text:
As an independent author with no academic connections, how can I have my paper reviewed?
I have recently concluded some independent work (algorithmic) and, since the results seemed to merit it, wrote a paper about it.
As an independent author without connections to academics or other experts with detailed knowledge about my paper, I tried to submit my paper to two different journals. The first rejected my original draft and after significant rework I attempted to submit it at a second journal.
After reading the abstract, the second journal actually invited me to submit the paper, only to reject it as well.
In the meantime I tried registering at ResearchGate, only to find out that since I am not associated with a research institution, I cannot join as a researcher but just as an interested observer.
I still believe my paper is valid and could be published. But I honestly do not know how I could have it reviewed and improved to a point so that I can re-submit it.
In other words: can anyone in this community give me some pointers as to how to improve my paper and/or validate it?

Didn’t you get reviews from the journals? At least in the second case I would have expected that.

The literal answer is "Unfortunately, after a careful evaluation, your manuscript has been rejected.
We wish you a lot of success if you decide to submit your manuscript elsewhere."

If you are in math, physics or CS, you can start by submitting the paper to the arXiv. But be prepared for a rejection there as well. There is a good chance that your opinion about the paper is simply wrong and that it is not a quality research.

@MoisheKohan Without connections to academics the OP probably can't get an endorsement to post to the arXiv.  But if they could, it's not clear this is a good way to try to improve the paper.

You are trying to reach some audience with your paper. If you don't know know what the audience is, there is your problem. If you do, there are two options. (1) You personally know some people who belong to your target audience well enough to be able to ask them for feedback. In that case, this is what you should do. (2) You do not know such people well enough. Again, there's your problem. It's very difficult to write well for a given audience if you don't have actual contact with that audience. At the risk of stating the obvious, establishing such contact should be your first step here.

When writing for journal publication, you’ll be judged not only on your results, but also the quality and maturity demonstrated in their presentation. Skim papers in the better journals of your field, study the introductory sections and the overall flow and tone to get a feeling for what that means.

@AdamPřenosil: Your comment above seems like the best answer to the question so far. I would definitely upvote it if you turned it into an actual answer.

You could email a professor at a local university, explain your plight and ask very nicely if they would mind looking at it for you. Don't be surprised if you never hear back from them though. Also,  it sounds really harsh, but the odds of an independent researcher having legitimately novel insight are pretty slim, not zero, but close. Have you thought about doing a PhD?

Best method is likely to find a mentor. Someone you know personally in the field of the paper is ideal. If you've done undergraduate studies before, ask one of your old professors - they might be able to help even if they no longer remember you. Alternatively, if you're close to your alma mater, you could visit them and talk to a professor there. Professors at your alma mater can help you even if you graduated decades ago.
You could also keep submitting to journals, but given two desk rejects in a row, that's not likely to be productive (at least not initially - odds are there'll be a journal that will send it for review, when you'll get real feedback, but you might not find such a journal for a while).

ResearchGate is not what you want. You can keep trying, but if you got any feedback on your paper from your first submissions, then take the advice.
If the response was that the paper isn't sufficiently "novel" to be published then you may be a long way from getting it published by any reputable journal. If it was that you haven't proven your claims then you may just have a lot of work to do.
One option is to visit a department in some nearby university and try to make contact with a faculty member in that field (CS). They might be willing to help you understand the issues and even improve the paper, but it is a bit of a long-shot as they are generally busy enough.
As an independent writer you may not yet be familiar with the standards of proof for algorithmic work, and you may even not be up to date on the state of the art. But, feedback from a knowing human can be very helpful.
The other option is to try to improve the paper as much as you can and submit to a different journal. At a certain point of improvement you may get a proper full review which will give guidance on how to further improve the work.
But, places that don't provide review won't help you and disreputable journals will only harm your reputation. It isn't that you are unaffiliated, but that the work itself needs to meet standards.
And note that cold emails to academics are unlikely to be answered.  But most will have specified hours when they are in the office and open to questions, though normally from students.

In other words: can anyone in this community give me some pointers as to how to improve my paper and/or validate it?

Given the desk rejections, I think one idea you could try that might lead to useful feedback would be to identify the simplest concrete question that you think your method solves and for which you believe public methods do not offer a good solution or a good answer. If the question is sufficiently mathematical in nature, you could then post the question (not your answer) to a site like math overflow in order to see whether your expectations on the difficulty of your question are correct: if you receive no answers, this will mean little (the effort people spend on MO questions is very low on average), but there is a real chance that a question you think is difficult does have a simple answer using known techniques (or even a non-obvious answer that an expert can nonetheless find with low effort - some people are very smart and knowledgeable). If that is the case, you absolutely need to know about it in order to judge the value of your research. Depending on your area, there are probably other suitable sites you could use if math overflow does not fit.
Similarly, you could extract a minimal problem that your research allows you to solve as before and ask one of the newer language models to find a solution (GPT-o1-mini and GPT-o1-preview are fairly good at mathematical and algorithmic reasoning compared to most people, for things that people can solve in a short time). Again, failure to solve your question will mean close to nothing, but there is a real chance that if your question is easier than you expect, the model might find a way to solve it that is different and more efficient than yours. If this happens, it will point you towards methods that you do not yet know about but that you should learn given your field.
The effort to boil your paper down to the minimal advancement it provides over the state of the art as you know it may also in itself give you more clarity about the reasons for the rejections. Understanding the reasons for the rejections will allow you to improve your research.
Lastly, in order to preserve priority, you could, I suppose, post your paper to a site like zenodo. It is virtually certain that nobody will read it there, but in case your ideas are novel and correct, you can point to your preprint there as evidence that you came up with the idea.

Consider hiring an academic researcher for a constructive referee review
Given that you have already submitted to academic journals and have not yet got to the stage of referee reports (you got what we call a "desk rejection") it is likely that you will not be able to get constructive feedback on improvements to your paper through further journal submissions.  In view of this, it is worth considering directly hiring an academic researcher to review your paper and give you a constructive referee report.  You will probably need to pay for this (since it is not the kind of task that will be attractive to a researcher as an ex gratia activity), but it might be worthwhile to get the ball rolling.  Ideally, a constructive referee report will give you enough constructive feedback to help you improve your paper up to the point where you can get it through to the refereeing stage at a journal, which will then allow you to either get your paper accepted, or at least receive further constructive peer review from journal referees.

Do people do this? I've never received an offer to review a paper for money, and if I did I'm pretty sure I'd think there was something fishy going on and send the message straight to spam.

Research is hard.
Getting research published is harder.
So, to answer your question:

In other words: can anyone in this community give me some pointers as to how to improve my paper and/or validate it?

One method would be to obtain the research skills (including writing and communication skills) necessary to join the broader research community.
Most people do this by obtaining higher degrees (such as doctorates or in some cases masters degrees).
Some lucky people have employers who train them (like the agency I work with where we have people with B.S. and M.S. degrees leading projects and publishing results).

OP asked for review, not publication. Also, you don't know that OP lacks those research skills.

The ability to collaborate with other people (including obtaining their feedback) is a research skill. If their paper isn't making it out to peer reviewer, they are not doing something correct. Lots of hard steps along the way: journal choice, writing, doing research, cover letter writing, citing literature, etc. I doubt simple feedback on manuscript will make it publishable.

You could ask for a review.
You want informed and experienced researchers/professionals to review your paper (or the results, through your paper). Well, try asking some.
Now, this will not be so easy, because almost all of them are quite busy, and already are burdened with review duties (through conference program committees, journal editorial boards etc.) ; however, it is not uncommon for requests for a review to be accepted - even if they are more likely to be rejected.
The best way to make this request is to have prior relations to the relevant reviewer... if not that, being physically where the reviewer or their research group are, and possibly participating in some colloquium or dropping in on a seminar session, also helps. Otherwise, a common acquaintance would help. The least likely form of request is a "cold email" to someone you don't know and have never been in touch with; but it's still worth it.
If you write that "cold email", don't just drop your request right away, and definitely don't give any details or link to the paper. The first email will have some kind of salutation, indication of relevant research experience or interest, a brief, brief introduction of who you are and how your independent research came about, an brief, brief indication of how your findings/results might be useful to the field or to the reviewer - then finally the question of whether they would be willing to consider looking at the paper.
Like @ScottishTapWater wrote - it is quite likely that in this case, you'll just never get an answer, or get a very curt no-answer. But still worth the shot if that's the only avenue.

PS - Other suggestions like finding a mentor or trying other venues for reviewed-publication are very relevant!


text:
Is it necessary to acknowledge a finished project?
After a funding project is completed (e.g., an NSF project), researchers often continue to conduct research based on that project, such as using databases, data tools, experimental material, facilities, or being inspired by the topics or conclusions derived from that project.
Is it necessary to acknowledge the original project in these cases? It would be great if anyone could offer me a document that stipulates the acknowledgment language for direct/indirect support.

If something or someone was of benefit to the paper, why would you not acknowledge that, even if it wasn't something that's appropriate to directly cite?

@Makyen Thank you for your advice.my question has been resolved.

The general rule is that you cite what you use. If the new work is based on an existing work known to the new author(s) then it should be cited.
Beyond that, many (most?) papers also include a bit of background on the topic, often in the form of a literature search that is (partially) included. This might include papers/projects that aren't directly used but set the stage for the current work.
But if some tool (cited) is used in an independent work then the earlier uses of that tool don't need citation. (Broad sense of "tool" here, including databases etc.)
So, "inspired by" isn't a binary choice. There are a range of possibilities. However, when in doubt, it is better to cite than not to cite. This is proper scholarly behavior and also aids the reader in understanding context of any given work.

Thank you for your response. So another question I have is, if we disregard citations between publications, is it still important to acknowledge previous, completed grant-funded projects in subsequent publications?

If it is the work of the grant recipients then it would be a good idea to do so. Other authors don't have any obligation provided that the work is independent. But it might be hard to cite the use of something funded by a grant without mentioning the grant. Beyond necessity it is useful to do so, keeping the possibility of future grants in mind. It is helpful to say, in a grant request, that the previous grant had benefits beyond the original conception.

I'm beginning to understand. Can it be interpreted this way? If a paper is developed based on a previous project, failing to acknowledge that project might lead to difficulties when citing its results, such as criticism from reviewers or peers. Moreover, acknowledging the previous project has its benefits, such as demonstrating that the research has a solid foundation.However, only the recipients of the project funding have this obligation, while authors who participated in the project do not, but they can still choose to acknowledge it.

Failing to cite things you use is actually academic misconduct. In extreme cases it can be interpreted as plagiarism. Citation avoids all such issues.

I understand now. Thank you for your reply.：）

Beyond the misconduct aspect, sponsors like to see that the basic research ends up being useful.  This is why NSF has a Prior NSF Support section in their proposal.  They want to see that their funding made a difference.  If you can say, not only did it support the papers during the time of the period of performance, it also led to all these further developments, that is certainly something worth mentioning or even highlighting.  I certainly wouldn't think to cover it up, as it's actually an achievement for NSF and could increase your value on an application.

Thank you for your reply.@yourfriendlyresearchadmin BTW, researchers seem to have incentives to acknowledge previous funding projects in subsequent publications. However, this can also lead to over-acknowledge. So is the current NSF review mechanism for publications sufficient?

@asnkkk the over-acknowledge thing is taken seriously by DOE, they will call out people who do that. I tell PIs that if you acknowledge a grant in a publication, it has to go into the progress report. Will that be embarrassing?  If yes, you're over-acknowledging.  The sponsors just want you to say what funding made the paper possible, that's all. It's really a simple process that many overthink.  Just ask if you would put this in the report.  If no, that's your answer. After the funding ends there is no obligation to continue citing original funding, and most don't.

@yourfriendlyresearchadmin Thank you for your advice.my question has been resolved.

I would absolutely acknowledge a funding source if your data was acquired under that funding, or if essential machinery or tools were used in your new project that were originally acquired under that funding. Of course, as Buffy writes, this is not a binary decision: if you are still using some lab equipment that was acquired ten years ago, you probably don't need to acknowledge where the money originally came from.
However, there is a very simple solution to your question: just ask the funding agency whether they have any guidelines. It's their money, after all, so it's only right and proper that they have input on how long they should be acknowledged. (And this actually differentiates this case of acknowledging funding after the project is finished from correct citation of prior work that Buffy concentrates on in their answer.)

Thanks for your comments, inspired by your solution, I am sending an email to relevant agencies.

+1 for if the work was directly partially funded by some funding source, explicitly acknowledge that fund source as a partial funder. And esp. for asking the funder directly in the nuanced indirect cases of using resources they funded for prior projects, etc.
Also this answer emphasizes the difference in funding source and citing prior, relevant works.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Bioinformatics career outlook and education requirement?
I'm currently applying to a graduate school PhD program and have a question regarding bioinformatics field.
Can a person with Biology PhD degree who works in a lab that is heavily informatics, biostats, and genetics focus have a negative chance when applying to industry positions such as tech (heard a lot of news that Google and AWS are jumping into bioinformatics)?
I have experience in programming (Python and R) and working at bioinformatics labs but worried that having a Biology PhD degree would screen me out.
I know some people may have some questions why biology Ph.D. when I have an interest in bioinformatics, the schools I applied to keep redirecting my application to biology when I applied for bioinformatics.

Sorry, the post is off-topic as we do not give career advice outside academia here, but yes, it is possible. The name of the degree does not matter. What you did and your experience matter.

The degree title shouldn't really matter at this level. PhDs are much more bespoke than undergraduate programs, so anyone recruiting PhD holders should know to look beyond the degree title into the particular experience and skills. So just be sure to communicate those aspects (which you should be doing anyway!) and you should be fine.
Anecdotally, I don't believe our institution even offers 'Bioinformatics PhD' programs despite having a number of active groups in that area, with everyone being awarded PhDs under biology or medicine, as appropriate.

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


text:
How can I find published essays by British undergradute IR university students?
I'm trying to find undergraduate coursework essays that have been published in a journal. I'm looking specifically for international relations essays or if not possible, politics essays.

What is the intended use for these essays? Depending on what you are trying to achieve, there may be alternative resources.

If found I'll read the essays to better understand how to write an academic essay for IR topics.

In response to your comment, I have enlarged my answer below. I suggest that you actually edit the body of your question to include your purpose in asking. It makes a huge difference.

Is your goal for your writing to sound like an undergraduate, or to sound like an academic? If the latter, then maybe all you need to do is find published, peer-reviewed articles on the topic of interest.

I have never seen anything in any journal, in any discipline, to announce specifically that an article was written by an undergraduate student. It is not something that would usually be of any interest to anyone. Given that, the likelihood that you are going to discover from a journal that:

a paper was written by an undergraduate, and
that it was originally written as a class essay

is, I think, vanishingly small.
If your aim, as you suggest in your added comments, is simply so that you can understand what is required from a good undergraduate essay in IR, I suggest that you talk to one of your professors/lecturers. I used to keep (with the permission of the student authors, of course) a collection of good essays written by different students on various topics specifically so that I could use them as examples of good writing. ... and I've since heard several other academics say that they do the same.


text:
Should education times include "leave of absences"?
I enrolled in a grad school for two semesters (Fall 2019 and Spring 2020). Because of the Pandemic, I could not continue my studies. I took a "leave of absence" for the next two semesters (Fall 2020 and Spring 2021) hoping that I will be able to continue afterwards. After Spring 2021, I decided not to continue.
I am applying for a position where I need to provide accurate dates for all my previous education. For the time I studied in grad school, does the "leave of absence" count? I.e should I put my education dates from fall 2019 to spring 2021 (which includes two semesters of excused absences)? Or, should I put fall 2019 to spring 2020? The transcript shows two semesters of coursework and two semesters of leave of absence.

We cannot answer this question here, without knowing in which country you apply. This is country-specific. Otherwise, you may ask your social affairs institution if any, or consult the jurisdiction of your country.

this is for the United States

If you did not return, it would be odd and raise more questions to list your education as going a year past when you stopped working on it.


text:
Would doing another bachelor's make me competitive for graduate school?
I had a largely misguided journey through college, then fell in love with scholarship in the last 3 semesters when I began studying philosophy. The change in attitude is extremely clear on my transcript: before beginning philosophy, I had a smattering of every grade from A to F, and after beginning philosophy, I have almost completely earned A's. It's now my last semester, and even if I earn all A's this semester (which is certainly a possibility), I won't be able to break a 2.95 GPA.
I think I have what it takes to study in graduate school, and I really love philosophy. My goal would be to study philosophy in graduate school and produce research in either technology ethics or philosophy of mind. That said, I know my record is kind of abysmal, and philosophy is particularly competitive.
I'd like to know how I can work towards achieving this goal, or figuring out a comparable goal that would allow me to pursue my philosophical interests at the level of graduate study. Even if the odds are against me, what could I do?

Assuming US: Could you go to graduate school unfunded and pay tuition in addition without risking financial ruin?

I would apply to the master's programs at a few second or third-tier graduate schools and see what happens.  Explain your late bloom and newfound goals in your statement of purpose and personal statement.  The worst they can say is no.

And get some really good letters from a couple of your recent profs. But a second BA would require repeating too much other stuff in US.

While I agree with the answer of Nicole Hamilton, let me add a bit more.
I think that a second bachelors in the US would not be your best option as you would probably need to repeat a lot of courses that you already had. What you need to do is find a way to convince people that the past is the past and that you have good potential for success in the future. Your recent grades help with that but you likely need more.
It might, however, be important which courses you earned bad grades in. If they are foundational in what you want to study in future it is a bigger problem. Some places will let you take individual courses as a non-matriculated student, though you need to pay for them.
Letters of recommendation are relatively important in the US and, if they are the right letters, can give you a big boost. The reason is that when others say how serious you now are, for example, it holds much more weight than when you say it for yourself. I'll guess that there are a few faculty that can help you here, especially in philosophy.
But you should talk to them about your options. Perhaps they can suggest a grad school where they have a bit of influence on some colleagues. Perhaps they just know of some schools that would be compatible with your goals and skills.
If you apply for graduate school, note that you should do a broad search. Schools ranked around 50 to 75 are still very good. There are a lot of state schools that have good programs in philosophy. They also tend to have larger faculties and more options for advisors. The tuition, which you are likely responsible for, can be reasonable (or not).
And also note that funding for masters level students is generally much harder to obtain than for doctoral programs in which TAs are normally employed.

Your general idea of doing another degree to prove your ability in this field is a reasonable one.  However, since you already have an undergraduate degree, you could probably go directly into a graduate diploma or masters degree in philosophy (by coursework) as a preferred means of showing your abilities.  These are higher level degrees and they are also generally shorter, so you could demonstrate greater knowledge in less time.  If you can maintain your present high grades in a masters program then that would give you a good launching point for an application for a research degree.
Obviously there are a lot of factors to weigh off in this decision, including the costs of study (which depend a lot on where you are).  However, for students like yourself who have found your passion at the end of their undergraduate degree, pursuit of a higher level coursework degree can be a good idea.

Thank you, I have been looking at masters programs and it seems as if that would be a better goal. And I appreciate your last sentence, it is encouraging!


text:
What to do if I am on a hiring committee and I am aware that a candidate has exhibited unethical behavior in his previous position?
After a series of unethical incidents that affected me directly in my previous academic institution, I managed to move to a higher ranked department in my field about seven years ago. I am now in the hiring committee in my current institution and one of the candidates who is being considered is from my former institution.
There are two unethical practices that the candidate performed that I am aware of. One is that he managed to squeeze in as a third author on a finished paper and he thus made no contribution. I did most of the work for the paper and the paper was finished when my co-author added this person's name and submitted it. The second incident is that the candidate has announced in the past how he has changed his research results before submission to please the editor of a top journal in my field. He did this in the early years of his career. There are others in my former institution who know about it but they find this to be no big deal.
I am considering doing one of the following:

Discuss this with my current dept.
Keep quiet and stay in the committee.
Keep quiet but step down from the committee

For your information, I am a foreigner whose work is appreciated by everyone. However, I feel that I will not get much support if I open up. I had tried this in my previous institution and I realized that only a couple of people supported me. What should I do?

Welcome to Academia.SE! It's an interesting question. I hope you don't mind me editing it, I didn't change the words at all, I just added some formatting marks to make the text easier to read.

By "changed the research results" do you mean "falsified/fabircated data"?

How are you even asking? Of course you should report that… I don't understand.

While the person might not have helped "you" on the research paper, are you sure that person didn't provide significant input/help to your co-author which is why your co-author might have decided to put their name on the paper? Maybe your co-author didn't want you to know they needed outside help to do their part while you were actually working on the paper. If you are going to potentially "tarnish" someone's reputation you better be sure. It is better to let several "bad guys" get through rather than "tarnish" a good person who doesn't deserve it.

If you're on the hiring committee, then your job is to evaluate the candidates.  I see no need to back away from that (and by the way, I can't see what your being a "foreigner" could possibly have to do with any of this).
One has to exercise some restraint in repeating "hearsay" in official matters: unless you can find evidence about the changed research, I would hesitate to bring it up because it's hard for everyone else to independently evaluate.  On the other hand, if you are a coauthor of a paper with the candidate in question, then your colleagues should be very interested to hear your take on that.  I think you should certainly describe the candidate's contributions -- or lack thereof -- honestly to your colleagues.  I might avoid putting the banner of "unethical behavior" on it: the ethics of it are really for your colleagues to evaluate as well, right?  In general I think that in these kinds of matters it is more collegial and also more convincing to provide information which is factual rather than subjective or purely evaluative.
There is also the issue of why you, as the first author of a paper, allowed a coauthor whom you feel did absolutely nothing.  Isn't that at least arguably unethical behavior on your part?  I think it's better not to open that can of worms, but rather say that in fact the candidate's contribution to the joint work was minimal and that you do not feel like he should get much credit for it.

The question suggests that the candidate himself is the one who said he altered research results, in which case I wouldn't really call it hearsay.  If someone brags about doing unethical things, I would consider that a red flag even if they didn't actually do those things.  (Of course, you should still make it clear that you only have the person's own admission and not direct evidence of their fudging.)

@Bren: You're right that it's not hearsay in the legal sense.  I did use quotation marks, but I could have chosen a better word.  But what if the person was joking or greatly exaggerating?  The OP makes it clear that she doesn't think so, but also mentions that the rest of department might be a bit skeptical.  Just repeating what you say someone said to you years ago is not necessarily very convincing.

I should also say that I am a mathematician, not a scientist, and there is really no analogue in my line of work of "altering research results" in a way which is not transparent and detectable by any sufficiently interested party at any time.  And isn't it possible that someone could ask why the OP didn't bring this up before, at a time when it could be properly investigated?  All in all, this is the kind of thing I might say privately to my close friends, but I would (at least) hesitate to bring it up in a not fully supportive environment.

I agree with @PeteL.Clark Explain your opinions working with him and your lack of enthusiasm. In this competitive job market I highly doubt a negative review from a co-author could lead to a hire. There is no need to go into details about academic misconduct unless they can be supported by some evidence; doing so could backfire. You signed off on him being on your paper (even if you were strong armed) and you claiming he fabricated data could look like you're bitter. Admitting to fabricating data seems far out there, but people have bragged about far worse things.

If committee members had to step down just because they knew something about a job candidate, no one would ever get hired (or at least no one good).  My impression from serving on a hiring committee is that prior knowledge of the person's professional/research activities is a good thing, since it allows you to make a more informed decision about their merits.  It would be appropriate to step down (or refrain from discussion of this candidate) if you had non-academic dealings with this person that might color your judgement (e.g., a romantic relationship, a business venture, a childhood friendship).  Of course, you should clearly differentiate between evidence-based facts about the person and your own opinions of them, but I don't think it's wrong to mention your opinions to the committee.
That said, the two examples of "unethical behavior" you give seem quite different to me.  Getting a third-author credit on a paper without doing much work doesn't seem like much of an ethical breach to me, unless the means by which this was achieved were themselves unethical (e.g., bribes or threats).
I'm not sure what you mean by "changed his research results", but if you mean "falsified his data", then that sounds seriously unethical.  If you have evidence that the candidate has done this, you should definitely share that with the committee.  If you don't have direct evidence, but you've heard the candidate himself admit to it, that's worth sharing too.  If you've just heard secondhand rumors where other colleagues suggested the candidate had done this, that could be mentioned, but you should make it clear that you're only reporting about how the person is perceived by their colleagues, not anything you know for certain they actually did.

Can I ask a naive question?  Why would someone admit to a colleague that he had falsified his data?  That just doesn't make any kind of sense to me.  And more colleagues at this old institution know about it but consider it "no big deal": huh?!?

@PeteL.Clark: I don't know, but as far as I can understand from the question, that is what the OP is saying this person did.

-1 for "Getting a third-author credit on a paper without doing much work doesn't seem like much of an ethical breach to me."

@PeteL.Clark Dishonest people often brag about their dishonest, unethical or even criminal behavior.  This may seem incredible to honest people, but it is a real thing.  I personally suspect that for some people dishonest behavior is about power/ego issues and bragging about it, though stupid, is one of the ways that they may ineptly try to further their ego/social power gains.

You know, when I wrote this 3 years ago, I had no idea how prophetic it would turn out to be ...

The failure to act against an unethical act is a breach of ethics in itself.

If you have any evidence to suggest that he falsified the results, DO NOT step down. You will have failed your duty as an academician. You must report the facts. Whether or not he is chosen by the committee after that is a collective decision. It would definitely be wrong to deprive them of this very relevant information.
If you disapprove of the way he nudged into your paper at the last
minute, you must try to objectively decide if your disapproval is a
result of your own prejudice. If you find that hard, you could
consider consulting your co-author and seek to clarify the issue. If
he fails this test, you are obligated to report this too. (Although,
try not to colour it with your perspective. Cold, hard facts only.)

I disagree with an answer here that suggests you need 'infallible' proof. If you have reason to believe there is something wrong, you must share that intuition. It is what separates a hiring committee from an automatic resume-ranking tool. Be sure to separate the facts from your personal judgement. If you must err, do it on the side of caution. (Inform the committee, but let them know you aren't confident)

If you make an accusation about any individual(s) you must have proof. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people get accused of things without proof. I myself have been accused of things I haven't committed. It's unethical to accuse without proof. Also, I personally believe the proof must be complete and infallible. Accusing someone of falsifying data is one of the most serious accusations that can be made in academia.
Now, if you yourself are certain about the person's guilt beyond any doubt in your own mind, then I believe you are well within your right to step down. You can explain to the others that you are ethically compelled to step down. If your "bosses" demand an explanation, then you can tell them that although you don't have proof about something committed by someone, you are personally 100% certain it took place. That way, if the unethical person gets hired, you will be blameless for that decision.
If you say you are stepping down for ethical reasons, I think it will generate great curiosity among your colleagues. They may demand an explanation. It seems to me that saying anything without proof that prevents a person from getting hired is legally risky.

"Also, the proof must be complete and infallible." Wait, what?  The standard for accusing someone of murder is less than that.  I'm sorry that you were wrongly accused and one should certainly not make accusations lightly, but that is not anyone's standard: just imagine all the wrongdoing that would go uncontested if that were the case.

In the cases you complain about -- where you were wrongly accused -- presumably the problem is that you were accused of things that you didn't do, not just that you were accused without "complete and infallible" proof.  The OP is asking about someone who did do something bad, so the situation (from OP's perspective) is different from yours.

@ Trevor - You and I don't know that the accused did something wrong. That's why I won't tell the OP to make an open accusation (without proof) that could have legal repercussions.

I think you're missing my point.  What does it matter to the OP what you and I know?  We are advising OP to make a decision based on what OP knows.  And I don't see the point in us questioning whether OP is telling the truth.

I would not use the word "open" to describe academic hiring deliberations: in fact they are usually quite confidential.  And the way these things work is that faculty say things that cause candidates not to get hired: hundreds of candidates, every time.  Also the OP is reporting to her colleagues, not her boss: she is empowered here.  Nevertheless I would not bring up the scientific misconduct without clear evidence: rationally speaking, without that, how can the OP be confident that it's true? There are other, better ways for the OP to express her lack of enthusiasm in the candidate.

The first question I would put is:
1. He is smart/competent enough for this position?
2. Is  he a hardworker who will contribute?
Come on man, everybody makes mistakes. Just get over it and make sure it does not happen in the future.

And how does one "make sure it does not happen in the future"?  By hiring him?

There are almost certainly other candidates for the position who meet the minimum bar of competency. Some of them have also reached the present stage of their career without engaging in misconduct.

That kind of attitude doesn't belong in academia. A researcher must be held to very high standards of ethics. Falsified results can cause more harm than you care to imagine.

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


text:
What education does one need to be called "Professor" in the United States of America?
What education does one need to be called "Professor" in the United States of America? A woman with a law degree in a junior college paralegal program insists on being called professor at a local community college. She is the only one in the whole school that does this. Is this normal?

I don't understand the question.  Do you mean "a law degree from a junior college paralegal program"?  Also, you say she "insists on being called professor at a local community college": what is her position at the college, and by whom does she insist on being called "professor"?

The first time I was called professor, I was a first-year PhD student being scheduled to proctor exams (and this was the consistent usage). The last time, I was teaching business as an adjunct with an MBA as my highest degree, and this was how I introduced myself (I didn't insist, but it was how I framed how they should address me). I was an adjunct at another business school (that also gave GED courses), they actively framed instructors as "teachers," not "professors." The school was very customer service oriented - there seemed to be a degree of respect lacking from students at that school.

@TrevorWilson the question aims at the requirements for the title Professor. In the US it is just a job description and anybody can call himself a professor. But in many other countries professor is an official title like Dr. which has to be earned. You are required to have a PhD + Habilitation + being called to a University. This means years and years of advanced studies, publications and academic work.

What are "real professors"  (people that lead large research groups) call in the US?   E.g. how do you tell between the fake and the real professors?

@Ian People who lead large research groups are also called "Professor" or "Doctor," depending on institution, preference, etc. They aren't routinely distinguished in conversation; the full job title includes academic rank, but it's not used in conversation.

@Ian If you want to emphasize that someone's job title is "Professor" rather than "Associate Professor" or "Assistant Professor", you could say that he or she is a full professor.  But one would never say anything like "Full Professor Smith."

This woman who insists on being called professor only has a "degree " from a diploma mill .Maybe her job title is professor .In many jobs they give people good titles to make them feel good .Titles are much cheaper than pay rises.I am glad that I am not at her community college.

I never know what to fill in USAmerican forms, since here in Brazil everybody is "professor", including school teachers, lecturers, etc. I would probably be considered a "lecturer" or an "assistant professor" in the USA. In Brazil and some Latin American countries, "professor" is just a profession. In many countries, it's a title.

Personally, I refer to any instructor at a college, be it a junior college or above, as professor.  Though I will be calling my Japanese professor this spring Sensei, as that is how everyone refers to her.

@LeonardoCastro Regarding Brazil and Portugal, the term Professor/Professora is just a Portuguese equivalent of "teacher" (hence inclusive of all the teachers, including the Martial arts teacher, primary school teacher, third/foreign language language teacher, etc), and not to be confused with the English usage of "Professor". Pls correct me if I am wrong.

@PradeebanKathiravelu Yes, Portuguese "professor(a)" includes all that and university "Professor", such that Brazilian university teachers sometimes don't know whether they should describe themselves as a "Professors" or simply "lectures" while using English.

There is a scene in "The Music Man" where Marion (the librarian) explains that a band leader is often called "professor" as a matter of courtesy, even if he holds no official title.

I have just noticed I wrote "lectures" instead of "Lecturers". It seems I can't edit the comment anymore...

I completely agree with the answers by ff524 and Pete L. Clark, but I'd like to highlight one issue that's in the background here, regarding whether this behavior is normal.  When someone makes a point of emphasizing a professional title, it might be because they are pompous, but they might actually have a good reason for it.  It's difficult to do your job well if the people you are interacting with don't maintain an adequate level of respect and professionalism, and insisting on titles can be an effective way to control the tone of your interactions.
Whether this is helpful is often correlated with gender or race: many white men are treated respectfully by default, while women or minorities sometimes find that students or colleagues interact with them in troubling ways that don't arise nearly as often for their white male coworkers.  For example, students sometimes expect unreasonably forgiving and nurturing behavior from women and react harshly if they don't get it, students sometimes disrespect women in class and try to challenge or undermine their authority (for no intellectually compelling reason), etc.  Of course this doesn't always happen, but it's a real problem for some people.
Insisting on the use of a formal title is one way to address this issue.  You run the risk of looking pompous or uppity, but you are willing to take that risk in exchange for reminding everyone of your position and your desire to maintain a formal and respectful tone.  This may not be the best solution in any given circumstances, but it works well enough that it's reasonably common.
So my recommendation is to approach this issue with some charity.  If you hear complaints about someone insisting on a title that nobody else cares as much about, especially a woman or minority, you should keep in mind that it may be their way of dealing with a difficult situation.

This x1000. For a first-person account of this by a female African-American engineering professor, see They Call Me Doctor Berry

@ff524 A female African-American engineering professor, it should be noted, at an excellent engineering program. It’s been a few years since I checked, but in the mid-2000s, Rose-Hulman was typically neck-and-neck with Harvey Mudd College (where I attended) for best engineering programs from schools whose highest degree is a Bachelor's. Having heard the name so much as our “competition” for that title, I was that much more impressed with her – and saddened by the state of things in 2014 at her school – when I saw that at the bottom of the article.

What I don't get is why anyone would complain about someone insisting on being addressed by their title. To Dr Berry's experience, "I doubt that this is an experience that many of my male colleagues have ever had to endure." she shouldn't make assumptions. I committed all of the slights she said she endured against all of my professors, most of whom were white males. I was just trying to be helpful, and I don't recall a negative reception (not extremely positive either). But I do think ones title makes a difference and can help improve tone.

@AaronHall Agreed with Aaron. She's making a false assumption. All instructors get their derivations questioned (especially when they're wrong... professors make mistakes, too,) grading regarded as too harsh/unfair (unless they're unusually easy,) etc., white males included. This isn't really even a negative thing, since it usually means that either the instructor made a mistake that is likely to confuse students or the student is confused about something and needs the concept explained. Either way, failing to mention it doesn't help anything, aside from perhaps the professor's ego.

Funnily, I generally don't like when people call me doctor (which is my title)... Indeed I introduce myself with my first name. One needs to be respectful no matter what my title may be. If they don't want to listen to me because I am not a Professor my time is not worth spending talking with them. On the other hand, one can be a Nobel Prize winner and be a complete idiot (should I name a few? Because there are a few to name...).

I'll answer the general question in the title of your post:

What education does one need to be called “Professor” in the United States of America?

None at all. In the United States, someone who holds an appointment as a professor (of any rank, including professor-like positions that may not even include "professor" in their official name) at a university may be addressed as "Professor." It is not a matter of their level of education, but of their job title.

A woman with a law degree in a junior college paralegal program insists on being called professor at a local community college. She is the only one in the whole school that does this. Is this normal?

If she has an appointment that is in the range of "professor" positions, then she is perfectly entitled to insist on being addressed as "professor."

Furthermore, since she's not a "doctor" she shouldn't be addressed as "Dr. X."  It's likely that many of the other professors in the community college have doctorates (which may be PhD's but might also be Ed.D. or other doctoral degrees.)  Those faculty might be addressed as either "Dr." or "Professor", but the only options that she has are "Professor", "Mrs." (or "Miss" or "Ms." as appropriate.)

@BrianBorchers: The most common "law degree" in the US is J.D., Juris Doctor. I believe this is technically considered a doctoral degree, though it is unusual for people with this degree to style themselves "Dr."

Actually, it is not uncommon to call all faculty members "Dr." or "Professor;" even those who do not hold a professorial rank.  I, as a lecturer (the lowest of the low among full-time faculty) was called "Professor Brown" until I finally finished the Ph.D. and was promoted to "Dr. Brown."  I have no experience with community colleges, but I would not be surprised to find the same practice there.

@BobBrown I was including lecturer, adjunct, and other professor-like roles in "the range of 'professor' positions," but I will make that explicit.

@ff524: Got it.  (But we lecturers often get to say, "Yessir, Dr. Tenured Full Professor Sir!  How high, sir?")

@BobBrown One lecturer I had joked that half the reason he applied for the job was so he could be called "Professor Soandso."

Although the degree is J.D., it's traditional for lawyers to not use the title "Doctor."  Law professors are typically addressed as "professor X" rather than "Doctor X."

I was an undergrad (i.e. not even a Bachelor’s yet) and I covered a couple of lectures – sure enough, some of the students, some of whom I was literally classmates with in other classes, referred to me as professor. Somewhat awkwardly, of course, but some of them did.

@ff524, Isaac Asimov insisted on keeping his position at Boson University to continue to be entitled to the title "professor" after he moved on from there.

@vonbrand and how did he manage to keep the position, was it a "let me keep the title and I'll forgo the check" sort of arrangement?

No specific educational background is necessary to be called "Professor" in the United States.  It is not an honorific like "Dr." which refers to a specific degree.  (There have been some famous academics who had no more than a BA, e.g. Lyman Kittredge.  This is less common as time goes on, but there are certainly many professors without terminal degrees in their field.)  "Professor" is a formal job title in the field of higher education, and if someone holds that title at their institution then they can use it with legitimacy.
In general, anyone can "insist" upon being called anything, and the other party can then decide how they want to respond.  I could refuse to call my physician "Dr." if I chose to; what happens then is up to them.  Insisting on being called by your job title while on the job seems reasonable to me.
"Is this normal?" can be a hard question to answer for strangers on the internet.  Granting the premise that she is the only faculty member at the institution that wants to be called "Professor", then...it seems to follow that it's not normal at that institution.  But there are many other American professors who want to be called "Professor" and many institutions where this is the most common appellation, so in that sense the practice is normal.
(Added: @AnonymousMathematician gives some compelling conditions in which it may be appropriate to be the only faculty member at their institution who insists on this.)

Note also that in many countries (but not the US) most medical doctors do not have doctoral degrees (MDs), and "doctor" is a courtesy title and not one that their academic qualifications entitle them to.

Sharing my own story since it comes in the grey area and might be helpful to some.
I recently completed a Master's degree in Computer Science and was asked to teach an undergraduate class the next semester.  The version of this question I asked my wife was, "what should I have the students call me?"  She was merely amused and responded why would it matter but astutely mentioned that it should be enough for the students to know the university was satisfied with my credentials and thus allow me to teach there.  In the same vein of other answers here, I'm not insisting on formality for its own sake but am trying to juggle lots of cultural norms involving titles in an educational setting and so forth.
Since I neither have a PhD nor do I have a medical degree, I shouldn't expect to be called doctor; the question is whether to correct a student who addresses me that way.  It hasn't happened but I've resolved to correct them if it does, that just leaves me with what to ask them to use in place of 'Dr.'  The natural choices are the forms Prof. French or Mr. French. During my undergrad days when we had an instructor that did not have a PhD. we would make sure to use Mr. or Mrs. (in those days the Ms./Mrs. debate had not flared up yet).
In my case the question came down to whether I could be referred to as Prof. French without either confusing a student who then expected I held a PhD or somehow being seen as borrowing the title as a form of ego-stroking.  There are several questions that dance around the issue like, is it ok to call Prof. X Mr. X or addressing a friend who teaches after joining his lab or at what point can I refer to my professor by their first name
What cleared it up for me was my appointment letter, which stated unambiguously that I was being appointed as an adjunct professor.  At the beginning of class I wrote my full name on the board but did not include my work history or my degrees, heeding my wife's advice on not feeling the need to express my credentials to the students as I don't need to prove anything to them.  When students address me they use Professor French both in person and in emails and that works for me.
My oldest daughter has recently finished not only a degree in teaching - and has been teaching in a primary school for years -but completed a master's of her own, but a different field, the same semester as I completed mine.  I consulted with her about teaching in general and she had a ton of good information on how to manage a classroom. We agreed that in my case I didn't want to tell them it was my first time teaching; mainly because while it might make me feel less of a need to apologize for mistakes or oversights it would give the students a seed of doubt, however tiny, which might serve as a distraction.
As it turns out, the teaching assistant for the class is a PhD student so she addresses me in emails as Mr. French which I prefer because she isn't one of my students and if I insisted she use Prof. French it implies more formality and hierarchy than I'm comfortable with.  When she refers to me when speaking to students she says things like, 'you need to see the instructor' or 'you need to talk to Mr. French.' both of which are fine with me for the same reasons as above.
So in most cases it might be a simple answer but you really need to have more context to guide you whether it comes from the culture or the institution.
Now, if I can only figure out what to call the other faculty now that I am one...

In my opinion, I don't think it's appropriate to call or act as a professor without PhD because it lead the community on the wrong way of perception. For instance I have a MBA, and sometimes universities invite me to give lectures. The students used to call me as I'm a professor and I refuse because it don't make sense. I know many colleagues haven't a PhD but they are professor. It seems unusual and inappropriate even assistant or associated professor.

In the USA, The title of Professor is given to people that have a PhD and are teachers at any academic level. A person who is a Doctor is someone who has finished a terminal degree meaning they have completed the highest degree in their field of study above a bachelors. Currently a Masters of Fine Arts is the top degree for artist in the USA technically can be called Doctor last name. Art classes are informal setting so you call the instructor by their first name but they are currently trying to develop a PhD program. Master levels are called Instructor. Now because some people get in a snit about the title of Doctor the custom is to only call people with PhD's Doctors. If you are a grad student and are called professor you should correct the person because it is a title that people earn with an additional 5 to 8 years of study. As to the OP on the first day of class the professor should of introduced herself and what degree she has from which schools. Teaching at a 2 year community college only requires a masters degree 4 year universities you need a PhD or terminal degree such as in art person. grads teaching under a direct supervision of of the proper degree person. It was a long answer but so much misinformation in the thread. I have a MFA you will find that most people teaching with an MFA a university know the details because we are the lowly Instructors among the Professors.

From Doctor of Fine Arts Wiki article: At Yale University, the D.F.A. is conferred on students who hold a Master of Fine Arts degree in dramaturgy and dramatic criticism from the Yale School of Drama, and who have "completed M.F.A. qualifying comprehensive examinations, and have written a dissertation of distinction whose subject has been approved by the D.F.A. committee" of faculty.

A master's is all that's required to teach at some (most?) universities also (that's all I have).  But with only a master's you may be restricted to teaching only UG subjects.  Also, to get the job, you will likely need substantial experience in lieu of the PhD.

This is incorrect. If any U.S. institution follows these rules, they are very far out of the standard practice in STEM fields. There was one professor at my undergraduate institution who did not have a PhD, so it was technically incorrect to call him "Doctor". But "Professor" was fine. And his title from the school was actually "professor".

And if somebody at my institution introduced himself on the first day of class and mentioned what degrees they had from what institutions, that would be odd and might be seen as snobbery. You can tell your students what you like to be called, and your current position, if you want. And any work experience that's relevant to your course.

As far as physics goes, any PhD hired to teach is rightfully called "Professor." However, their title may technically be, for instances, "Assistant Professor" or "Associate Professor." One is considered a (Full) Professor once one has been granted tenure by the appropriate committee.
In short, one is a professor if one has been granted a PhD and one has been hired on to teach. One is considered a full professor if one has been granted tenure by senior faculty.
That said, I've never met a professor that objected to being addressed as "Dr."
BU has a very nice general breakdown.
EDIT: not sure why I'm being downvoted. If you're an American physics student whose experience is counter to my account, please do share.

I have had professors without doctoral degrees; it isn't a general requirement to be called a professor, nor necessarily even to have tenure and the rank of full professor in some fields or in unusual circumstances. A PhD is definitely not a requirement. (also, at most places, associate professors are typically tenured -- a few places have tenure happen between associate and full, but normally it's between assistant and associate).

I downvoted this because it is, well, wrong.  Having a PhD and a teaching position does not allow you to be "rightfully called 'Professor'".  Professor is a specific job title that postdocs and other temporary faculty may or may not have.  "One is considered a full professor if one has been granted tenure by senior faculty." This is also incorrect: tenure and "full professor" are not the same.  Similarly there are physics professors at American institutions without PhDs.  This is not a question about students or experiences; it is a purely factual matter.

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


text:
Can I publish a paper on my PhD work without informing my old supervisor?
I was a PhD student and working on a paper. My adviser told me that he could not support me anymore so I left him. Now I am wondering if I could publish that paper on my own. There were 3 other coauthors on that paper but I was the first author and main idea was from me.

Related: PhD four years ago; can I publish a paper from PhD work without my supervisor's name? - however, I believe it's not a duplicate because the question here specifically mentions the existence of co-authors.

Why breaking the bridge with your co-authors? (or its already broken..)

@ff524: Thanks for mentioning the same question. actually I didn't get the PhD and I forced to quit. I think my adviser was not confident with my results.

@seteropere: yes it did.

Your paper had other authors. Generally, if you want to publish it, you have to communicate with the other co-authors (whether they were your supervisor or not).
Regardless of who the first author on a paper is, if other individuals made authorship-worthy contributions to the work, you can't publish it without communicating with them first.

In fact, you can't publish until all of the authors agree to publish- part of the process of submitting a paper for publication is making a statement that you have the agreement of all coauthors.  Most journals and conferences will email back to all of the authors telling them that they've been named as coauthors on a submission.  If someone doesn't agree with the paper, then they can very easily stop it.  This is one reason that it is so important to be clear on who the authors will be and what tasks each will do before starting to prepare a paper or doing the research for that matter.

@BrianBorchers While it's true that good agreements make good friends, it's often very difficult to determine contributions (not to mention their relative importance) prior to doing the research. Author lists can't always be determined before doing any work.

When an academic paper is produced, the copyright generally belongs primarily to the institution at which the work was done and secondarily to the author(s) of the work.
Therefore you must seek and obtain the permission of the institution at which you were enrolled before disseminating the work in any form, whether electronic or otherwise or presenting it at a meeting or conference. Failure to do this would represent a breach of academic ethics and could leave you open to legal proceedings from the institution in question.

the copyright generally belongs primarily to the institution at which the work was done - As a general statement, that's not true at all - many institutions do not hold copyright interests in work produced by their students or faculty. And institutions that require institutional permission to publish are very, very rare.

This is misleading. Copyright and authorship are two different things. I don't know where you get the idea that copyright belongs to the institution, but in any case whether or not publishing something would be plagiarism or some other form of academic misconduct has nothing to do with copyright in the legal sense.

dac2002- do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

you must seek and obtain the permission of the institution at which you were enrolled before disseminating the work in any form — This has absolutely not been true at any of the dozen or so institutions I've been affiliated with, in four different countries, as an undergrad, grad student, student, postdoc, professor, or sabbatical visitor.


text:
Setting up a Mathematical Institute of Refereeing?
This question is mainly focused on the field of mathematics, although it might make sense for other areas too.

would setting up a Mathematical Institute of Refereeing be a good idea ?

To explain the idea, I have noted several things that seem to go in the same direction :

referees today are not paid for their work (at least by good quality journals, I'm not talking about predatory ones), they do it by goodwill to be active members of their communities ;
discussing a result with a colleague always speeds up one's understanding ;
in many cases it is difficult to find a referee for a paper, and the process can easily take 9 months just to get a first report ;
many people experience a draught at some point in their career.

So what about an institute where members have a temporary affiliation (say a 5-year contract, which they can quit at any time) and are tasked to only do refereeing, any involvement in other time-consuming activities (teaching, grant application, but also one's own research) would be banned (and checked regularly by the administrative staff and citizens).
The members would be sworn to secrecy (like a medical one, with cash and jail sentences if found guilty of breach, say during their membership and the 2 years beyond it), which would allow them to discuss papers they are reviewing with other members on-site.
Funding would be provided by a variety of sources (Universities, Private sector...).
And to make sure that there is no change from traditional anonymous refereing, these referees would not mention in their report that there are members, so it would look like it had been done by a standard referee at a university (but much faster).
The idea would be both to speed up the process, and to lower the pressure to publish mediocre papers (i.e. it would be valued more highly by the community to know that someone is a hard-working member of that institute, rather than someone is painstainkingly publishing small papers every couple year which consume refereeing ressources while adding little value to the area).
[edit: thank you for the answers and comments, many good points there of course. Clearly not all sub-fields of maths would be covered this way, but I thought it might help in some where this is high traffic. Plus, I thought people towards the end of their career, who have taught for 25/30 years and, in some cases, have also lost a bit the will of finding new stuff all the time, might be interested. (If you don't find it lacking courtesy, I think I'd like perhaps not to accept an answer to let it open-ended.)]

That might work in mathematics, but in most field if you do not follow the state of the art and do literature reviews you end up disconnected from what is going on. This lowers your capacity to do a good review.

I would never take a job where my "involvement in other time-consuming activities" was banned and "checked regularly by the administrative staff and citizens".

A milder version of your idea sounds like it might be interesting, if anyone wanted to fund it. Say, a dozen 5-year "refereeing fellowships" which you could apply for, and which buy out one course a semester and give some summer salary. Each year, whoever gave out the money would evaluate the quality, quantity, and timeliness of your output -- on which renewal of funding would be contingent.

Mathematics, or at least the part of it I am in, seems to be too fractured into sub-sub-fields for this. The problem in finding a referee is less in finding anyone willing to do it, the problem is finding someone willing to do it out of the few dozen people specializing in that subtopic. Your proposed institute would have to employ several hundreds of people to possibly cover all of them.

Two things immediately occurred to me, the first of which @mlk has already addressed, and the second concerns "and are tasked to only do refereeing". I can't imagine this attracting any (I was about to say "many", but actually I think "any" probably fits better if not taken literally) highly knowledgeable and capable people, as they'd have to put their research work on hold (also, are they not allowed to think about interesting problems, what can done with certain techniques, etc. when at home, while driving, visits to the library, etc.). Also, how does one (continued)

keep something like this secret? Faculty member Q suddenly isn't teaching classes is kind of hard to conceal, as well as participation in departmental seminars and such. Researcher Q's contact with various co-authors and others from outside Q's college/university that he/she discusses mathematical problems with suddenly stops.

In regards to the edit, I think most people towards the end of there career would not find this attractive---as mentioned elsewhere proper refereeing is painful, and I think most people towards the end of their career either want to relax, finish lifelong investigations or at least do something they feel is meaningful.  I also think due to the amount of specialization needed, @mlk's comment still stands even if you want to restrict to popular sub-fields.

"Funding would be provided by a variety of sources (Universities, Private sector...)." -> name two. Like, if you really believe that this is the case, name two specific universities or private sector organizations who actually have indicated that they would be willing to fund something like this - because without that, everything else in the suggestion is just empty talk. Since the big problem with refereeing process has always been the fact that nobody wants to fund it, the specific funding sources can't be an afterthought, they're a prerequisite before any serious discussion can be made.

If it's a secret that a given referee works for this institute, then it's a secret that a given paper went through this institute. How will it justify continued funding without a measurable, auditable trail? "Give us even more money so a totally unverifiable number of us can referee a totally unverifiable number of papers" sounds like a great thing to get all my buddies into - for a cut, naturally. Not saying it definitely would happen, but the potential is there.

Two things:

The funding isn't as easy as you make it seem. We have a system of publications right now, and you ask for more money to improve it. This money must come from somewhere, and no one will give up his funds willingly.
You say that this would lower the pressure to publish, because instead working at this institute is seen as a good, important job. However, can't you say the same about teaching? Teaching is very important because it forms the future generations. So why is it then not that easy today to just focus on teaching for a few years without loosing academic reputation? Why do you think anything would be different here?

Thank you for the answer. As for your second point, these referees would be in the thick of current research (just not publishing themselves), so I can imagine that they wouldn't loose reputation compared to those who only teach (and who indeed may loose contact with their field).

@Archie - you are only in the thick of current research if you are actually doing it yourself. Further, I can't imagine anybody who is actually interested in doing research wanting to spend any length of time just refereeing other people's papers.

@Archie, if the only academic activity you do for 5 years is anonymous, how can you not lose reputation?


text:
Manuscript included in special collection by editor?
I have recently submitted my first manuscript to an academic journal. I was notified by an Associate Editor that my manuscript was included in a special collection of the journal, and I need to either accept or reject this suggestion. I need to get an accepted paper before February in order to graduate.

Is this positive for the submission, in terms of the remaining time for acceptance?
Does this mean the reviewers have reached a conclusion?

The editor's message makes no sense if you have the verb tense of things correct here. Are you sure this is a reputable journal?

I don't have further experience with manuscript submissions, but I think it means it will be considered for the special collection if we accept the suggestion. My question is whether this impacts the whole submission timeline in a positive or negative way. Sorry if I was unclear before!

Is your advisor helping you with this, or are you doing it all on your own?

"I need to get an accepted paper before February in order to graduate" I don't know what the average time from submission to acceptance is in your field (in my field it would be pure fantasy to imagine that a paper submitted now will be accepted by February), but I would very strongly recommend that you have a plan B, because February is just around the corner and all sorts of delays can happen in the review process.

Sounds like the associate editor is suggesting your manuscript be included in a particular "special collection" of the journal. These things are collections of papers on a particular topic, e.g. here is a list of special issues (i.e. "special collection") for a MDPI journal.
You are free to agree to, or decline, your paper being included in the collection. There should not be a bias either way in whether your paper is accepted or not. If you agree then your paper shows up on the same webpage as the other papers in the special collection. The most important thing that might change for the peer review process is that special collections have guest editors, and these guest editors would most probably be the ones handling your paper, if you agree with the move.
As for speed of review process: this depends most on how active your editor is. If the associate editor is a guest editor of the special collection, then they're likely to be active since they're already in contact with you, so agreeing with the move might help. (Or not. The associate editor might go inactive, or the reviewers might be late, etc.)
Finally, your paper presumably has not been reviewed yet, and there is no decision yet.

"Included" and "accepted" aren't the same thing. Normally the standards for acceptance into a special issue are a bit higher than in general, assuming reputable journals only of course.
Ask the editor whether that their use of "inclusion" means acceptance. For a reputable journal, being accepted into a special issue is a good thing. Normally really good. The reason is limited space, especially for print journals.
The best case is that the paper is considered so good that short-cuts have been taken to get it into a special issue. And in that "best case" it would probably mean earlier acceptance.
And consider whether this is a reputable journal as Bryan Krause suggests in a comment. For a reputable journal where the editor says it has been accepted, rather than just that "consideration has been moved" then say yes, I'd guess.
Special issues also normally have a fairly fixed publication date, also implying earlier decisions. Normally, a paper can be put off to future issues when there are issues.
But ask. It is the only way to know. Do it now.

"Normally the standards for acceptance into a special issue are a bit higher than in general." - I think this is an outdated view. Nowadays, "special issues" are highly associated with predatory publishing practices, where journals solicit people to be "guest editors" by sending them spam emails full of praise, then expect them to gather a bunch of submissions to make the journal money, without particular care for quality. Some fill them with their own papers. Of course, some reputable journals may still do the old school special issue, but I would be very, very wary.

@BryanKrause, I'm only speaking for reputable journals, of course.

Even back in the day, special issues in my field often had a lower standard for acceptance than normal issues. People would propose a special issue arising from a conference, workshop or a particular funding round. The special issue editors solicited papers from people they'd been working with and already knew. They had less investment than regular editors in maintaining the reputation of the journal and more in getting the work of the group published.


text:
When submitting a paper, do we need to cite articles from the journal where we are submitting?
My colleagues and I are trying to publish a paper since July of this year. Unfortunately, we have sent the papers to three journals, but on all three occasions, the response we got from the editor was that the paper "does not fit the journal".
To this end, I have a simple query: Do we need to cite articles from the journal where we are sending our paper? I have looked for an answer elsewhere, but couldn't find anything satisfactory or incontrovertible.

Any article you use must be cited, no matter where it appears. But "padding" the paper to have citations isn't proper or useful.

I have in the past been requested to add citations to papers in the same journal by editors when I have had a paper accepted (in order to improve their impact factors).  It made me reluctant to publish with them again in the future.

There is certainly no (written or unwritten) rule which forces you to cite papers of your target journal to get in - expecting this would be highly unethical on the side of the editors. However, if the journal is a good fit for your paper, it is likely to have references which are relevant to your work and if you don't find some, then the journal might not fit as well as you think it does (or your literature research might need improvement). I sometimes even take the reverse approach and identify a fitting venue for a paper by looking at where the peers I cited published their work so that the right audience will find it.

this --- Some journals even do say that they expect successful submissions to clearly continue a conversation in the journal - which means your literature review or similar does basically have to cite them to show that connection.  And the way to not force that, as mentioned, is to submit to places with articles you ought to cite.

@Mike: If journals expect "continuing a conversation" in the journal, the people in charge of the journal are clearly incompetent, and do not understand scientific ethos. However, I'd reason that they aren't "expecting" it, but are only encouraging it, since they assume that new papers in that field would be extensions or improvements of ideas already published in that journal. OP is perhaps presenting seminal concepts that some people in academia generally tend to reject initially. One of my papers got rejected from an Rxiv, and later got accepted unmodified, in an international conference.

Absolutely Not - That Would be Academically Fraudulant
Although, if a journal is a good fit for your paper, it will probably have some stuff that you'd want to cite.
Maybe submit your paper to a journal that you're already citing articles from.

No, but...
One way to show that your article is "a good fit" for a journal is to show that you are responding to, working with, or otherwise engaged with work that has been published previously in that journal.


text:
How to cite a physical product?
Assume I’m writing a paper about randomness.  I might have this text:

Traditional TRNGs are (typically) external add on devices of varying size, cost and complexity [11][12][13].

How would I cite three specific examples such as:

TrueRNG v3 – Hardware Random Number Generator selling for ≈£50

Quantis Random Number Generator selling for £1100

Dice-O-Matic accessed 25/11/2017 which is a DIY toy device

Are these even products, or are they just web sites?  What if the referenced product was a Ferrari sports car instead?  There are a few product citation-style questions showing up in the Similar Questions box, but they tend to be for software.  Is there a difference?
Note that I'm not asking a philosophical question, rather a formatting one.  What do I actually type for each reference?  What would you type if you were going to add a reference for say the TrueRNG?

Typically, you'd present those devices in a comparison table that lists their major points of distinction, then cite sources that claim that information.

You can name those devices in the paper, and the only thing you need to cite is your source for the specifications of those products. You can take it as common knowledge that the products exist (it's useful to name the manufacturer or brand to help readers find the product 20 years later); much like any author could reference the Pyramids at Giza without needing to prove that those exist - but they should cite a source for details like the exact height or age of the pyramids.

It might be superfluous to mention it, but just in case – when citing things like that, always be careful to not turn your academic paper into an online shopping catalogue.

Does this answer your question? How should I cite products?

I'd take this in two steps:

Build up a table of random-number generators that you might cite or/and think would make for an interesting comparison.

Refer to specific random-number generators according to their entry in your table throughout the rest of the text (rather than by brand name, etc.).

1.  The table of random-number generators
"Comparison of hardware random number generators", Wikipedia, is a good example.  This table provides a wide variety of helpful information, from brand name and pricing to operating principles and technical specifications.
Each piece of information in the table is cited based on source, rather than citing the sources for each product together.  For example, technical specs tend to come from more technical sources while pricing information tends to come from commercial fronts.
2.  Referring to specific entries in the text

What would you type if you were going to add a reference for say the TrueRNG?

Personally I'd index the RNG's like figures or equations, e.g. "RNG (10)" instead of "TrueRNG".  This can make it easier to concisely-and-unambiguously refer to the RNG's, plus it helps to avoid polluting the text with cheesy brand names.

Incidentally, I'll totally sell my own RNG, the "The Super-Awesomest RNG Ever, Rainbow-Unicorn Edition 9000", if you do want cheesy brand names in the text.  And, yes, will be someone else's RNG rebranded and marked-up 1000%.

In the example given, you are citing the specification, not the device.  The same is true of the Ferrari.  You are going to say something(s) about it, such as horsepower or wheelbase.  So, find and cite the specification(s) needed.
Edit: For the TrueRNG, you cite the web page, if that's the best information available, using whatever your discipline's citation style requires for a web page.  You're still citing the source of the information, not the physical object.
If you actually examine a physical product, e.g. reverse-engineer TrueRNG, then you describe the object you examined and the findings of your examination.  So, "I disassembled TrueRNG model ABC, serial number XYZ, and measured the actual entropy generated by the frammistan module using Someone's Method and determined..."  Similarly if you measure the acceleration of that Ferrari.  (I don't think that's the question you're asking, but that's what the title implies.)

One option is to cite the vendor's website, since it (supposedly) contains the specs and all other needed info. This is the simplest way I saw used even for chemical/mechanical apparatus used by engineers--scientists in their articles.
This has the downside of not being quite specific, but it's up to you (and maybe the journal editor) whether it's deemed sufficient or not.

I would think that citing "... of varying size and complexity" is different from citing "... of varying cost".
For the former, you are trying to reference physical properties of the product, so you want to cite a technical spec sheet. Here the relevant things to cite are the model number of the product and version of the spec sheet that you accessed.
For the latter, you are trying to reference the retail or market value of the product which varies between retailers and over time. Here the relevant things to cite are which retailer, the price they were offering, and the date they were offering it on.


text:
How to cite information removed from a working paper when it was published
Here's a simplified version of a bibliographic problem I'm facing.
A working paper estimated that Public Policy X caused Social Indicator Y to increase by 25%—practically significant, but not statistically significant at p < .05. So the paper's authors, as they told me by e-mail, omitted the discussion of Indicator Y when the paper was published in a journal.
Other studies of Policy X have found effects of 20%–40% on Indicator Y, so I'd like to cite the 25% estimate to corroborate these other studies. I'm writing for semi-popular consumption, so I'd like to minimize bibliographic clutter in the main text without confusing readers who can't find Indicator Y in the published paper. (The working and published papers have identical titles. The working paper is paywalled on every website that hosts it, and the published paper is unpaywalled on the website of one of its authors, so readers may find the published paper if they chase a citation to the working paper and aren't told that the two differ.)
What's the best solution? My current idea is this, but if there's a standard method, I'd prefer that. My publisher generally follows Chicago format.

In main text:
Kent and Parker found that Policy X increased Indicator Y by approximately 25%.1 Though not statistically significant,2 this estimate corroborates independent studies' estimates, such as [etc.]
In footnotes:
1 Clark Kent and Peter Parker. "Various Effects of Policy X." NBER Working Paper No. 90210, June 2016. Discussion of Indicator Y is absent from the version ultimately published: Clark Kent and Peter Parker. "Various Effects of Policy X." Los Angeles Journal of Sociology 16, no. 1 (2017): 42–50.
2 Peter Parker, e-mail message to author, October 31, 2017.

If it is non-trivial to find the working paper, then include a URL to it.

To clarify: The working paper is in the NBER Working Papers database, which is all posted online behind a paywall, and several search engines turn up the paywalled NBER copy as the first result search for the paper's name. The final paper is posted on the website of one of the authors, unpaywalled, so anyone without an NBER subscription will probably find that one instead. I'll clarify in the question itself.

If the authors hold an unencumbered copyright to the working paper, you might request that they post the working paper on an unwalled webpage and/or grant you permission to post a mirror on an unwalled webpage.

This is a rare situation, because “interesting enough to cite” and “interesting enough to include in the final draft” tend to be highly correlated. Therefore I wouldn’t expect there to be a “standard” way to do this.
However, there are standard ways to cite working papers. For Chicago style, it’s this:

Author. Year. “Title of Paper.” Title of Series. Sponsoring Organization, Month Day.
Add URL at the end if available online.
Deal, Ashley. 2009. “Collaboration Tools.” Teaching with Technology Whitepaper. Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Educational Innovation, Carnegie Mellon University, January 23. http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/technology/whitepapers/CollaborationTools_Jan09.pdf.

Source: CMOS 14.228, as quoted here.
I would switch the first part of your citation to match this format. The additional commentary that the result was excluded from the final paper is, in my mind, extremely important to include. I would do exactly what you’ve done (after correcting the second citation to Chicago style as well).

Yeah, just cite the working paper. Not unusual in economics.