you see and use one or two examples to explain what you mean. Since there are so many mistakes that it'd take you an hour to write them all down, chances are that the authors' language skills are so bad that they need to consult a professional, potentially hire an editor to write the paper for them: mention this, again in a polite way, emphasizing that neglecting to do so is likely to harm their future papers as well.
You should also remember that if your feedback on their writing takes up more space than usual, perhaps you should consider giving them even more feedback on their actual content to balance things out, even though you've already clarified that their language errors aren't the reason for their rejection. This is because authors can sometimes be so vain that if you focus too much on their writing, they'd automatically assume that "oh yeah, they must have rejected me for my writing, look how much they focused on it", even if you explicitly state otherwise. You are not responsible for their assumptions, but a good review should be well-balanced and give off the proper signals.

Your question isn't about the level of language in fact. If I understand well, your real question is
"Is it worth it to take 1 hour to correct a paper, since it will certainly be rejected ?"
At this question, I will always answer yes. I am personally a non-native english speaker and I love when people correct my work. I can then improve my English, which is always good.
What do you have to lose by doing it ? Nothing. And the person will even maybe be grateful to you.

sure. i have the exact same opinion as you. I always give concise feedback also on language-issues. however, this is more or less an extreme case where i am not sure anymore, if it makes sense to do so, because the author has foundational flaws in his writing style. hence, correcting each error one by one will likely not make him a better writer next time...

Hum, what I would do : correct the non-basics fault and write a short text about what you think (if you have the right to do so)

"What do you have to lose by doing it ?" - Time that could be better spent on other things that are your responsibility, of course.

It's his responsability too to give a review, and in a good review, there is always a concise feedback about language-issues. But I agree on the fact that it is maybe not worth the time wasted on it.

Sporadic mistakes can be pointed out in full. However, it is not the reviewer's job to do a language teachers' job of denoting every single language mistake; the latter would probably be paid for it. Point out a dozen errors and then say "there are many more language glitches; please have the paper proofread by a native speaker" or so.

I can't resist: it's personally and English. ;-)

@HansLundmark why not editing ? ^^ It's done anyway.

I'll answer the question with a different interpretation: Is it worth it to cite every single typo, if there are many of them? IMHO, no.
If there are two or three typos that you saw, then you should list them. Otherwise, it is not only a significant waste of time, but the authors can end up relying on your list and missing stuff that you also missed. I usually say that it needs to be reviewed, because it contains several typos/errors.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Condensed citation of multiple GitHub issues
I have submitted around ~12 bug reports and want to cite this factoid in my paper. But I don't want to cite 12 different links for each GitHub issue. The links all have this common prefix:
https://github.com/ConsenSys/mythril/issues/
So, when I added the link in my citation, I was thinking of using https://github.com/ConsenSys/mythril/issues/[584, 1270, 1232, 1235, 1293, 1294, 988, 1300, 1303, 1291, 1238, 1295].
There is no single suggested citation format (e.g., MLA, APA, IEEE), but an answer that somewhat, but not quite, resembles my query is here. Is there any documentation that anyone could point me to? If not, I will go with that answer.

Could you perhaps cite the issues page and expand on what issues you posted in a footnote?

I like it. I haven't so far used footnotes, but that seems like it would be better than what I have going right now. Thanks!

Its a fair question. I took on an overly narrative tone and have to dial it back, according to my adviser, so I may actually decide to not include that. Thanks for the tips.

@AaronBrick Generally, citing issue reports is a good idea if it allows readers to verify and reproduce the paper's findings.

As hinted in a comment, "the numbers alone would be enough." Those numbers can appear in the main body, e.g.,
During the course of this research, twelve bugs were reported for the  mythril security analysis software. (Those reports are numbered 584, 1270, 1232, 1235, 1293, 1294, 988, 1300, 1303, 1291, 1238, and 1295, all of which are accessibly from the following url: \url{https://github.com/ConsenSys/mythril/issues/}.)
You could push the bracketed details to a footnote, since they are less interesting. You could also summarise any particularly interesting reports, perhaps you've already done that.

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


text:
What methods can be used in online exams to genuinely test the students' knowledge and capabilities?
There has been a lot of talk about online teaching in relation to covid-19 and campus shutdowns.
This question isn't about that though: my question is about what ways online examinations should be treated in counterpoint to written examinations.
I'm going to be transferring my course's written examination into an online environment. This examination involved 2 hours of students, with a pen and paper, answering questions both short and long in a typical examination environemnt.
An online exam however cannot be policed. Demanding it be anything other than open book is unrealistic. What methods can be deployed such that it is a genuine test of students' knowledge and capabilities?

What's the course about? Math? Science? Programming? Humanities? Or any of them in general?

@scaaahu Programming, but very little emphasis on coding in the written exam.

Are honor codes a thing in your country/institution? (I am not vlaiming they solve the problem)

@user111388 Have those ever worked?

@Mast: My impression (anecdotal, but having discussed this with people from a wide range of places) is that honour codes work provided they’re part of a university culture where integrity is taken reasonably seriously by students.  Given that, honour codes work well to reinforce that culture and codify what expectations it entails.  But if there’s not a pre-existing culture of taking integrity seriously, then an “honour code” imposed by authorities or individual faculty won’t do much.  And this sort of culture certainly varies a lot between different universities/fields/places.

My cynical response to your question title is that we don't even know how to do this using normal exams.

Regarding honour codes, my impression is that they are a way of setting the rules in a positive way. Formally, "You are not allowed to do this and that" and "I promise I will not do this and that" are equivalent, but the second is putting the onus on me. It will not stop a determined cheater, but it may dissuade someone on the verge, and helps clarify what  exactly the rules are.

@Mast: I live in a country without them (they are very rarely) and I do believe they help a little bit -- however, if the people on this site are typical  US people, my impression from there posts is that in the US, a honor code is as mighty is a law of nature.

I wish people were asking the same question "... genuinely test the students' knowledge and capabilities?" even before the epidemic.

@Mast Honor codes typically involve harsher penalties if you get caught. At the school I intended that used one, if you got caught cheating on so much as a homework assignment, a first offense could result in a one-term suspension, not just a 0 on that particular assignment.

@user111388 That seems more like an individual thing.  From my experience as a Canadian, I don't really get the impression that honour codes are that strong in the US.  For example, in North America, Japanese culture is often referenced as being much more "honour based" than NA.

One thing which has not been addressed in any of the answers so far: Sites like Chegg.com that in exchange for a subscription promise "expert answers" to any posted questions within two hours.  I gave an math exam online yesterday, and sure enough, all the questions magically showed up on Chegg and were answered during the exam.

@xLeitix  Exactly that.    Plus,  there are ways to catch cheating online or in the classroom

First, a two hour time limit might be difficult to enforce or to guarantee, especially if it uses a real-time clock. At some level of scale you may start to find that some students didn't get the exam paper or were unable to return it by the deadline. So, I'd start by rethinking if a time limit of less than a day is really essential to your exam.
Second, you can pre-vet any questions you ask by doing searching yourself online for possible answers and responses. Reject questions that have too much online presence, or be prepared for getting that back as answers. Presumably the test isn't about effective online searches.
Third, give up the idea of asking students for facts. That is obvious, I'd think, as facts are cheap. But even facts requiring computation, such as in mathematics or statistics can be generated with tools such as MatLab or Mathematica.
The best sort of questions, I think, are those that require either or both of interpretation and insight. Questions about the why of things rather than the what and how are much better. However, these are the hardest to create, the hardest to answer, and are likely to have the widest variation in quality from students. To grade them might require quite a lot of interpretation: does this student show any insight at all into the subject? Pass-fail grading can be considered. Repeat attempts can be considered.
As an alternative to an exam, you can consider individual portfolio development by students. Students write or otherwise create some artifacts according to some criteria. Plagiarism concerns come in to play here, of course.
I'll note that honor codes can help to a certain extent, though provide no guarantees. And honor codes created in the moment are probably less effective than those of long standing.

Why would you suggest that honor codes created in the moment are probable less effective?  I would suspect that they would be more effective, with more novelty to them and less chance for them to dull with time.  I would suspect that attention and thought to an honor code is what ultimately makes it effective.

@BenI., I don't have any real evidence. But when a student applies to, say, Dartmouth, they already learn of the honor code and what is expected of them. There is a history of its application, including violations. Students have participated in it, including the statement of it and its application. A new code might just seem like something imposed. But it is really just a guess about relative effectiveness.

I think a lot of us are dealing with this right now. Here's what I and some of my colleagues are doing.
Open book exams: As a lot of people are saying, there's no practical way to police students' use of outside resources, so don't. Write the exam with the expectation that they are using notes and possibly even Google, and let them know that. You don't want to disadvantage students who think they're being honest!
Interpretive questions: Google is great for facts, but lousy for providing interpretation. As a math instructor, one of my major concerns was the existence of software like Symbolab and Wolfram Alpha that can do most calculations. But there's no software in existence that can solve a decently well-written word problem, or that can explain what particular features of a graph mean in context.
Class-specific questions: One of my colleagues, a history instructor, has the problem that the topics involved in the exam are sufficiently well-studied that interpretations are actually freely available online, and a reasonably clever student would be able to paraphrase well enough to avoid detection. What he's planning to do is to ask the students to relate the topic to the class itself, asking the students to reference in-class discussions in their answers. Because Google has no way to know what was discussed in class, this is pretty robust against cheating.
Image recognition: Google does have reverse-image-search functionality, but it isn't very effective if you made the image yourself. As a result, asking a question that requires students to understand an image can be useful; in my exam, I asked students to supply a function that matched a given graph. It's worth noting that, since images are largely incompatible with screen readers, you might have to be conscious of any disabilities among your students.
Time: If a time limit is important, have the exam available for only slightly longer than that time slot. My exam was two hours long, and I had it available for three hours. That limited the ability for students to communicate questions to each other, and it also allowed some flexibility for students running into technical problems. Personally, if possible, I recommend just writing an untimed exam, written with the expectation that students might be communicating with each other.
Justification: Most students do a very poor job of explaining reasoning that isn't their own -- use that. If an exam problem requires students to justify their answer, it's that much harder for them to get answers from one another.

This is a really good answer with useful suggestions!

+1 for "Interpretive questions": this is the type of most questions I have been getting in interviews

+1 for taking into account students with disabilities.

you are right that there is no software that can solve word problems, but just to alert everyone, I (and many others) have had students snap a pic of a word problem, post it to (for example) chegg.com, and immediately get an answer - and this was for in-class exams that I thought i was decently proctoring.

I’m considering making my final exams oral via Skype/Zoom/WebEx/Teams.
My reasoning is that, for the size of class I teach (20 to 24) and the usual exam duration and marking time, it will take me about the same amount of time.
I believe that I can usually ascertain a student’s grade to A/B/C/D/F within about five minutes of questioning. The finer grades will take a little more time, but again still within the time I usually spend on grading and proctoring.
I have a midterm coming up, and will try it out there.
Advantages: you’re pretty sure it’s the right student. They don’t have time to look much up. And any in-room help will be obvious.
Disadvantages: scheduling it may be difficult. Students are not used to it. Getting them to do computations / calculations may be problematic.
—-
Edit:
So far, I’ve done about about one hundred oral exams and it’s worked very well. The scheduling issue has a tech solution: I’ve used Microsoft Bookings which has direct access to my calendar and let’s the students manage their booking. Plus, I get to schedule when they can book their exams.

I think it is a good idea, with two problems: it may make people more nervous, and with overloaded servers, there may be problems. I hope you find ways to mitigate both.

@Davidmh Thanks for your thoughts.  Yes, when I've done oral exams in person before, I've seen grown men cry in front of a white board because it made them so nervous. Definitely something to avoid.

When I was doing exams on paper I would jump and switch between problems to unblock myself. It is not easy to do on an oral exam. Maybe you could give them a list of questions up front, and let them choose the order?

@Davidmh Yes, I certainly intend to give them the list of "starter" questions: where I'll start with the questions.  Previously, with in-person orals, we issued a (long) list of possible questions that the students could be asked -- before the exam, so they knew what they were letting themselves in for.  I'm also amenable to switching between problems if the student gets flustered. It'll be a new experience for them (and me, online), so I'll have to be flexible.

Additionally, we have to have an observer ("Beisitzer") in Germany for oral exams to ensure that no one is unjustly evaluated.

@DeboraWeber-Wulff I don’t have an observer, but I’ve been recording all orals so it’s possible to do what you suggest after the exam.

I would resist the COMMON ADVICE to go for some harder, research-y, project-y type questions.  They are not as pedagogically helpful for a neophyte.  (Less progressive, less basic skills testing.)  Instead I would decide that some loss in cheating is worth the cost, versus a cost in learning.
All that said, the following actions can be taken to mitigate* the cheating danger:

Make the exam timed, AT a specific time (this is a good idea in general to exert some discipline...CLAIM your regularly scheduled time), with typed answers submitted in last few minutes of the test.  NOTE: you don't need some fancy system.  It can be as simple as an email which they "reply" to by adding answers.
Make the tests LESS high stakes by doing more frequent AND shorter exams.  A weekly Friday hour long exam is not unreasonable for a 5 day per week class.  An every two weeks hour long exam is reasonable for a 3 day per week class.  Several studies have shown that lower stakes, more frequent tests are less likely to be cheated on.
Add a signature block (can be typed name) that no assistance was received.  The intention is not to stop ALL cheating.  But some fraction of it.
Make the exam 10% shorter based on the time for the kids to access the email and reply to it.  (And let them know this.)
Make it a little easier than normal.  The benefit in driving some feeling of success and lessening the "need to cheat" feeling is worth the small loss in challenging the best students.  But if you want, you can do an extra credit (with the clear communication to the class, that it will be significantly more difficult and not to attempt it until all other problems have been attempted.  Make the stakes relatively LOW (points awarded) for the EC, so it really is just for the kids that are "acing" the easied-up material.
Make all the questions very clear and more mechanical.  Avoid problem formulations that require explanation (possible, but more difficult/distracting to communicate a clarification with students not in the room).  No tricky words.  Use the symbols they are used to, etc.  In mathematics or chemistry or physics, stick to problems that mimic the examples.
For chem/math/physics, it is unreasonable to ask for writing in LATEX or the like.  So I would eschew the normal problem style where you check the work and instead ask for actual answers (grade only those, only require the typing of those).  But you can compensate by giving more (but more simple) problems or by asking for answers to intermediate steps.  For truly essay style questions (English, history, biology), this is less a concern.  Just let the kids type (they all type nowadays...but typing an equilibrium problem in chem is not trivial under exam conditions).
Probably some things like diagram drawing (geology, biology, etc.) will be more difficult and I would eschew these questions during the "situation".  But if you want, you can do the work to devise questions (e.g. give the word that corresponds to A, B, C, D on a diagram.)
(For 7 and 8, the rationale is not to expect them to have a scanner or to challenge yourself with grading their smartphone snapped pictures.  That will be a nightmare.)

Bottom line:  3/4 of a loaf WELL EXECUTED is better than a whole loaf that falls in the water.
*"Mitigate" means partially eliminate; NOT totally eliminate.  SE Q&A pedants, please note.

This answer is not appropriate for tertiary education.  Basic skills are not the area of interest.

A minor suggestion if you're worried about cheating and this is about objectively graded subjects (as opposed to writing a 2-page essay on Machiavellian philosophy).
With minor programming-fu,  send each person a test with a random subset of problems from a collection, and every time a problem goes out, change the value and name of some of the variables.   You might jest, but my Dad, who taught college math,  handed out 2 different paper exams.  A kid got a zero on a problem in versionA, and went to my Dad and said "why a zero?  the guy next to me had the same answer and it was marked correct."

I did a small test with two versions - simple multiple choice and one student copied the answers from anothers paper same questions but answers in a different order... They copied A for A, B for B and were upset they got zero... If only they had checked which A referred to etc. So students still do it...

I face the same issue.
One point I am considering is time , if you write the questions such that if they answer based on memory then you get a (relatively) structured answer.
But if they spend most of the time shuffling through books then the answer will tend to be “chunks” and “lumps” that don’t perhaps flow as well.
So take care with the amount of time...

The absolute worst I ever did on an exam (in class) was an open book exam. But part of the reason was that I stayed up most of the night cramming for the exam. I vividly remember paging back and forth through my physics book looking for answers and finding nothing of use.

@Buffy I discussed this years ago with a professor of mine. He was told (ordered) by the external examiner to make the exam open book (for a thermodynamics / power plant analysis course). So he did, based on the course material. The EE could not do it and had to ask for the solutions::: :) back to the original exam then. The prof did test it on his students though and it was actually ok...

I honestly can't tell if you're recommending short time limits or not. "If you write questions such that they answer based on memory" sounds like an anti-recommendation.

@JeffE compare to "shuffling through books"...

I disagree with forcing stricter time limits on students.  This leads to situations where students cram in facts that they'll quickly forget, which seems like a pointless exercise.
Ideally educators should provide students with skills that they'll have going forward, and a student's course grade ought to reflect their success in having acquired these long-term skills.  Any mode of scoring students in a manner that reflects a transient happenstance, e.g. that they've crammed a bunch of information that'll soon be forgotten, is mere theater.

@Nat I did not suggest reducing the time available... if one keeps the original time and the student wastes it by shuffling through books instead of evaluating the problem themselves... they waste their own time. It is odd that you all make so many assumptions.

@SolarMike: I understood your suggestion and commented in response to it.  This is, I get that you're not necessarily recommending that time limits be stricter than for an in-class exam, but rather stricter than an instructor might otherwise allow, as you're concerned that this may lead to students looking up stuff.  Don't mean to come off as rude, by the way; just, a lot of instructors use stricter time limits to put artificial complexity into exams, which seems problematic as it can shift focus to cramming trivia.

@Nat One of my profs made the point that engineers often have to make decisions in very short time periods ie under pressure and that is one reason the exams had time limits... btw those exams were 3 hours...

@SolarMike  OTOH,  those "under time pressure" decisions are usually wrong

@SolarMike Yes, but compare to exams that test understanding/application instead of mere recall.

@JeffE those 3 hour exams were designed with analysis... but that was obvious...

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


text:
Accepted by potential thesis supervisor while still waiting to hear back from two others. How to respond?
I wanted to know your opinion about this: I had interviews (separate) with three professors that they know each other. One of them which is not my first choice has accepted me, the others still have not answered. How should I reply to his email? Is it okay (=accepted) to tell him I am waiting for other professors' answers? I am asking since the fact that he accepted me I see it as a favor, so I am not sure if it is polite or nice to tell him I am waiting for other professors' decisions. What do you think?
P.S. The reason that I contacted all of them at the same time is that they have a deadline for choosing students, so if I had missed them or none of them took me, I would have to wait sometime with no supervisor.

Was it a single interview or three separate ones? I assume separate, but it is not very clear.

@GoodDeeds yes, separate. I edit my post and add more information.

"a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" - what do you think?

Is there any reason you can't wait a bit to reply at all?

@Buffy I think it is not nice to stay silent for some weeks since maybe the teacher wants to fix his or her plan.

I think it's perfectly ok to let the professor who's accepted you know that you are waiting to hear back from another opportunity before deciding what to do. There's no need to be any more specific than that. Ask the professor if there's a deadline that you need to tell him your decision by. If it's soon, you could even let the other professors know that you have an offer in hand and need to decide soon. This may speed up their decision.
Don't worry that the professors will think negatively towards you for this. It's a very common situation to be in, and academics understand that students will have their own preferences for who they want to work with. Just make sure you are polite and not pushy in your communications with them.

thanks for your answer. it helped a lot. the only left point is that this prof's email is so "excited" so I feel bad to tell him you're not my first choice. I don't know, I fear if he rejects me, then I will have no supervisor...

@mathvc_ it is a difficult situation, but I believe that honesty is the best policy. You don't want to end up working with your second choice just because you feel guilty for turning him down! Just ask for some time to decide, and wait for the decision of the other professors.

thank you very much. yes, i think i'd honestly let him know since he is also very nice. thanks again!

@mathvc_ Small advice from a researcher who had three previous supervisors: In addition to being talented and genius, with a very interesting research projects, a nice and friendly supervisor will make you love the journey and will support you till the end! It is something very important. So, I hope you really consider this professor as your supervisor also.

It is totally reasonable to communicate to the professors that you are considering working with others in the Department. I would further argue that being able to communicate transparently about difficult things is a good signal to faculty that you might be good at communicating with your supervisor generally. Because these professors know one another, probably collaborate together, and would have probably developed relationships, I would assume there is a level of comradery among the faculty. If there isn't, this would indicate to me a potentially unhealthy work environment for your graduate studies.
Consider then the following couple of cases:
1) You accept the first offer that comes your way from professor A
In this case you secure a supervisor and your path forward, for the moment, is clear. The opportunity cost of accepting the first offer that comes your way is that you may potentially lose the offers from the other professors with whom you're more interested in working with anyways. The reason for the lost offers could range from professors B and C not wanting to try and "steal" you away from their colleague or perhaps professors B and C could also each accept a student in the time it takes you to decide; there are many ways that situation could evolve. Whatever the case may be you run the risk of restricting your options right away. An additional risk is that you might accept the offer and then find that you'd rather work with another prof once they give you an offer letter, which puts you in the position of now having to retract your acceptance from prof A and for some people this could be really hard to do.
2) You hold off until all of your offers come in
In this case by waiting out for the offers from B and C, you run the risk of potentially losing supervision from A if a student more suitable to their interests and research needs comes their way. The benefit, however, is that you might secure a spot with a professor who you are more personally invested in working with. If you think that an offer letter from B and C is likely, then you should weight the risks according to your risk tolerance.
At the end of the day what is the most important thing for a graduate student is having a supervisor that you are able to tolerate (but ideally enjoy working with), a supervisor that is invested in your growth as an academic and individual, and a project you can find some excitement in for a long period of time. Working with a supervisor that you don't really want to work with for 1.5-2.5 years (masters) to around 4-5 years (PhD) is a slow hell that you probably have been exposed to on this forum and is a scary reality for many people.
Just because you were given an offer letter right away does not mean you have to accept it right away. Expedience can sometimes be the death of long term happiness, and in graduate school (particularly a PhD) you want to think what will give you the most joy (academically, professionally, and personally) on average over the course of a 4-5 year basis.

I believe it is totally fine to tell the professor who chose you that you are waiting for a response from other professors. You could mention also that you are more interested in the research topics that the other professors do.
It happened to me once. I applied for a research assistant position at my university and in a space center. I was accepted into the space center first, so I took it. After a few weeks, I was offered the position at my university and it was more preferable to me! I simply talked to my supervisor at the space center and I explained things to him very politely. It was just ok for him.
I think professors went through all of this before and they just understand the situation.
GoodLuck!

Don't tell the Professor that you are waiting on another professors. This is bound, with some chance, to hurt their feeling or cause some sort of disappointment on their side (this is possibly dependent on many factors, countries, discipline, etc., but with high probability will come off as something disappointing).
Tell the professor that you are very happy about this, but you need to sort out some things before officially confirming your choice. Without explaining precisely or going into detail.


text:
Is it okay to email the general/conference chairs if I feel the reviews are biased and unprofessional?
In a conference with an author rebuttal phase, I received a review from a reviewer (who gave a strong reject) asking to compare my work to a paper which is not even on the same problem as my paper. I firmly believe that this review is biased and the reviewer is either the author of the paper, which he/she is asking me to compare or was planning  to putting a similar paper.
Is it okay to email the chairs to look into my paper and reviews?

Was the lack of discussion of said paper the only stated reason for the strong reject?

Yes, except for other reasons which do not make sense, and have already been answered in the manuscript.

This kind of comment is the easiest to address because you are only need to show that the reviewer was barking up the wrong tree.  Just 'educate' (like explaining to a kid) why the reviewer's query is unreasonable.

I was going to ask the same question as I just found myself in the same situation.
It was evident that the reviewers were very distracted while reading the paper and completely misinterpreted our paper. That was what prompted me to write to the program chairs. It was the first time I did for a situation such as this.
However in my case the conference didn't have a rebuttal phase. I didn't manage to get a "mistrial". However the PC offered to forward my complaints to the reviewers. At least I feel better now.

This situation happens many times in conferences. At least, I have experienced once.

I firmly believe that these reviews are biased and the reviewer is either the author of the paper, which he/she is asking me to compare or was planning to put a similar paper.

This is a straight-forward assumption. And, I think you are misinterpreting in this aspect. Though it could be true, you are thinking too much about the rejection.

Is it okay to email the chairs to look into my paper and reviews?

Since this is rebuttal phase, this might not sound okay to email at this point. Just write the rebuttal and/or do the revision.
I feel you are too much emotionally attached to the paper and that is how you are assessing the situation. Take a break from this paper. Look at the review after few days, and think positive.
"Rejections are good times of research, in which we learn to accept the truth."

I totally agree that I am attached to the paper. I am the lead and I put an year into the work. If I wait till the final notification, I will miss the chance for a fair evaluation, but I am afraid of getting black-listed from the conference.

@user3667569 I understand your situation. Very recently, I sensed the same situation in my paper. But, why are you thinking that you would be blacklisted?

People are unpredictable and if by chance, that person is the chair or know the chair in someway, he/she can talk to the chair and convince the chair that I am unethical in someway.

@user3667569 There is no situation here to speak about "ethics" here. You would be just sharing your concern with your conference chair. That's it. No need to overthink on this aspect. Plus, you should worry about the relationship tree in this conference organization. Just ignore it, that is not your job.

Never accuse the reviewer of being biased. Even if you are sure it is the case, your rebuttal should be factual, neutral and to the point. Even if the reviewer is personal, you should pull it to the factual/professional level. The area chair may get the hint and ignore the review. In your specific case, you could say something like: "It appears that the reviewer may have confused my paper with another, because he is criticising X, but my paper is about Y. Thus, I am unable to respond to this reviewer's comment, but of course, I will address the other reviewers' comments."

@CaptainEmacs Absolutely correct. One should never get personal with the comments. We should keep our rebuttal to a topmost professional level.

@CaptainEmacs I think I should at least write to the chair, may be a bit politely, but I should at least voice my opinion.

@user3667569 Yes, of course you can write to the chair. Just, avoid accusing reviewers of baseness. My experience is that this offers the best chances of success.

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


text:
What is the best way to publicize the existence of a fraudulent journal?
Earlier this year, I was anonymously informed of the existence of a fraudulent journal, Reactive Oxygen Species.  When I investigated, I found that the "Editorial Team" of "international experts" consisted of three rather unlikely names -- middle initial Z -- and on further investigation, I found that none had any internet presence whatsoever that was not connected to the journal: they were fictitious.  The Editorial Board had 280 members, though the journal had only published about 150 papers in its history. A large fraction were from minor institutions in underdeveloped countries.  In fact, I joined the Editorial Board myself simply by registering on the site.
It turned out that the journal had an "Honorary Editor".  Coincidentally, his name was on 20+ of the 150 published papers, and his wife's name was on another 20+.  He even co-authored papers with the fictitious editorial board members.
The journal is owned by a for-profit corporation registered with the North Carolina Secretary of State.  The address of record is the Honorary Editor's home address, and he files the annual reports.
I am aware that this scholar is the subject of an ethics investigation at his home institution.  However,   even if he is dismissed as I hope, he will be under no pressure to dismantle the journal.  The journal very clearly claims to be peer-reviewed, and there is the obvious danger that honest scholars may rely on the research.  There is also a danger that legitimate authors will continue to submit and publish papers to their own future embarrassment.
In addition, he (or someone) has recently removed the fictitious names and his own from the masthead, probably owing to the investigation (not COVID-19.)  He is now advertising for applications for Editorial Team positions.  It turns out that even the position of Honorary Editor still exists and is open to applicants.  There is some danger that a naive assistant professor somewhere will see an opportunity for advancement, when it is just the opposite.
It might seem fanciful to think that anyone would fall for this, but he and his wife have held NIH grants, and he holds adjunct appointments at four or five institutions.
So my question is: what should I do to let as many people as possible know not to rely on papers in this journal, not to submit papers, and not to involve themselves with the journal in any way?

"There is some danger that a naive assistant professor somewhere will see an opportunity for advancement, when it is just the opposite." In my field, the chances of that happening are zero. Nobody becomes an assistant professor without developing a good sense for gauging the seriousness of a journal.

This is false.  Invitations to editorial boards are flattering.  A half dozen or so of the 280 editorial board members are senior people at reputable institutions.  Presumably they were invited to serve by the editor and accepted.

If you think they are doing sth. criminal, call up the state attorney. If not, let people get what they ask for. An academic with no common sense probably needs to experience a few failures until he brightens up.

It's possible that these people have been added to the website without their consent and knowledge (I know of documented cases in spam journals where this happened).

Why publicize it at all? Just ignore it.

Send it to one of the successors to Beall's list of predatory journals. Their websites:

Cabell’s whitelist/blacklist: commercial, subscription required for access, but accepts listings
Stop Predatory Journals (now-defunct itself): open-access, crowdsourced via Github, successor to the now-defunct ScholarlyOA site. Archive link.
Beall's original list: now being maintained by an anonymous European postdoc

This is awesome.  I reported it to all three.

Just to be clear: these lists do not accept any listing that's sent their way, right? They do their own vetting of entries sent their way so they don't end up with accidentally adding Nature to their list because a troll submitted it?

The links are out of date.

There is little point in publicizing a particular fraudulent journal.  It costs very little to set up a fraudulent journal.  If people become aware of one fraudulent journal, criminals will simply create a new one that is little known.
What is useful is for academics to treat all journals as fraudulent until they have evidence otherwise.  Teach your students (if any) to be skeptical.  Teach them to never pay money to low-quality journals, even if they are not fraudulent.
(Gathering evidence that a journal is not fraudulent is easy; just read the journal.  If it has good contents, it is a good journal.  If the journal has bad contents and is not fraudulent, don't publish there anyway.)

Anybody have an example of a fake "journal" that copies articles from good journals to create the impression of good quality?  Presumably major publishers have lawyers that punish anyone who takes that tactic.

Some good advice here.

@AnonymousPhysicist Im sure it´s been tried, but it´s hardly a profitable scheme. The lawyer fees alone will bancrupt Mr. Fraudulus Publisher before the case even reaches court. ;)

@Karl these journals are often located in countries where the process for dealing with a cease and desist letter involves a hearty laugh before throwing it in the trash


text:
Negotiating startup package given differences in institutional norms
There is a story on Inside Higher Ed (based on this blog post) about a candidate who received a tenure-track offer from a U.S. philosophy department.
She emailed the search committee with some requests related to: salary, maternity leave, sabbatical, teaching load, and start date. Her email ended with "I know that some of these might be easier to grant than others. Let me know what you think." In response, the institution withdrew the offer, saying that her requests revealed that she wasn't a good fit for a teaching institution.
Many of the comments on the IHE story or blog post are in support of the school, saying such things as:

The candidate asked for too much and came across as "entitled"
The candidate shouldn't have requested a light teaching load initially, when the school in question is a teaching institution
The candidate shouldn't have asked about a pre-tenure sabbatical, which is apparently unheard of at teaching institutions

In particular, one comment says this:

indicates how important it is to do your best to understand the culture and needs of the hiring institution, both before and during negotiations

and another that it is

an example of knowing the difference between negotiating with a research school and with a small teaching school

There have been quite a few questions on this site about negotiating a startup package, but these mostly describe the various things you can ask for, and which are likely to have more "wiggle room." Most of the U.S. faculty who answered those are at research institutions, and they suggest that

It's perfectly reasonable to ask for anything

and

Definitely ask for all that you need, and let them whittle you down.

Apparently, that advice may be more or less applicable depending on the type and culture of the institution. My questions are:
Are there really different norms with respect to negotiation in a teaching vs. research institution? What are they?
and, more generally,
What can I do pre-offer to get a sense for what the institution's culture is, and what I can reasonably ask for?
Possibly, the candidate in the story came from a research institution, got advice from her advisor there on negotiation, and never realized that her requests would be perceived poorly at a teaching institution. What could she have done differently?
I am especially interested in a response from anyone who's been on a search committee at both kinds of institutions (though I don't know if we have anyone like that on this site).

That's a really interesting question. However, I am not 100% sure that the original story is correct as written - I would assume it is very unlikely that an university withdraws an offer based on an initial package request. I would assume that either something important is missing in the story, or that it is just greatly exaggerated (but I guess we'll never know).

@xLeitix: The story has gotten enough views and has enough specifics so that it is probably accurate as far as it goes: if Nazareth College had not rescinded the job offer, surely someone would have come forward saying that.  I agree with you that there are probably missing nuances though.

The original applicant "W" has confirmed the sequence of events as well.

@xLeitix I found other examples that claim rescinded offers, so although it is very unusual, apparently it does happen sometimes (details in my answer, below)

It seems fairly clear what happened. It's a small university with a large teaching load and not much funds. The search committee were looking for an additional hire to spread teaching load; someone they can trust to take some of the slack. Aside from the entitled tone of the email, her requests undermined what they were looking for in a candidate. (Whether or not what happened was "right" is, of course, another question.)

In the time between asking this question and getting some answers here, I read many comments on the original stories and blog posts dissecting the situation, many of which offered useful answers. I am compiling some of them here for the sake of others. As with most information found on the Internet, YMMV.
First, a question I didn't ask but will answer anyways (since xLeitix expressed some doubt in a comment):
Does this really happen?!?!?!?
Unfortunately, though rare, it does happen. Here are a few examples I found on Academic Job Wiki:

When I told them I needed some time to think about the unofficial offer (and also noted how early in the hiring season the offer was coming), the interviewing professor emailed me back that it was clear I was only considering them as a "last resort" and that they were therefore rescinding the offer.
They thought my request for a revised offer letter that included the new terms agreed upon throughout negotiation was demonstrative of a "lack of faith" which they seemed to take personally. They rescinded the offer and then blamed it on my need for this letter, and suggested that I be more careful in asking for this in future negotiations with other institutions (they claimed this advice was a show of "mentorship" on their part).
The dean rescinded the offer. By email. And then refused to take my calls. This is exactly what she wrote: "After having read your stated requests, specifically the number of years to tenure and the MWF teaching schedule, I am sorry to say that we are not able to sustain our job offer to you. At this time I am rescinding the job offer."
Two weeks after the job talk, I was offered the position and given five days to consider it... Upon sending my questions and considerations two days later, about 90 minutes passed when I received an email wishing me well in my further job pursuits.

Yikes. Of course, given these stories you could argue that these candidates probably dodged a bullet. But let's assume you aren't necessarily afraid of a rescinded offer, but want to avoid making a bad impression. In that case, on to my actual questions:
Are there really different norms with respect to negotiation in a teaching vs. research institution? What are they?
Yes. Also, per various sources, there are differences in negotiation culture between elite institutions and not-so-elite institutions, community colleges and four-year colleges, public and private institutions, those with current or former religious affiliations and those without, locations where a union is involved and locations where it isn't, locations with large adjunct pools and locations without, etc.
Here's one thing I hadn't thought of: institutions that are seen as "less desirable" places to work for some reason are said to be more sensitive to aggressive negotiation. In these cases,

Negotiating demands can come across as "I’ll only agree to work at a lowly school like yours if you give me all this extra stuff." (The Professor is In)

However, there were also comments that said things like:

I was a candidate just like W, I asked for very much of the same things (more, in fact), and still go the job. (PhilosophySmoker)

The candidate in question herself  said

that her request for a starting salary of $65,000 equaled a less than 20 percent increase in proposed pay -- a request she says another college offering her a job had met.
  (InsideHigherEd)

So, it seems like finding out the culture of a particular institution (rather than generalizing based on institution "type") is more effective. Which brings us to:
What can I do pre-offer to get a sense for what the institution's culture is, and what I can reasonably ask for?
Start by asking: is it negotiable?

A good strategy for starting a negotiation is to simply ask whether there is any flexibility in the terms of the offer... If you get a firm "no", you don't have to risk upsetting anyone with specific requests.  (PhilosophySmoker)

and this can even have some nice side effects! The same comment continues,

At my institution... I began by asking this very general question, and the chair immediately responded with a better offer-without my mentioning any specifics and without consulting the dean.

Pre-negotiate by phone
Both Amatya and Samantha Kady pointed out here how difficult it is to read a situation by email, and dozens of commenters out there said the same. For example:

You negotiate over the phone (aiming for the sweet spot between being enthusiastic about the job - you want them to still want you - and asserting your own needs). Then when that's done, you get the agreement in writing. That lets you feel out some things and get feedback on what's doable or not, and on how the requests are being taken. (PhilosophySmoker)

But, know yourself. As The Professor is In puts it:

I NEVER want to see inexperienced candidates negotiate on the phone. Particularly women. People panic and get codependent and agree to all kinds of things too quickly on the phone.

I don't really know what "codependent" means in this context, but I can definitely see how some people might not be able to negotiate as well over the phone. Those people might be better served using a phone conversation as a "feeler" and then proceeding to negotiate over email.
Listen for subtle differences in responses to your requests
One commenter said:

The chair indicated that this was the ceiling for the starting salary... but since he didn't make the same claim regarding the startup, I detected further flexibility, and was able to get it bumped up to 200% of the original offer, by providing an explanation of how I would use the additional funds.  (PhilosophySmoker)

Identify and use your ally
If you get an offer, there's a good chance someone really likes you and wants you to be there. Identify that person, and ask them for advice on what to negotiate. They may even tell you about things you hadn't even thought to negotiate for! Specifically, several commenters said that the department chair is often an ally. As one commenter said:

I had a really great Chair. She told me that I was very unlikely to get a salary increase but that there was room to move the start-up. I asked for both anyway, and sure enough, was denied a salary increase but got significantly higher start-up (which I can use for summer salary). The kicker? The Chair spotted something I never would have thought of, which qualified me for thousands of dollars extra. (PhilosophySmoker)

Your ally in the department knows much more than you, and much more than any mentor you might have, what requests can be granted easily and what should not be mentioned at all. Use this!
Ask about "perks" at the interview stage
Many commenters agree that asking straightforwardly about the "perks" (non-salary) at the interview stage helps you gauge supply and demand at the institution in question. Otherwise, you run the risk of

telling somebody who's put in a full 7 or 8 years for a sabbatical that you want one in your first 2 or 3 years? (PhilosophySmoker)

Yeah, that does sound bad! Same goes for things like teaching load and lab space - you can find out during the interview stage what is in especially short supply at the particular institution.
Place requests in the context of the institution's specific mission
This is a valuable piece of advice. As a commenter said,

For example, if the reasoning behind fewer teaching preps was to do a better job teaching or to have an appropriate research program (whatever that may be), then frame it that way. (FemaleScienceProfessor)

Visit the library
Here's an interesting one that I hadn't heard before (though it only applies to a subset of institutions):

I’m betting that W or other candidates often get their data from the CHE’s salary survey, which is near useless for this purpose because it is such an aggregate number... If you’re interviewing at a public school, ask for about an hour to yourself in the library. When you get it, go straight to the Reference desk and ask to see the salaries in the department that’s hiring (it’s usually public). Write these down, and when you get the initial offer you’ll know if there’s room to negotiate on this point. (The Professor is In)

While public salary information is also available online in most cases, unlike the internal data this is usually

total annual compensation, a figure that includes summer school, stipends for additional administrative duties, and the like, rendering the number useless (if not damaging) to such negotiations. (The Professor is In)

Some commenters pointed out another, more-complete-than-CHE (though not department-specific), source of salary data: IPEDS

That's quite interesting stuff here.

Although I agree that you should seek some specific information on the expectations of a research vs. teaching environment, I would suggest that this negotiation was doomed for a different reason...
I know Linda Babcock (the gender/negotiations researcher who is interviewed in the story) personally, and she said that the story is true. Remember that one key issue is that the negotiation was attempted via email. Women are already disadvantaged in negotiation (see enormous research in this area) so they need to use specific tactics to moderate gender-effects of outcomes. These tactics are quite difficult via email.
In fact, I know several researchers who have excelled at doing research at "teaching schools" because they're the only ones bringing in the publications and research grants. Although interest in research may not be valued at Nazareth specifically, it is not a universal axiom for teaching-focused schools.
The research doesn't support the position that negotiation is inappropriate for "rookies" or "non-stars". New faculty get idiosyncratic deals (from lab space to maternity leave) all the time.

You're absolutely right that it's better to do at least some of the negotiation verbally rather than through email (and although I am not directly familiar with the research you allude to, it is easy for me to believe that this could be especially so for women).  On the one hand, it really does seem virtually impossible to get an offer rescinded this way: a written letter of offer is going to take higher priority than an ephemeral conversation....

...On the other hand to actually persuade someone is much easier when you are talking with them.  You can feel out how the other person is receiving your position and react to it in real time.  In the case at hand, I found all of the OP's requests eminently reasonable (to ask for; not necessarily to be granted).  However she didn't argue for any of them except for the salary, and her argument there was (as detailed in my answer) a poor one.  Perhaps she had some convincing reasons for her salary benchmarks that might have come out in person.

@PLC: YES! Agree! Successful negotiation is extremely nuanced and with women suffering what we call the "double bind" (daed if you do; daed if you don't) when advocating for themselves, context really matters. I can provide references to the articles if anyone is interested.

As I said, I believe you.  But this is academia: how could references hurt? :)

Gender and self-promotion: Rudman, 1998; Heilman et al., 2004
Gender in negotiation: Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005; Bowles & McGinn, 2008; Small et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 2010  3. Gender in job negotiation: Barron, 2003

Maternity leave is not an "idiosyncratic deal".

"additional maternity leave" or "flexible maternity leave"? Example: a junior faculty member in my department had a child in the fall, finished her teaching, and then took her leave in the spring.

I saw many comments that suggest using phone - on the other hand, someone made the point that people who are inexperienced or very nervous might not negotiate well over the phone, in real time. I guess the lesson is, know yourself and use phone and email in combination as warranted.

I have only been a member of hiring committees at my present institution, a state research university.  However I have watched people go on the job market at liberal arts colleges and one of my oldest friends is the department chair at a liberal arts college.  I will try to ask him about this when I get the chance.
My impression is that the difference between quality and wealth of the university is playing more of a role here than the difference between research and liberal arts college.  I know someone who got a job at a top liberal arts college right out of her PhD.  Nevertheless she still did a one year postdoc before taking the position.  And getting eased into the new job in a way which affords her all the opportunities to keep her successful research program, um, successful is definitely a big part of the mutual understanding between her and her department and college.
In the story at hand, it seems that Nazareth College felt like the person it had offered the job to was making a slew of demands that could not be met by an institution of their caliber.  I am very eager to discuss the specifics of that strange situation, but that was not the question, so I'll just restrict to one thing: the applicant mentioned that she wanted a higher salary that was closer to the going rate.  The salary that she wanted -- $65K -- is the going rate in her field at some places (and probably less than the going rate in others; in STEM fields $65K would not be competitive at a reasonably research-intensive university) but is not the going rate at small, less than wealthy institutions.  If you want the salary that some other place is going to offer you, you really need an offer from some other place which has that salary.  That was the big outlier of a negotiation mistake that I saw (it does not justify rescinding the offer, though! to me, that is a truly bush-league way to do business) in the story.  By asking for a benchmark salary you are calling attention to the fact that the institution under consideration is not as good as some others, to which a fitting response be might be to have them call attention to the fact that you are not as good as some others.
There was a time when a top fifty liberal arts college really didn't need or want the majority of its faculty to do significant research, especially if it took time away from their teaching and meeting with students.  That time has passed: my friend at the liberal arts college publishes at least a paper a year.  That is a higher publication rate than some of my senior colleagues who are full professors at my top fifty research university.  And I care about teaching more than the stereotypical "research mathematician" but not particularly more than the average in my department: almost all of us care about teaching, and are at least solid teachers across a wide range of levels and courses; more so than I would have expected, in fact.  When I visit a liberal arts college it is a very enlightening experience because the amount of emphasis and priority given to the basic academic goals are palpably different, even upon arrival.  But it's also enlightening because the basic academic goals are recognizably the same, just weighted somewhat differently.  I think that the difference between a good liberal arts college and a good research university should not be exaggerated...and I certainly think that the things that desirable job candidates are looking to secure in order to take jobs a these institutions are very similar.  Nothing that is reasonable to ask for in negotiations at a research university ought to get your offer rescinded at a good liberal arts college, that's for sure!

FWIW, the candidate says the 65k suggestion was less then 20% more than their offer - on the high side, but not totally crazy

@ff524: In my experience, if you are offered $X per year as a salary, the way to get $Y > $X is to reveal that you have a competing offer at credible university for $Y.  Speaking personally, I received offers $X < $Y < $Z, with $Z/$X > 1.28! This made me not want to even negotiate for with the lowest offer, but a friendly outside member of the hiring committee insisted that I mention the much higher offer.  After telling the other two schools the highest offer $Z, the revised offers became $Z, $Z and $Z-$1K.

Well yeah, but not everyone has a generous competing offer to use as leverage

(I agree completely with your last comment.  It is essentially my point!)  The moral of my story at least is: it's not so much the percentage increase; it's the willingness to match a competing offer.  If you want to ask for X% more just because you feel you deserve it: good luck, but that's a much harder sell.  Asking for on the order of 20% more without a competing offer ought not to get your offer rescinded, but in my opinion it is quite naive.

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't think 20% more as a counteroffer (with or w/o a competing offer) screams "out of touch." The question is how to avoid seeming clueless, not how to win at negotiations.

"The point I'm trying to make is, I don't think 20% more as a counteroffer screams "out of touch.""  Have you yourself ever negotiated a 20% increase in a starting offer without a competing offer?  Or do you specifically know anyone who has?  I don't, and I have direct experience on both sides of this issue.  In my opinion 20% more does seem "out of touch", and while it should not result in the offer being rescinded, there will likely be a lot of eyes rolling in the department, and you will not arrive having made the best possible first impression.

In fact, if someone offered for a 20% raise in my department without a competing offer, I know exactly what would happen: the answer would be a flat "No way; you would then be making more than most of the tenured associate professors."  In fact in my department the "standard" starting assistant professor salary is much more competitive with top universities than salaries in higher academic ranks, and for that reason getting a 20% raise even with a competing offer would be difficult.  In the situation that I described myself, it was not that $Z was so high, it was that $X was so low.

This is based on my experience as a student on the job market and on the experience of my cohort,on what faculty told us and the stories we heard from the junior faculty that our school hired. My school is a research school.
In our field, rookies generally do not negotiate.
Only the star rookies do. If you're a rising star that is being simultaneously pursued by Harvard, Princeton, Chicago etc and you're tipped to win the MacArthur Grant or something then you have Market Power. You get to negotiate and universities will throw money and perks at you to be able to hire you.
Our school hired a rookie faculty where two universities got into a bidding war over her and she got a sweet deal eventually. From what I recall, a good 30K above the standard contract.
For the rest of us mere mortals, with no market power, there are no negotiations. The schools make it absolutely clear up front what they can do for you. The contracts are standard for a given university: a research fund, base pay and performance pay, teaching loads, preps, administrative burden, possibility of sabbatical, maternity leave etc. These features are usually identical for all junior faculty in a given department in that University. They're also usually trying to do the best they can and have no interest in short-changing anyone.
Research schools usually try to encourage rookies and give them a light teaching and administrative load for the first few years but after that as the low man(person) on the totem pole, it is understood that you have to have some flexibility in terms of helping the department when some unforeseen need arises.
Also in smaller departments, hiring a colleague is a lot like getting a family member. You are going to be with them all the time, share a lot of decision making power, and you can't get rid of them. Therefore, how well you get along with them is very very important.  That's why when you have some special request about your contract, this conversation needs to happen in person or on the phone so you can gauge the other person's response and react to that. If you come across as tone deaf and difficult then that's not the sort of colleague anybody wants, especially if you're not some star researcher.

I'm not an expert, but "take it or leave it" deals for faculty (even junior faculty) are not common at least here in Europe.

What (general) field are you in? What part of the world? (If you don't mind answering.)

Econ/Finance/Business. US

I have never been on a search committee.
A teaching institution hires people to teach.  A research institution hires people to conduct research. (primarily)  A teaching institution will not make negotiating concessions that prioritize research ahead of teaching.  A research institution will not make negotiating concessions that prioritize teaching ahead of research.  That said, many institutions that are widely viewed as teaching institutions wish to be research institutions and will negotiate accordingly.
There is no need to be secretive when making a negotiating position.  I suggest you outright ask which aspects of the contract are negotiable.  You should also ask junior faculty at the institution if they will give you advice based on their experiences.  I also suggest asking the departmental secretary, who probably knows everything.
Union institutions may not be able to negotiate with individuals at all.

I'm having troubling thinking of concessions a candidate might request which prioritize teaching ahead of research.  Do you have any examples in mind?

@MarkMeckes Maybe asking for specific tenure requirements that downplay the importance of research in contrast to e.g., good teaching evaluations? Not sure how realistic this is, but I could certainly imagine something like that in principle.

@xLeitix: Yes, that's conceivable.  I'd certainly say that it would be a terrible idea for anybody at any institution to try to negotiate different criteria.  (This is as opposed to changes in the tenure clock, which sometimes are negotiable.)  It would send a signal to your future colleagues that you don't think you could earn tenure under the department's usual criteria.

@MarkMeckes I didn't say it was a good idea, just that it might be possible :)

@Mark: At some SLACs they have relatively recently imposed hard requirements on a total number of publications for tenure.  And though they may sound small to us, they are enough to make some present and would-be tenure track faculty nervous.  (I know of a case where a graduating PhD student told me about the research requirement at the SLAC where she had just accepted a job: 1 paper.  And she told me this with real trepidation.  I just tried to keep my poker face while I told her that she would probably be okay.)

I have heard that, in practice, even at rather good SLACs, exactly what a "paper" means is somewhat negotiable: it need not mean something that would appear on MathSciNet, for instance.  Perhaps a candidate has already written or is currently writing a paper or two which truly and openly has no research content (think Math Horizons rather than even the College Math Journal).  I have heard of such papers being counted towards tenure.  One might imagine trying to negotiate it in advance.  (One might also imagine it blowing up in the candidate's face, as you suggest...)

@PeteL.Clark: That's a good example, thanks.  And slightly off-topic, regarding the student who was nervous about needing to write 1 paper pre-tenure: I well remember, once upon a time, feeling like I wasn't sure I'd ever do anything else worth publishing.

@Mark: Sure, I remember well the time I spent wondering whether I would ever prove anything new: it lasted many years.  But in this case the requirement wasn't one paper beyond what you did in your thesis; it was one paper, total.

@MarkMeckes:  Examples of concessions are easy.  One could ask to teach more classes.  One could ask to divide one's classes into more sections so that students get more individual attention.  One could ask for funds for extra educational opportunities for students, such a field trips.  All of these things will lead to less research.


text:
Journal paper submission practices to improve review quality and reduce delay
I'm trying to think of things that can contribute to reducing the review time of a paper, and to get the most relevant reviews.
Are there some best practices with regard to submitting a paper to a journal?
For example: Is it better to wait until after big holidays? How long in advance of an holiday should one submit? Does it help to suggest reviewers to the editor? Are there certain things that should be mentioned in the cover letter?

Is it better to wait until after big holidays? This particular consideration might be too variable to worry about. Personally, just BEFORE a big holiday would be almost ideal for me. Then I could work on it during the holiday, when I was not busy with teaching classes, grading student work, meeting with students, and other activities that require more immediate attention than refereeing a paper.

What field are we talking about?  Pure math paper, where I may start to get concerned after 6 months?  Or some other field where you start sending emails to the editor if it takes longer than 6 days?

@GEdgar I have submitted to AIP journals before, and they have a good system for updating you about the review process. Most journals I have submitted to have a 60 day target for the first review. I think this is reasonable. What I want to avoid is to wait 4 months for feedback that has little relevance to the content of the paper.

In my experience as both and author and an editor, the number one thing to reduce the review time of a paper is picking the right journal:

A paper well-aligned for a community is likely to get reviewed more quickly than one that is dubiously aligned.
Even amongst good journals, some operate much more quickly than others.  For ones that show: "received, revised, accepted" dates in addition to publication, you can check this directly in their archives.

Beyond that, the next big barrier is finding reviewers and getting them to return reviews on time.  Recommend a couple of people who would be fast and enthusiastic reviewers --- but also leave off some obvious choices. Editors will take some recommendations (and if they're good folks who return reviews quickly, that helps a lot). They will also typically want the majority of reviewers invited to not be your buddies that you recommended, so only recommend a few and leave off people they are likely to think of on their own.
Finally, papers that are easier and more pleasant to read get faster reviews as well.  Pay close attention to the flow of your narrative and the ease of grasping key points from skimming through and looking at the figures.  Good reviewers will read the whole thing, of course, but if you make it easy for them to organize their mental framework, it will go much better and faster and you'll be less likely to get misunderstandings.

I'd like to add one item to jakebeal's answer: Keep the paper concise, including only what really needs to be in there. Concise papers make life much easier for reviewers, handling editors and readers.
By concise, I mean make the paper as short as you can make it, but no shorter. Ask yourself if you really need that extra parametric plot or table.
Push other material to Appendices (often useful in math-heavy theory papers) or Supplementary Material (often useful to describe minutiae of experimental procedures), or even keep it off altogether.
Avoid wordiness; it makes reviewers -and handling editors- weary.

I have another additional thought.  This OP's English has no problems, clearly.  But for many participants at Academia SE, it would be helpful to add: have a native speaker of English who is familiar with your field check your English.  That's if it just needs some polishing.  For more developmental editing, hire a professional.  Struggling to understand nonstandard English can reeeally slow down one's reading.