text:
I want to pursue topics from different fields (pure math,CS) as a researcher. Which one to choose for my PhD?
My background: I have two master degrees in pure math and applied CS. I am interested in working in both areas, and there are certain topics in each area (extensions of my -completely different- two master theses)  that I am interested in working in, so there does not exist the possibility of combining them in any way: math its 100% proofs and nothing else; computer science it's code a prototype, computing the some accuracy metrics, writing more code.
However, my working style is to switch between these two field every 9 month, since I quickly get bored, if I only work in one of the fields.
I recently received an offer for a PhD at a top European university (think Cambridge/Oxford/ETH... ). Like any funded place, this one is tied to a single topic from one of those two fields and some compromises have to be made to harmonize my topic choice with the problems my supervisor likes to work on.
1) Do you know of any strategies that I could use to keep switching topics, so to preserve my passion for both fields?
("Utopically", I would get accepted into a second PhD, where I would work on a topic from the other field and then keep rotating every 0.5 - 1 years between them, i.e. as soon as I achieved a milestone in field and start to feel boredom creeping on, go to the other field. But no sane supervisor would accept that, I think. And the program structure would.)
2) Are there ways to convince my supervisor to let maybe 1.5 take year-long time off? That would already help a lot I think. How should I best go about this, without giving a bad first impression ("you haven't even started, and already you think about going away").
3) Or should I just stick with it and try to finish as fast as possible with the PhD and then try to move to the other field for postdoc (supposing I could get a postdoc position in say, math, if I did my PhD in CS, and only published 2 smaller articles in math in the meantime)?
4) If there absolutely no way to switch between topics for my PhD, I'm unsure which field would be the best to go for for my PhD: Pure math (doing proofs) or CS (coding proof-of-concepts in machine learning and related areas)?
I assume many will say things like "this is a PhD! You have to learn how to stick with one topic, because this is life and life can be hard". But  working on multiple problems at once is a tried and tested way to keep the fun in the research (as done perhaps most famously by Perelman: "he liked to work on several problems at once" quote). Alas, if I knew them, I would not post here; I'm really at a loss for what the best step would be to preserve my love for doing research, while not ending up unemployed and keeping the door open for a career in academia.
edit: While the current answer provides very good general feedback, I would still like to know more (very) concrete information about 1)-4).

You seem to be under the impression that mathematics and computer science are disjoint. Some of the most influential computer scientists were renowned mathematicians. Think Turing, Godel. You should also keep in mind that a Ph.D. is about learning how to do research. Once you have one, there isn't really a point in doing a second.

@koverman47, what you say is true, but the examples you give come from a time when CS didn't actually exist. Much of CS grew out of math and, as you say, there is still a connection on the theoretical side. Some modern topics also depend strongly on a mathematics background and some vital CS topics like security and privacy may depend even more on math in the future.

@Buffy My 'examples' were more anecdotal. It certainly depends on the subfield of CS you are interested in but there are still plenty of areas in CS that are heavily reliant on advanced mathematics

@koverman47  I'm doing the PhD in a narrow subfield of these fields (where my topics of interest lie). And these are as disjoint as they can get. In math its 100% proofs and nothing else. In computer science it's a much more experimental approach: Writing code, computing the some accuracy metrics, writing more code. And only maybe, at the end, a short proof at the end.

@koverman47, the opposite is also true of course. Some proofs in mathematics have needed heavy use of computing.

@MyCatsHat Areas such as filtering, signal processing, machine learning, motion planning, and more are based on the theoretical mathematics, but also require important results/advances in CS in order to develop 'proof of concept' and practical methods of implementation. My point however, is moot, because as you say, your interests lie in disjoint subfields so +1 after your edit

@Buffy I completely agree

While the current answer provides very good general feedback, I would still like to know more (very) concrete information about 1)-4).

Just because you had to choose between these two fields for your masters, that doesn't mean you have to for a PhD. A PhD is about doing your research, rather than a set syllabus, using whatever methods are appropriate. Methods from other specialisms are potentially perfectly legitimate. Indeed, it might help you to find an uncommon niche where other people aren't working. If you can convince people that your approach is worthwhile, consider trying to get one supervisor from each subject.

Generally speaking PhD studies are all about specialization. One dives very deeply into a narrow field. This is especially true of math and can also be true of CS, depending on subfield.
There can be exceptions and some synthetic work is possible, but it depends a great deal on your advisor and what he or she is comfortable with. If you can find an advisor at the intersection you should be able to pursue a joint approach.
After the PhD you are much freer to pursue your own goals not constricted by the concerns of your advisor. I would suggest, pretty strongly, that you explore your wishes with a doctoral supervisor and take their advice. If the advice is to pursue the one field for now, it isn't a decision you need to live with for all time. But the advice will likely be good advice.
Doing a second doctorate will probably be superfluous. You will have deep research experience from the first. If it is in math, much of what you learned will have some application to thinking about some of what is important in CS.
Doing two doctorates simultaneously seems masochistic to me, especially as you will have two advisors each with different, possibly conflicting, expectations and each putting constraints on your time.
Think specialize now. Think widening interests for the future. It will better match the expectations of those around you and make life easier.
But you will also need ways to not get bored, given your description of the problem. It might even be that while focusing deeply on one of the fields you can 'play about' in the other for a short periods just as a stress reducer as needed.

No synthetic approaches are possible; the topics are too different. I've added an edit to my question, to point this out.

@MyCatsHat, understood. Maybe my 'play about' idea could help. There is no need to be narrow even if you are diving into a narrow subfield. My diversion might by cycling. Yours might be programming (or whatever). Though an active body aids an active mind.

Regarding "a second doctorate will probably be superfluous": I think already the first doctorate degree is superfluous, since I have published papers  in both fields already. (Of course I don't have as extensive experience as someone who has completed a PhD, but I think if I could just be working for one intensive year with a professor I would have enough experience; no need for a formal PhD. But it is necessary, since it often is a formal requirement for postdocs.

The "play about" idea is good. But how to do that in practice, if I will have a strict timeline with various deadlines, my supervisor expects me to publish with him etc.? I couldn't easily say to my supervisor "hey, I'll take a break now for a week -whilst you keep paying me- since I have this cool idea in a totally different field that I'd like to try out", right? Or maybe I could, if I frame it right, but I don't know how to do that...

@MyCatsHat. You don't need "education: at all to learn how to think or write - though it helps most people. But if you want a career in Academia, it is nearly impossible without a doctoral level education formally certified, stamped, sealed, etc. Nevermind postdocs. Your goal should go beyond that.

@MyCatsHat, you don't need a formal plan to 'play about'. Think specialization and when you need a stress reducer or an opportunity arises, jot down a few notes, think different. Taking extended breaks is likely a non-starter as you suggest. But don't press so hard in specialization that you fry your brain. Burnout is all to common in high performing students.


text:
Should the PhD proposal be discussed and adjusted by supervisor and student before formal application?
Many social science departments in EU/UK recommend getting in touch with potential supervisors first before submitting a formal application which involves a proposal. Should the applicant approach them with a proposal already (very) specifically written? Or just broadly stating research interests and the intended project scope for the next few years?
Is the PhD proposal supposed to be well-prepared before initial contact with potential supervisors, or agreed and finalized after consultation and discussion to fit both parties' interests?
I understand that academics get many emails from potential students, so I wouldn't imagine they'd like to read through everyone's proposals. This question is informed by other posts like this, this, and this - but most relevant discussions I see here on SE are either quite specific to the science/engineering community or North American system, and I'd like to hear about what is the expected pre-application communication in UK and EU, and/or in other disciplines, especially in social science.

You will probably join an existing work group, and work on the projects of the advisors. You will get some job that (somewhat) aligns with your interests (and competence), as asking for stuff you don't like and aren't competent in is just wasting a (valuable) position. Other than that, your thesis will be directed by their pressing interests, not yours. Laying out a detailed proposal as first contact is just a waste of everybody's time. You will work it out with them, eventually.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Building my personal phrase bank, would this be considered plagiarism?
I have started to build my personal phrase bank since I’m a non-native speaker and struggling to build my arguments and sentences correctly. So I decided to mimic the structure of native authors who write in academia in general. To make it clear, I will provide an example:
An established phrase from others’ work:

In recent years, it has become obvious that informal housing and land markets are not just the domain of the poor but that they are also important for...

My use of this phrase in my context:

In recent years, it has become popular that the idea of both big data and open data are important for the development discourse and not just as tools of the government.

I’m actually concerned whether this similarity in the sentence structure might be considered plagiarism.

I think you are much better off reading 2 or 3 classic novels.  It will be more interesting, and you will get a much better feel for the flow of English than you ever could get from a phrase bank.

Don't say "I'm a writer, not a reader!"

Agree with @AlexanderWoo, a phrase bank is not likely to achieve your goal of producing good English sentences - for instance, your example sounds very odd!

@AlexanderWoo "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a university in possession of a good fortune must be in want of grant applications."

I wouldn't immediately call it plagiarism, but there is something you are overlooking.

Writing is not as formulaic as you think. Yes there are standard
  grammar structure, syntax, and punctuation, but when you put sentences
  together into a paragraph, the meaning changes. So when you put words
  in a phrase bank together, the end-meaning might not reflect what you
  intended.
So when you put words in a phrase bank together, the end-meaning might
  not reflect what you intended. Yes there are standard grammar
  structure, syntax, and punctuation, but when you put sentences
  together into a paragraph, the meaning changes. Writing is not as formulaic as you think.

In your mind, 1+2=3 and 2+1=3, but in the case of reading comprehension, the sequence and order of which you read the sentences change the meaning. At the same time, not all "1" share the same meaning either so from time to time you would have phrases that seem out of place. As Alexander woo suggested, the best way to learn is to read, write, and practice.

Thank you Frank FYC for your comment, really appreciate your help.

No, this is not plagiarism. You are claiming novelty of your research, not sentence structure. Academic writing is very formulaic on every level of abstractions. Including, but not limited to, what sentences are being used in what situations. Building a "phrase bank" is a good idea. I had been encouraged to do so independently by several researchers, who do the same (maybe not necessarily building a bank of phrases ready to use but using sentences from other papers).
Academic writing books often have sections containing useful phrases ready to be used, therefore even writing pro's think this is a good idea. That being said, having set of phrases is not enough to make you a good at writing academic papers, but it is still better than reading classic novels.

Thank you, User for your comment. I agree with you that ready phrases might help many researchers to build an argument, especially those who are non-native.

I would uggest that reading classic novels is a much more effective way of improving your reading, writing and comprehension skils than copying a set of phrases... but this question would, perhaps, be better served on the English stack...

@SolarMike It is nice, but most novels have completely different language. Essays and non-fiction is better to read for that purpose, but they are not an ultimate tool neither. Just like in any other phases of language learning, it makes sense to collect phrases, expressions, even full sentences

@Greg As is pointed out above, taking existing sentences and expecting them to clearly carry your meaning does not always work, as a sentence that has been carefully crafted will not neccesarily carry the same nuances when changing one word.

It is not plagiarism. Some people have actively studied and devised models of academic writing, this is what (some) academic writing courses teach). For example, many introductions in papers use particular signal words in a particular order and the overall structure has a particular shape that we come to expect. Writing according to these expectations helps the reader.
I think rather than devising your own phrase-bank, which essentially aims to reach the same results, it would be much quicker for you to read a book on academic writing. This is the one used where I did my PhD:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Getting-Across-Effective-Academic-Writing/dp/9085940389
But there are many others. The key point to make is that the book (and others) tell you what words to use and when, such as during the introduction of the topic, moving onto the problem statement, and so on.

Thank you, Thomas, for your suggestion, I will try to look at it in someday.

The Academic Phrasebank (http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/) might be what you are looking for.
This is a collection of general resources for academic writers, providing curated examples of "phraseological 'nuts and bolts' of writing".
On the issue of plagiarism, the author John Morley states that

In most cases, a certain amount of creativity and adaptation will be necessary when a phrase is used. The items in the Academic Phrasebank are mostly content neutral and generic in nature; in using them, therefore, you are not stealing other people's ideas and this does not constitute plagiarism.

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


text:
Do journals need to save all publication-relevant communications
The journals I am talking about are those accepted by Scopus etc, Elsevier journals for example.
From my personal morals, I consider it my right as an author after a submission to a journal to have full access to:

all my submitted documents during the review process
all reviewers' comments made, expect the confidential ones between editor and reviewer
all additional editors comments
obviously during review but also afterwards, no matter whether the final result is an "accepted" or "rejected" paper

Now do such mandatory guidelines exist from the Scopus or CrossRef side? If not, are there publishers guaranteeing this? Email communications can be lost for various reasons like switching the university. This is somehow the case with me and I really would like to get access to comments from two years ago.

You submitted the documents, so you should already have them. Any communication that is shared with you has been shared with you. I can't necessarily see how it is the journal's responsibility to provide this information back/multiple times.

@dan1111 I clarified, this is my personal moral view. I am asking here if this view is at least partially my real rights.

@skymningen I lost access to important emails. I never made screenshots or anything else two years ago in a borderline review process. I would like to at least check if my memories are true.

@dan1111 the author team is fully responsible to the first submitted document and nobody else. As soon as the manuscript enters the review, there is external modifications. This is the reason why in non open access cases I loose the copyright for my own work. The journal gets those rights. Not only for cosmetic reasons. The work is legally no my own anymore. I would like to have this influence which makes me loose the copy right accessable. Both as main as well as co-author.

You don't transfer copyright for material that is not published. Also changes to the manuscript in response to comments are still done by the authors alone. I think you need to describe exactly what you are trying to achieve because your question is hard to understand in its current state.

@dan1111 In sharing comments made we both agree. Indeed my question was if scopus or crossref have the storing part as mandatory guidelines for the journals they accept. Why? The editor is more responsible then I am for the comments done in the review because he chooses the reviewers. The journal itself already has all the backup structure needed. During the review everything is already saved in an adapted Databasemanagement system. Not removing those files would result in ignoreable additional costs. I as a private person have quite less capabilities to assure the same goal.

Journals do not have any legal obligation to store all documents associated with the review process. While many do store them in the electronic system, these systems are still relatively new. I have never heard discussions about record archiving polocies. Further, when journals switch review systems, the records are sometimes lost.
Of course, you have access to all these documents, and should use whatever archiving policy you think is relevant. I tend to save all the documents. I have paper files for my older manuscripts and purely electronic files for newer manuscripts.

No, there is no such legal obligation.
There are some disputed cases, where the original authorship of a novel idea is disputed and where such records may be very helpful, but are unavailable.


text:
Asking for a recommendation letter from an open source repository mentor
I wish to apply for an MS in a particular branch (a sub-field) of Computer Science at various US universities.
I have been working with a person on an open source repository for some time (about 5 months). That person is the owner of the repo and the work done in that repo is very much related to the branch I wish to apply for. I have made many significant contributions to the project. I might perhaps be one of the top 3 contributors of the repo. Me and that person have worked closely on several issues from time to time. He has, many times, especially asked my opinions on some of them. That person used to be a professor, but now works in the private sector.
Now, the problem is that, he is a celebrity in that branch of Computer Science. If you have ever ventured even a little in this branch, I am sure you have heard of him.
For my questions,

On the basis of my relationship with him as I have described above, is it alright if I ask him for a recommendation letter?
Is it necessary to have a student-professor or similar relationship to ask for a recommendation letter?
Considering the facts that he is famous, he knows me only through emails and my written code and tons of people would be asking him for recommendations each year, what are the chances that I'll get one from him?

a particular branch of Computer Science What does "branch" mean here? Sub-field?

Yes, a sub-field.

It does not hurt to ask.

Why wouldn't you ask? What have you got to lose?

Go for it.
I had the doubts like you earlier. But changed my mind after talking to one of my mentors. He fits all your above descriptions. He said, he would be happy to give a recommendation letter to his Google Summer of Code (a remote open source summer internship sponsored by Google) students who performed exceptionally.
While you do not have a student-professor relationship, he might be the only professor that ever witnessed you coding in a professional environment. He might have noticed your positive sides that other professors will never have the chance to find (except on academic projects).
Just ask. It won't hurt. If the professor feels he does not know you enough, he will let you know.

Can you name the open source organisation you referred to here?

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


text:
As a post-doc applicant, should I address a professor by their first name in email after they addressed me that way?
Regarding a post-doc position, I recently wrote to a professor in the US by starting my mail "Dear Professor X" where X is the surname and she replied to me "Hello Y" where Y is my first name.
I am hesitating if I should start always with "Dear Professor Y1" where Y1 is her first name.
I did not find any satisfactory answer by searching here. Personally, I would choose the second option, starting by her first name but I am not sure if there is any social norm for that? What is the best appropriate way?

Is there any reason why she might have misidentified which of your names is your first name?

Mandatory PhD comics : http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1151 and http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1153

Continue to use the surname until explicitly given permission to do otherwise. One way for her to give that permission, actually, would be to sign a mail with only her first name.
There is a power imbalance between you. She is probably not being entirely correct in assuming she can use your first name, but it is common for people in authority to take some liberties.
But I'd recommend keeping it a bit formal until that obviously no longer works. And my full name is "Bobby Buffy" then I'd never be Professor Bobby. It would either be Professor Buffy or just Bobby. (For the record, though, I'm not Bobby.)

Note that this answer may not apply everywhere. It has a US perspective.

I would bold that last sentence, this can be very, very different in different cultures.

For example in Australia it would be natural for your first email to use their given name.

She ended her mail with cheers and her first name. However, I replied to her mail by starting "Professor <>". Thanks for the detailed explanation

Given that she signed her email to you using her first name, using her first name is probably acceptable.

In my field in the US it would be really weird for people with PhDs (or close to it) to refer personally to each other as Dr Lastname, at least past an initial formal message. It's weird enough when early grad students do it - you are training to be and act as peers. MDs in the field are more formal just because that's the standard in the hospital.

Definitely US perspective. When I was visiting ETH in Switzerland, I was informed that even among peers one always includes the title. E.g., “Herr Doktor Frankenfurter” or “Frau Doktor Frankenfurter”.

@hackerb9 Bizarre. Not even Germany is that formal.

@optimalcontrol If she signed using her first name then she probably expects you to address her like that. And not doing so actually makes things awkward. That was your cue (that, and the fact that she used your first name). People don't generally explicitly write “please call me X” and, at least personally, I'd rather not have to spell this out. Instead, that's what the signature is for.

I actually completely disagree with this answer. Academia in English-speaking countries is generally informal, and the more senior person should make the first step in establishing first-name basis. The fact that the professor did so isn't “not entirely correct” — on the contrary, in my experience it's expected.

@KonradRudolph, formality is needed when the person is applying for a job, as here. But, yes, if she signed with only a given name, it is a proper signal. But a senior person assuming informality is incorrect. It is like addressing a child.

@Buffy This has nothing to do with addressing a child. It’s simply the default assumption in much of (English-speaking) academia: unless indication to the contrary is given, it’s usual and definitely not improper for the more (or equally) senior person to assume that an informal mode of address is appropriate between (prospective) colleagues, especially in emails. If a professor continues using first names after being told not to do so — that would be improper. Well: maybe this is domain specific; it’s definitely the case in STEM.

I studied in Austria, and all of my university professors insisted on calling them by their first name. I kept addressing them by their last name, because I felt uncomfortable calling them by their first name.

If she "signed" the Email, see how she signed it. People usually sign letters and emails (if at all), the way they'd like to be addressed by the recipient.

If she signed with only (one of) her given name(s) (Y1), feel free to address her using that/those name(s) (the same she used), without any title, i.e.

Dear Y1

The same applies in the unlikely case that she signed with a nickname (Z): In your reply, address her as

Dear Z

If she signed with anything including her last name / family name (X), be it

only her last name (X)
her given name(s) and her last name (Y1 X)
(some of) her academic title(s) and her last name (Prof. X)
all of the above (Prof. Y1 X)

, then continue to address her with title(s) and last name / family name, i.e.

Dear Prof. X

If she didn't sign the email, or just with a greeting but without any part of her name, also stick to

Dear Prof. X

unless there is another compelling reason to believe she wants to be addressed differently. (E.g., she explicitly mentioned it in the body of the email.)

As buffy mentioned, academic titles and given names without the family name don't go together. So if she were to sign her first email to me with

Cheers,
Prof. Y1

I'd be rather baffled and wouldn't be sure how to address her in a reply.
This rule of thumb applies outside of academia, too. (In absence of academic or other titles, use "Mr." or "Ms." as appropriate with last names.)

While my experience stems from Switzerland, I believe it can (regarding this) be applied to all of the "western world", thus to the US as well. While even western countries and cultures (and sometimes, individuals) can be very different in when what person allows what other person to be on (uni- or bilateral) first-name basis with them, the way of signalling this in signatures is, to my understanding, much more universal.

I'm not really sure the side note about PGP signatures is anything more than confusing

‘ I believe it can (regarding this) be applied to all of the "western world" ’ – it's probably ok to apply it everywhere, but e.g. here in Norway it's so overwhelmingly common to address people simply by given name that I wouldn't worry to answer in that way, even if her mail wasn't signed at all.

What if the professor signs the email with just their initials? (I had that happen when my PhD supervisor was replying later on in a chain of emails)

@Jan I'd expand each initial to the part of their name it stands for, then again apply the rules from my answer. (Off course, that won't work if their first name and family name start with the same letter and they sign with a single initial. If in doubt, use title + family name.)

Stick with Professor X until you get a blindingly obvious cue. It will not cause offence even if you missed a hidden cue that just Y1 would be appropriate.
As a male, white former academic married to a (woman) professor, there is another unfortunate dynamic to be aware of. Unless Professor X has been extraordinarily lucky, she will have doubtless experienced at some point in her career being taken less seriously by someone due to her gender, and this may well have translated into that person addressing her informally by first name, uninvited, while continuing to address her male peers formally. While this has nothing to do with your situation, a too-early uninvited transition to informality may -- not necessarily, but more likely -- set off niggles of concern than in someone else who is less likely to have had to ever deal with this unfortunate dynamic.

You do not make it clear how being white is related to the question or your answer.

What’s “blindingly obvious”? In my view (and my experience), an email saying “Hi YourFirstName, … Regards, MyFirstName” is, and it won’t get more blindingly obvious than that.

@ltsme2003, given my attributes (gender, race, in my case perhaps also physical size and loud booming voice -- I don't know), I've never personally had any problems with having my professional expertise and position respected. Academics of other genders and races often have, or have experienced disparate treatment versus peers like me. Informality of address, uninvited, seems to often be a "tell". That understandably makes them more sensitive to this than I am, even if such informality does not always imply lack of respect.

@Konrad Rudolph, as I revisit this, I agree with other answerers that the signature (manually typed, not automated) is also a good clue. As is tone of the email. If the sum total of these is "blindingly obvious", first-name-away. If in doubt, continuing formal won't hurt.

From my experience I think that it should be fine to reply address them with their first name. (Given the fact that the professor was raised or long term living in the US.)
Where I live (Belgium), the general trend is to address someone using a formal greeting, most likely with a last name. Especially when addressing someone with a higher status. (Could be age, seniority or rank.) People will often explicitly invite you to use their first name, and even specify in what contexts it would be fine to do so.
In the UK however I experienced quite the opposite, there professors would feel uncomfortable if a senior student or PhD student would address them with anything but their first name. Germany again on the other end of the spectrum. So very depending on culture.
We also had a few professors from the US living in Belgium teaching us. They would also invite us to address them by their first name. Well realizing that to some it could feel uncomfortable, they did not insist! And I also had an American housemate that was very surprised by our formal distance.
In short:
If the professor is originally from the US or has been living there for a long time, I think it should be totally fine to use their first name. If their is evidence of the contrary, I'd try to find out about their local culture.

+1. The issue is not that the professor called OP by their first name; the issue is that OP is a post-doc (candidate). At this point, they should not be acting like a student anymore; different rules apply. In the US, in most cases, that means addressing professors by their first names.

I have noted that Asian students tend to go with Dear Dr Firstname or Dear Prof Firstname. They mean nothing bad by it and I let it slide.
If a student signs off with their full name, and I were to use their last name in my reply, it would come across as standoffish or an implied rebuttal. (This is UK culture.) So I respond with Dear Firstname; this is not seen as taking liberties. I will then sign with my firstname, and fully intend this as an invitation or permission for them to use that name.
Nicknames present a special dilemma. Example: a Tiffany who goes by Tiff since she very obviously detests the empty-headed girlishness suggested by her given name. I feel Tiff is to cosy but that Tiffany can be construed as some underhanded male dominance display on my part.

In Germany, I would write "Dear Ms. X" as a less formal way, because Prof. X really sounds a bit too formal if they call you by your first name but in the USA they seem to be less formal. We had a Professor from there teaching programming for a while and he told us we can just call him by his first name so we did that (was computer science though, don't know if that is true for all fields).

For a UK perspective this seems wrong. "Prof X" is correct because it's their name with a correct title; firstname is correct because it's their name (but possibly a little informal); "Ms. X" is incorrect because it isn't their title, so it would be a worse option than the other 2. Obviously this is culture dependent, so doesn't apply everywhere

The US is certainly less formal than Germany, generally, and if you are told to call him by his first name, then do so. But we aren't so informal as to ignore earned titles, especially of superiors and potential employers. And calling someone with a doctorate or an earned academic title "Ms" or "Mr" is just odd (here, anyway). I don't think I've ever been "Mr. Buffy" in any professional context. But "permission" to use given names is pretty common.

In Germany it's different, for example no one calls each other Dr. X here in informal contexts outside of medical doctors at the hospital, because many people in academia have one anyways.

From my experience in Germany, I agree that titles are dropped at a certain level of informality. However, be careful when addressing women without their earned title, as - generally speaking - they have been and still often are underestimated. Dropping the title could be taken as if you assumed that a woman is less likely to hold an academic degree and more likely to be the secretary.

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


text:
How to alleviate "back to school" anxiety as a graduate student?
I find myself experiencing back to school anxiety as a new semesters begins in less than three weeks, mainly because the unpredictability associated with graduate life.
In some ways it feels less structured than other endeavors such as starting a new semester as an undergrad, starting a new job or moving to a new country, since in graduate school you have to constantly prove yourself using your creativity and intellect and you have to do it alone. Whereas in industry (or some other structured work) you always have the opportunity to move up, or stay where you are at just by showing up to work, in academia there is plenty of room to free fall.
Things are on my mind at the moment:

How do I maintain a healthy relationship with my professor(s), how can I get them to look favorable toward me as a student while not appearing overzealous?
How can I find a new research topic that is interesting to me AND has
practical application AND leaves room for future works AND satisfies
my supervisor's research direction AND get it published AND host a
conference about it AND grabs attention AND leaves room for collaboration AND... ... ...
How do I balance these extremely open ended research oriented
courses? Will I find time to keep up my health and keep up my grade? Is my body even capable at waking up at 8:00 in the morning anymore?
Can I still learn given that I have forgotten so much and can't even understand the things I learned 4 month ago?
What if I hit a dead end and fail? What happens next? It is unthinkable.

Yes we all experience anxiety from time to time, but never is there a time when all these anxieties are bundled together then unleashed all at the same time.
Of course I could always pretend that things are going to be okay and just "deal with it"...but I find going into a new semester with a lot of anxiety does create problems, such as getting extremely upset at professors when they make a small mistake (it would be as if they are "intentionally" ruining my year), becoming overzealous at proving myself that I miss the point of a course altogether and professors are annoyed by high-fi questions only tangential to their course.
Is this feeling normal and is there anything one could do to alleviate some of the anxieties?

Unwind at regular intervals. Take up a sport that's not very competitive. Say, climbing. A lot of people I know do climbing (indoor bouldering).

and you have to do it alone — [citation needed]!!!!!!

Yes, as @JeffE insinuates, you don't have to "do it alone". To interpret the situation as that is almost surely an error. Advisors should be helpful, not burdens. Sure, some advisors are not-so-good, but expectations of adversarial-ness will most likely make it be so...

It is in your advisor's best interest for you to succeed. He is your academic father, there to help and guide you; not a god to bring pleasing offers, nor an ogre waiting for you to make a mistake to eat you.

Related: How to prevent physical/psychological health side effects of workaholism in academia and research?

Early in my grad school career, I dealt with many of the same feelings that you describe. Often, I could not sleep or function well academically or personally because my anxieties were uncontrollable and intrusive. If you are finding it difficult to deal with your anxiety, I would suggest visiting student mental health services or a similar resource available to you as a graduate student. They may be able to help you determine whether your anxieties are typical or reaching the level of clinical impairment, and suggest behavioral and/or pharmacological strategies for managing your anxiety. One of the thoughts that most delayed my seeking help was the notion that I should just be able to "deal with it" or "stop stressing out." But sometimes it's not possible to do that without help.
Today, even having received, and continuing to receive, help for my anxiety, sometimes I find myself at particularly stressful intervals and dealing with the types of thoughts you describe. In addition to continuing to follow my medication regimen, I use some of the following tools:

Regular exercise
Good sleep hygiene (http://www.sleepeducation.com/essentials-in-sleep/healthy-sleep-habits)
Meals with adequate protein and fruits/vegetables (e.g., not just fast food/delivery even though it's easier)
Progressive muscle relaxation--you can find cheap or free audio files on Amazon or iTunes that will lead you through this exercise
Try exercises in the Anxiety & Phobia Workbook by Edmund Bourne.
Avoid becoming overwhelmed by setting concrete, achievable goals and breaking larger goals down into smaller pieces. Make daily, weekly, and monthly goals. Ask your advisor(s) to help with accountability for certain self-imposed deadlines. I have found habitica.com to be a fun way to help keep myself on track with my to-do lists; you could set up a group on there with fellow grad students to help each other stay on track.
Inviolable "you" time, set aside at the same time every week. Don't work all the time. Make time for an activity you enjoy. You'll be more productive and creative afterwards.

Take it one day at a time. Stay organized. Ask a lot of questions. Show that you're an independent worker, but seek clarification if need be. Get openly excited about research that you're fascinated by. Work, work, work. If you find a supportive department, make friends and talk about problems, which are likely common to everyone. Push distant things to worry about into the future: there's no reason to think about conference viability, for instance, before you've even nailed down a research topic.
Many graduate students run into problems of some sort or another, but the likelihood of running into so many issues so simultaneously so suddenly that you have to drop out overnight is extremely small. If something's going wrong, talk to a faculty member and work it out. Then it'll be behind, and honestly, most faculty are so busy that they forget about little hiccups within days. (And even big hiccups. I wrote an absolutely abysmal course paper a few years ago, and it nearly sunk my grades for good. Recently ran into the professor and got very self deprecating about the paper, because he can be critical. He didn't have any memory of it!)
Anxiety and catastrophizing are normal to some extent, but if they're really getting away on you, look into cognitive behavioral therapy.
Best of luck!

Hard to answer. Yes, such changes are stressful, being anxious about it is quite normal. As you state, you are through a few such changes already, so this should be another one.
Even after teaching for 30+ years, I'm still anxious when meeting a class for the first time...
If this is a really big problem for you, you might want to seek professional help.


text:
Should I let my professor know that I cited a text written by him....that I pirated from online
I wrote an essay for a professor of mine, in which I cited a book he had written. As it so happens, the citation is based on my having obtained a (most likely) pirated PDF copy of the book. The text is quite expensive, not readily available anywhere (library, textbook store, or Amazon) aside from the publisher, and the subject matter is esoteric and poorly addressed in other papers. I am only citing less than 10 pages worth of material, mostly on definitions and problem formulation
I am going to be presenting this essay in front of the class, and my concern is that he will notice the citation of his book and ask the potentially uncomfortable question of "...so you have one of my books...?"
I'm wondering what I should do in this case. Should I simply remove all references to the problem texts and cited portions and pretend that nothing ever happened? Should I not do anything? Is the citation of a text that you pirated really a big deal in academia?

When I read certain questions I wonder how students are going to deal with the real difficulties of life...

"so you have one of my books...?" would be a very weird question: at worst, he could ask "so, you have read one of my books?". Most researchers and students don't purchase each and every single book they ever cite (not even mentioning articles), that's what libraries are for.

What is wrong with your univerity library that it didn't have a book that was A.) Written by one of its staff members, and B.) Required (or at lease very useful) for his course?

Why not ask him if he has the book, and then borrow it if so?  People have a tendency to collect their own significant publications.  If for no other reason than that the publisher tends to give you a copy.

"So you have one of my books...?" - "Yes."

@Minix, "Great, would you like me to sign it?"

I find it strange that the professor hasn't donated a copy of his book to his own institution's library.  //  @IllegalImmigrant - The professor should be pleased that you are finding the two sources (the one he wrote and the one he edited) interesting and useful.  Don't worry.

@aparente001 if the book is expensive and rare, I bet he only has one copy, if any.

"my concern is that he will notice the citation of his book" -- My concern now is that you may be citing without properly crediting the sources...

I overheard the following exchange between two of my professors: "A: Hey, B, I saw that your book is available online to download"
"B: Oh, good, someone is reading my book."
I let that speak for itself...

The Golden Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule) is the answer to many of life's little problems.

If even libraries do not have his works, he should be actually happy. At least someone reads his book... :)

It is incredibly uncommon to assume that someone bought a book just because it is cited. While in theory, the professor could ask this question, why would (s)he care?

If you are genuinely concerned about the question, perform an interlibrary loan with your university library on the two books now, and should that question pop up, reply that you performed an interlibrary loan.

Use legal sources in the future. Libraries spend tons of money on buying literature, so use it. Most jurisdictions also allow limited copying of a book (e.g., the most relevant pages for your own work).

yes... I believe that in Italy you can photocopy up to 10% of the book legally

In the Czech Republic, for example, you may make a copy legally for your own personal use (sharing or reselling is illegal, though).

I agree with everything except #3.  In the sciences at least, academics at resource-poor institutions must be willing to obtain and use electronic copies of journal articles that their home institution does not subscribe to.  Though pirating should be avoided if possible, urging a graduate student to never use illegally obtained sources is just bad advice.

The other reason why you should do 2 is because university libraries depend on usage statistics concerning things like ILLs, to justify the costs involved in this and other types of information provision. The more usage they can demonstrate, the more resources they can get, and the more information sources they can provide. Also, librarians love being asked for sources. Support your local library!

It may also be worth pointing out that your professor is unlikely to really care that you ‘pirated’ the book.  While he or she will receive occasional royalty cheques, very few textbooks make more than beer money for the author.
They might object to the non-standard download on principle (and that's reasonable enough), but I'd be surprised if they made a big deal of it, even if they bothered to ask whether you'd bought the book (which, as others have mentioned, is unlikely).
That said, they quite possibly would be annoyed if they found that the university library didn't have a copy of the book.

In fact it's not unheard of for a professor to give you an electronic copy of their book so that you don't have to buy it. (Or more accurately, so that you can have access to the information within it, since they know you're probably not going to buy it anyway.)

Yes, I've even had a professor tell us how to pirate his book under the condition nobody tell the publisher.

+1 If the book were very expensive, I'd be uncomfortable if I thought a (presumably relatively impecunious) student had bought one (rather than borrowing one from a library, or from me).

To most authors, citations are worth far more than royalties.

"... beer money - that's not a joke.  One of my professors, a brilliant and very well known mathematician, came in to class one day holding up an open letter in front of him, saying, "I just got the royalty check for my last book.  Three eighty five.  Three dollars and eighty five cents!"

Were I that professor, I would be thrilled. Because I would know that: (a) students are paying huge fees, are in debt, and can't afford new books; (b) royalties on academic books are derisory, so I as author lose at most the price of a beer by foregoing a sale; (c) many academic publishers are sharks. I would rather someone learn from my book than be deterred by its price.
In that paragraph, I was writing as I would have in 2015. But now, in a world the OP would never have suspected, I would be even more thrilled. Universities are still running their courses, but have not (or at least mine has not) augmented their stock of e-books to include all the paper copies now inaccessible because of COVID-19–induced library closures. Unfortunately, piracy often seems to be the only solution …
Yes, I would let the professor know.

Your use of the material should be covered under Fair Use.  This doctrine  provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work.  However, there was no need to resort to unethical means to obtain the material.
Honestly, had you told you professor what you told us - that the subject poorly addressed in other papers - and asked to borrow a copy, I'm sure he would have been delighted and probably given you some brownie points.

I thought fair use was really about, say, quoting a work, rather than how the source of the quotation was obtained. If that's correct, I'm not sure I see how that's relevant.


text:
Transitioning from languages to neuroscience/cognitive science for PhD, how to increase chances of success?
I have background in languages (BA in English Literature and Teaching in China, MA Conference Interpreting in Manchester, UK) and I am eager to do a PhD in cognitive science in the UK.
During my MA studies, we were studying fundamentals of psychology and cognitive sciences related to translating/interpreting. During the course of this study, some modern research techniques such as FMRI, EEG were touched upon but the course was not very comprehensive, as the focus of the field was never really on how the interpreters’ brain works during simultaneous interpreting or other language activities.
I found languages and cognitive sciences closely related, because it is very natural to bring up questions in one area while discussing the other. It’s close to instinct that an interest in one can seep into another, at least that was the case for me.
I am really keen to further my education in the area of Cognitive Sciences, and it's been the case for the last couple of years. But it’s a bit saddening to see that the minimum entry for these programs usually require a science degree in relevant fields, for example, CS, EE, Psychology, Neuroscience, etc. And at the moment (I'm 26), I can't really do one more undergraduate degree.
However, I understand that there are gaps to fill for a person to change their area of study. Usually in the UK, PhD programs would encourage the students to do the 1+3 program, where first years have the opportunity to fill this gap. But I fell that even for these 1+3 programs, students who have a liberal arts degree are still discouraged from applying because these PhD programs specifically require students to have background in relevant science fields.
So what should I do to be more qualified and have a better chance to be accepted as a PhD student?
My plan is to learn some fundamentals by finishing online courses in the following areas: Math (e.g. Calculus, Linear Algebra, Probability, to be more comfortable with fundamentals), Computer Science (such as basics of algorithms and Python to be able to perform some scientific computing), and Neuroscience (as it is fundamental to Cognitive Sciences). What about MOOC courses, more specifically, how are they viewed in the academia in the context of someone who is using them to fill in the gaps when changing fields?
I would like to know whether or not I have underestimated the difficulty and hard work required to put myself on this track.

There are lots of questions here. This site encourages having one question per post. Perhaps you could split your question into multiple smaller questions (linking them together if you like)?

A first stab: here is a discussion of MOOCs in academia. And you'll need statistics, and lots of it, not only probability. AFAIK, most psychology students get treated to a full-year, two hours per week course. There are actually a couple not-bed Coursera stats courses, which could serve as an introduction.

Yes, you have underestimated the difficulty.  I make this as a comment, not an answer, because we always underestimate the difficulty of those things we want to do.  Go for it!

I studied at Edinburgh with a few friends who had come for the arts world into CogSci and CS Masters courses, they shared many lectures with us (Bio-Informatics).    I would suggest either doing a Masters in a related field, before jumping into the PhD.
I took some CogSci and Neuroinformatics modules for my MSc and I struggled not coming from that background, if I were doing it again and wanted to prepare I would look to the online courses. Many of them are excellent.
MIT have an Opencourseware section on CogSci: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/
No one will look down on you for saying you have worked through an MIT course. They also have extensive CompSci resources. Coursera also has many excellent course, that will help fill in gaps in you education.
I don't think you will find many people in academia who will look badly on people using any resources they can find to expand their knowledge and understanding of a given field.

As a PhD science student you will be expected to handle numbers, statistics, algebraic manipulation, calculus, and in particular these days, computational numerics---all as a matter of (relative) ease. Not that you can do it in your head, or you know the answers off by heart, but rather that you are not daunted when an author casually jumps between prose and mathematical symbols every few words, because you have been literally solving similar problems for the past five years.
There will be some PhD projects that are more "numeric" and some that are less, of course.
I don't say this to put you off! Rather I am trying to say that the typical beginner PhD scientist has spent as much time steeped in this kind of thinking as you have spent learning and thinking about languages. It's not so much doing coursework and ticking the boxes, rather it's three plus years deeply embedded in this kind of world. So that puts you in a very different place.
Now that isn't to say this is impossible. Your language skills may well give you an edge somewhere, and really the student molds the project to his own strengths, so I encourage you to apply. But you should definitely discuss this situation with potential supervisors before you apply. Some will be happier than others to accept what is an edge case, if you don't mind me saying.


text:
Finding Post-PhD employment in Mathematics - How difficult?
I have completed a 4 year bachelor of Mathematics at a decent university, and a comment was made by Pete L. Clark, on this website, here: "post-PhD academic job market is one step shy of airtight at the moment."
I was intending to study a PhD in america, and am wondering if his statement rings true in the most part. Is it truly difficult to find a post-PhD academic job, specifically in Mathematics, and if so, are there relevant statistics backing this up?

I applied to over 100 jobs one year and heard back from 3. You can draw what conclusions you want from that.

@JessicaB Were those three responses likely to hire you, or even then, was it improbable?(Side: Did you get the job you wanted from those three?)

It depends heavily on whether you are looking at R1 schools or others, how famous your advisor is, and how amazing your thesis is.

There are undoubtedly statistics on this. Unfortunately, statistics mean little to the individual in this sort of case (the number of rejections people get before finding a job (or giving up) varies immensely.

@ProspectiveTimidStudent I got a job, so I didn't do too badly. Unless you're pretty amazing, you don't decide on 'the job you want', you hope to get an offer in a country you're ok with living in.

@Jessica B: congrats on the job. Did you apply broadly in several countries? I was never sure how common that was, although I suspected it was more common for students who were not from the U.S. originally. I do think that, even in the U.S., choosing which state you want to live in is asking a lot, and even choosing a particular region of the country can be challenging.

I'm a fan of @PeteLClark, but I think that statement was a bit of an exaggeration.  Having seen what fields with actually airtight job markets look like in the humanities, math looks great in comparison: there is a triple digit number of jobs to apply for!

Here in Germany I never heard of any troubles finding a job. The finance sector is pulling so hard, more than 90 % of all mathematicians I know work there - and they had no problems at all. Yet, there are also lots of positions besides the financial ones but from my pov a potential candidate has to provide several tools the regular math student doesn't do. Mostly these are fields in very advanced physical fields where theoretical physicists move along but eventually miss some topics. I've seen many such positions especially when it comes to light modelling and so on.

The American Mathematical Society publishes detailed data about mathematics employment in the United States.  In particular, the Report on New Doctoral Recipients has

"... information about the fall employment plans of doctoral recipients, a demographic profile summarizing characteristics of citizenship status, gender, and racial/ethnic group, the starting salaries, and other employment information about new doctoral recipients"

The data is always delayed by a year because of response and processing time. The most recent report as I write this is 2013-2014. My own take is as follows.
First, the statistics show that the overall unemployment rate is low: a new math PhD recipient is likely to be able to find a job of some sort immediately after graduation. In 2013-14, 85% of math PhD recipients were known to be employed immediately after graduation, and only 5% were known to still be looking (9% were unknown).  This is partially due to the ability of mathematics PhDs to look for jobs in business, industry, and government, although the majority work in academia.
Second, based on my personal opinion and experience, the job market for postdocs and research-intensive tenure track positions is very competitive (this is true both in the U.S. and Europe, as well as some other countries and regions). You will need to be one of the very strongest candidates in your area to have a reasonable chance at such jobs.
Third, the market for tenure-track positions at non-research-intensive colleges is also competitive, but in a different way. For these, you want to have a strong vita showing teaching skill and research ability in line with the institution where you are applying.  Simply having a PhD and teaching a handful of classes as an graduate student is unlikely to make you stand out from the other applicants.
Overall, because the job market is competitive, if you do enter a PhD program, you need to plan early for the career path you wish to follow. Simply "getting a PhD", and only worrying about the job market in your last semester, is not a good strategy. You want to begin shaping your vita early in your graduate program so that you are in a good position when you graduate.

I also summarized some of the data from the previous survey here: http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/44187/19607 where I was trying to say the picture isn't so bleak for math PhDs.

@user37208: I agree that it helps to go to a good school, but (sub)field also matters quite a bit. In my field, there have been several highly qualified people in the last decade who have been unable to find postdocs and/or research tenure track positions.

@OswaldVeblen Could you elaborate a bit on how can one make oneself competitive to get a job at a non-research intensive college? What should one be doing except for teaching a handful of classes? Suggestions?

This varies wildly depending on many factors, from what type of job you want, where you get your PhD, number of publications you obtain, quality of PhD, who your advisor is, and what field you're working in. Any or all of these can and will drastically change the answer to this question and decide if the job market is airtight or swung right open for you.
The academic job market is very difficult, but not impossible. You end up at the end applying to a number of jobs somewhere in the triple digits and you can end up with something from a >10% rate in getting shortlists to none at all. A good way to view this is to ask at the beginning of your PhD for the placement records for their recently graduated PhD students. The graduate secretary should have a list and be able to tell you how students have done in the past. This can be a guideline and tell you how well you need to perform to get the type of job you want. It's also important to note who their advisor is and what field they studied. Look at the placement of the students who graduated with who you may want to work with, in the case that you know that.
One thing to be clear about is that post PhD, even if you do not get an academic job, there is a ton of industry options out there. I applied for three industry jobs when I graduated and got one campus interview that I cancelled when I got an academic offer. There is headhunting for math PhDs to join industry (from both the finance and tech industry). Even if you get unlucky with the market or in grad school, then there are plenty of other options.


text:
How to approach undergraduate research without official program?
I am a second year mathematics and physics student. My primary goal is to enter a post-graduate program in mathematics and hopefully progress further, should I possess the capability. I attend a South African university and have thus far taken the equivalent Calculus I, Precalculus, Numerical Analysis, and Differential Equations I courses. In the new semester I will begin Multivariable Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Analysis before commencing in the subsequent semester with secondary Analysis and Differential Equations courses, alongside Group Theory.
For the past six months or so I have been attempting to make headway on a few questions relating to sums of consecutive prime numbers, typing my (mostly trivial) results in LaTex. I would like to commence undergraduate research of some sort this year, even if it amounts to a professor assigning me problems appropriate for my experience level throughout the year when they can spare the time. Optimally, I would also like to garner the opportunity at some point in the year to discuss some of the questions that I have relating to the prime sums – what topics, textbooks, or papers I could read to progress further, and so on.
Unfortunately, however, my University does not have an official undergraduate research programme (like the URP for example), nor do I believe research-related requests from undergraduate students to be all too common (unlike the University of this poster, from my understanding). What is more is that there are only two Professors in my Department who have research interests in or related to Number Theory (one seems fairly open and is primarily focuses on Partition Theory), and neither of them have been or will be my lecturers going forward.
My main concern is coming across as disrespectful, entitled, or arrogant by reaching out to one of these professors for a potential research opportunity or mentorship.
What would be the generally acceptable way of seeking a research opportunity for a student studying at a University with no formal undergraduate research programme? Should I avoid emails all together, and if not would it be acceptable to mention offhandedly the minor research that I have conducted?
EDIT: I have also found this related post quite useful.

Go and talk to the relevant professors.
It itself, seeking to make contact is hardly disrespectful -- so long as you are polite of course! Nor is it arrogant -- unless you show up and start teaching the professor their job. And as a university student, you should feel some entitlement to engage with the faculty beyond normal office hours or lectures -- so long as you don't abuse that access.
If you are concerned about appearing brash, send a brief, polite email asking for a meeting to discuss the mathematics you are interested in. If your professors do not want to set aside time to chat with a keen and driven undergraduate student about topics of mutual interest, then more fool them. Bear in mind, always, that professors often have a great deal of pressures on their time. However, I'm willing to bet that chatting about research would be a far more pleasurable activity than many other tasks a professor would have to tackle in the course of his or her day.
Personally, I make time to chat with any undergraduate student about the research I do, and any research they have done on their own accord, or how to further their interests.

This response assisted me a great deal in garnering perspective on the task. I will email one of the relevant professors next week to hopefully arrange a meeting for the new semester, which begins next month. Thank you for your time.


text:
Is "Actes de JADT" same as JADT conference? Where to download Actes de JADT publications?
A paper is cited in another paper as:

An Arabic morphological analyzer and part-of-speech tagger
M Altabba, A Al-Zaraee, MA Shukairy
Actes de JADT, 50, 2010

You can check the reference at https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/F13-1029
And Google Scholar shows that the paper is published at Actes de JADT: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=sdbpUkYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra
But I could not find it at JADT 2010 files: http://lexicometrica.univ-paris3.fr/jadt/jadt2010/tocJADT2010.htm#Contents
I am confused. Is Actes de JADT the same as JADT conference?
If they are different, where to download the publications of Actes de JADT? And if they are the same, why I cannot find the above mentioned paper at the contents of JADT 2010?
Thanks,

From here I would understand "Actes de JADT" to mean the proceedings of the JADT conference. Typically, a conference and its proceedings go hand-in-hand. Someone might informally state that they have had a paper accepted or published in "Conference X", but a formal citation would later point to "Proceedings of Conference X" or similar (the title can vary). While I have no direct prior knowledge of JADT, I'd expect it to be the same case here.
Now, clicking through the google scholar link to the actual document, it appears to be a thesis (or project report as you state in the comments), not a published article. However, there's this paper from Actes de JADT 2010 by different authors, but with a quite similar title. I think that other works may have miscited one of these, or that Google Scholar might have misinterpreted some citations. Anyway, given that your title is not listed in the Actes de JADT 2010 Table of Contents, I think you can safely assume it wasn't somehow published there.

Thanks for your time trying to answer the question. Actually, I am the same person and that was the report of my graduation project to get the bachelor degree. It was not a thesis. Even though I unintentionally did it even good enough that made 3 other papers to cite it as a Master Thesis. And even 1 cited it as a Ph.D. thesis. I did not publish it at Acts de JADT but I found people and Google Scholar are referencing it as it was! And this what made me curious to know what is happening.

And could you make it more clear to me about "Is Actes de JADT the same as JADT conference?" In other words is there a reason to say that some paper is published at "Actes de JADT" (proceedings of the JADT conference)? And not to say published at "JADT". Is there any difference between publications listed under "Actes de JADT" and "JADT"?

@MuhammadAltabba Very well. Note that if it was the report required to get the bachelors degree, it can be called a bachelor thesis. The cover page of that document actually states that it is  "A Thesis Presented...". It doesn't seem to state the degree level explicitly, so perhaps that explains others citing it as a Masters or PhD thesis. Anyway, I think you can safely assume that your report was not published in Actes of JADT given its absence from the table of contents.

@MuhammadAltabba For the question in the second comment, please note that I'm in a very different field, and have no direct knowledge about JADT. However, I'd guess this is like most conference papers. You might informally say that your paper was published in Conference X, but a formal citation would point to e.g. "Proceedings of Conference X".

Thanks for clearing this out. I was a beginner doing my bachelor and I tried to mimicate what they write at a higher educational degree. But I should have used the word "report of a project" not "a thesis". Because the university was asking for a project and along with the project a report of it.


text:
Swap Postdoc position
I was offered a post doc position in a top level university about 2 months ago, which I have already accepted.
However, I was recently called for an interview in another equally prestigious university for another postdoc position which I applied to before getting the previous position offered.
The second position is, in my view, much better than the first one in many senses (I like the country more, a substantially higher salary, closer to my home town), however I am worried that if I decline the first offer (which I already accepted) now, the supervisor from the first university will get annoyed and that will carry repercussions in my future career and my image to the scientific community.
I have heard that many people do these things (declining offers already accepted) for academic positions, but that this is seen as much worse for postdocs positions. However, I think that everyone would agree that the second offer is a substantially better option, even the supervisor from the first university.
Should I give up the position I already accepted in order to pursue the better option?

I don't agree that many people do this, at least not without putting their reputation at stake. As soon as you accepted that offer, you ought to have told the other places you had applied so they knew you were no longer interested in those positions, rather than wasting their time inviting you for an interview.

I told them that in the moment they invited my for the interview. They were totally aware that I already accepted a postdoc in the first university and that I would have to decline it in case I choose their position.

Once you have accepted a position, it is no longer declining, it is reneging, which is a whole different story.

It is not nice, but if you think the other position is better: go for it. However, there really is something wrong with the criteria you mention (like the country more ? salary ? closer to home town ??). What about the research subject, lab facilities, personality of PI, ...

About the research subject, facilities and PI, I think they are both really similar, but I really consider that my quality of life would be much better in the second place.

Welcome to Academia.SE. Questions need to be as specific as possible, so I have edited your post to replace the slightly vague "Can you help me with your opinions and experiences" with something more concrete. Please review my changes - you are free to edit further or undo them if they do not reflect your intentions.

Two months is a long delay. If you pull out now, the university is unlikely to be able to replace you with their next choice, as that person will have kept looking.

To come right to the point: after accepting the first offer, you should have withdrawn all your other applications.  When you were contacted for the second interview, it was not enough to inform them that you had already accepted an offer -- you should have informed them of this and therefore declined the interview.  (I find it strange though that this second institution was happy to interview someone who told them they had already accepted another offer.  I wonder if there was some kind of miscommunication / misunderstanding here.)  In academia, accepting an offer means committing to show up to that job for at least one semester (which is the atomic unit of most academic jobs).  In my circles at least, the minimum length of time to spend in an accepted academic position and "leave honorably" is one academic year.

I have heard that many people do these things (declining offers already accepted) for academic positions, but that this is seen much worse for postdocs positions.

Yes, it happens somewhat frequently.  Like a lot of negative human behavior, that it happens frequently does not excuse it.  I don't necessarily agree that it is seen as worse for postdocs; it really depends on the situation.  I would argue that all other things being equal, getting reneged on by a temporary employee is not as bad as getting reneged on by a (relatively) permanent employee.

However, I think that everyone would agree that the second offer is substantially a better option, even the supervisor from the first university.

Better for you.  But would the supervisor from the first university think it is better for her?  What happens to her if you renege -- will she have the time and opportunity to hire someone else?  If she can't hire anyone, will that have negative repercussions on her work and the work of her affiliates and students?
The way to find out the answers to these questions is to ask.  I strongly suggest contacting your supervisor as soon as possible.  Explain your situation and perspective, including why the second position would be substantially more desirable to you for personal reasons.  Then ask what repercussions there would be if you weren't able to show up for the first position.  If there would be severely negative consequences for your supervisor, I think you should stick with the job you committed to.  Otherwise you may suggest to the supervisor, with maximum politeness, that you would like to take the second job instead of the first, and see if she will give you her blessing.
Good luck.

Thanks for your answer and suggestions. I think they would prefer me probably to decline/renege my position rather than starting it and leaving it in six months (both positions are for 3 years). I understand your point about reneging not being good for the supervisor of the first option, however, it is going to be 3 years of my life spent with much worse working conditions/quality of life than with the second choice, so I think that it is probably much more important for me than for him

If the working conditions were "much worse," maybe you shouldn't have taken the job while other options were still open.  And you say "probably" twice, but you don't know until you ask.  Also keep in mind that going back on your word is almost universally viewed as dishonorable.  Some people will take that a lot more seriously than others.  If you want to spend your life in a certain profession, then being viewed as honorable by those in that profession is worth something.

Of course the answer of Pete Clark is correct, and you should have made some different decisions in the past. Most of all, you should have asked for more time to make your choice.
At the moment you have a choice between doing what's best for your "reputation", and your personal preferences. This is a decision only you can make, but in my opinion many academics would be better off mentally if they looked out for their personal well-being a bit more.
However, making a choice based on the information you supplied here might not be the best idea, because there's a lot more information out there you could get in a short time.
Call up your supervisor and tell them you'd feel very unhappy about not having the opportunity to pursue the second position, that you might prefer based on personal reasons. Ask whether they can postpone hiring you. Perhaps they'll be supportive and you can go to the other interview, or they might tell you that you accepted the position and expect you to be there when you agreed. (If they get really angry this would actually be a good time to bail on the position)
I don't know how far along you are regarding signing contract etc., and what kind of grant you'd be working on (can it be postponed, etc.). This would be something you should know, or should find out.
I'm sure that talking to your new supervisor would solve many potential issues, but I really don't agree with (edit: or actually, just with the priorities of) Pete Clark about sticking with the job when there are negative consequences. This is about some time, a new hiring process or some grant money for your supervisor, but for you this is about one to three years of your life.

"At the moment you have a choice between doing what's best for your "reputation", and your personal preferences." That's not all it's about; there is also the other side in this agreement.  Depending on how the position is funded, after two months there is some chance that the three year position could be permanently lost.  There is also a chance that this could negatively impact students at the institution.

"I really don't agree with Pete Clark about sticking with the job when there are negative consequences." I didn't tell the OP to stick with the job; I encouraged them to explore getting out of it in a way that acknowledges there are other people involved.  To speak from the perspective of the supervisor: there would have to be very dire and specific consequences to the renege for me not to give my blessing to the postdoc if asked.  However I would be rather upset not to be asked.  I agree that it probably matters more to them than to me, but it still matters something to me.

For your first comment: this is what you should talk about, but the emphasis shouldn't be on finding out the negative impacts of your supervisor. Those are their problem, and although it would be good to keep it in mind and to try to mitigate the consequences, ultimately it's really not your responsibility as an applicant. I think asking implies too much something like asking for permission. The conversation should be about your plans, and if there are negative consequences reneging is still an option.

And for your second comment: I made an edit, and I completely agree. Just calling them that you found another position (or not even calling and just not showing up...) would be absolutely unacceptable. Keep your supervisor in the loop.

I'm not talking about ethical issues here.
People do this all the time, i.e. rejected an accepted offer, but only at the early stage in the career, e.g. PhD application (I did that). It is easy since you are just a random guy, and easy to be forgotten.
If you have done enough to be accepted in a top level university, it will not be easy for you to be forgotten. Academia is very small, if the two groups you are/was applying to work in the same research area, it is very likely that the two advisors know each other.
If you develop a reputation of rejecting a already accepted offer, there may be serious consequence in the future, without the rejected advisor doing anything to damage your career.

I wanted to comment on the last paragraph (which I agree with).  When you renege on a position, several people at the institution will know about it, and potentially an entire research group or department could know.  What can they do to "damage your future career"?  Practically speaking, one thing: they can mention to other parties that this happened.  I firmly disagree that doing this is "vindictive"; there is no expectation for them to cover for your bad behavior.  Is this kind of talk a serious risk to your future job prospects?  Not necessarily, but it depends on the people involved.


text:
I found published results of my mentor to be wrong. How to tell her?
For the last few days, I have been trying to reproduce things in a published paper (in quite a reputed journal) from my field. My postdoc mentor is the last author of the paper and the main work was carried out by her collaborators from a different institute and a first author is finishing his Ph.D.
When I saw the paper, I immediately got skeptical because they had missed some obvious things, so I rewrote all the code from scratch and, after a week's extensive checking and cross-checking, confirmed that their results are completely wrong. I told two of my trusted colleagues and they asked me to tell my mentor this. However, I am quite uncomfortable and confused about this.
The student who is the first author has based a big part of his later work on these results. This means that the later work by the student might also be completely wrong. My question is how to proceed from here? Can I ask my mentor to retract their paper? Or should I ask her permission to write a comment about the paper? If I do either of these (or something else which reveals that those results are wrong), would I be considered guilty of destroying the thesis of the first author guy?
I really appreciate any type of help in this matter. Thanks in advance.
Edit: All the answers and comments here are very helpful and I thank you all for them. However, I think I was slightly vague while asking. I very well understand that I could be certainly wrong. But the question is what do I do if I am not? In that case, what should be done? (As things stand, they have surely got at least one plot wrong because it directly goes against a famous fundamental theorem. I got this confirmed from a few people in the field.)

Why so drastic? Why not just talk with your mentor about your concerns? Remember that you might be wrong too.

Majid's answer is absolutely correct. The key thing here is not to go in with statements like "missed obvious things" or "results are completely wrong." Sit down with her and ask for help reconciling your results with the paper's. Several people (from the sound of it further into their education and career than yourself) worked on the paper. It was peer-reviewed before publication. While it's entirely possible you might be correct, it's (with respect) more likely that you've misunderstood something.

"I very well understand that I could be certainly wrong. But the question is what do I do if I am not?" -- that's completely the wrong way to think about it. You don't know whether you're right or wrong, but you must act anyway without certainty. Therefore, you do not need and could not use a course of action that's applicable only if you're right. To the best of your knowledge and ability you're right. Next step is for you and your mentor to figure out whether, to the best of your combined knowledge and ability, you're right.

That is, you need to know how to approach your mentor with a possible problem in their result. You don't need to know how to approach your mentor with a certain problem in their result.

Viz your edit, I think it does not matter how certain you are that you are correct at this point. I think your actions should be the same in any case. Just approach the mentor and ask her to clear up your doubts, while avoiding framing them as absolute (that is to benefit both your ego -- if you are wrong -- and hers -- if you are right -- as well as your relationship). If she tries to deny your doubts without clearing them up -- well, then your certainty about the matter would be very important in deciding what to do next, but that is a different question altogether.

"Hey, I cannot reproduce your results. Could you help me? Either I cannot find a mistake I made, or I found I mistake you made". You know, just to make it clear that you are the one who found the mistake, and not you two together. You never know...

I thought I had uncovered a serious flaw in the proof of a major theorem when I was a graduate student.  It turned out that, while some foundational issues were being glossed over, the theorem turned out to be correct, and the proof was "essentially correct".  However, this took several months of detailed work to figure out.  This work was essential to making me confident enough with the relevant technology to complete my thesis.  So certainly pursue this:  it can only be a good thing.

"I rewrote all the code from scratch" - Big red flag.  Did the original code at least have unit tests that you could use to verify that your rewritten code was correct?  And if it did, did you refrain from rewriting them and confirm that they passed with your new code?  If the answer to any of those is 'no', how sure are you that the problem is the previous results and not a bug that slipped in when you completely rewrote all the code?

@aroth: Good point! No.. the old codes do not have any unit tests (pure Fortran 77 codes with not a single comment line!) with several parts containing goto statements instead of a Doloop. And yes.. they show the plot with negative eigenvalues for the Laplacian (really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplacian_matrix#Properties). I think I posted after much thought though I still have my fingers crossed that I might be wrong and not them.

Would it be possible to come up with some noncontroversial testcases (i.e. simple problems that you already know the solution to) that you can run both the old and the new code against?  Could be useful either in determining that the old code really was broken, or providing a sanity-check that says that the new code is at least superficially valid.

As a matter of fact, I believe there is no such thing as guilt or ruin
for other people's work when it comes to the academic aspect of the knowledge.
Actually, if you do not share this with your mentor in order to be fixed, you
may ruin many other further research...
I suggest you do this respectfully and carefully. You can go to your mentor and talk about this problem. You can show her your code and your understanding from the paper, then confirm whether or not you are right. Let her decide what she can do about this. There is also a slight chance you have made a technical mistake while investigating their work, so keep this in mind when you discuss the issue.

Yes the answer is quite satisfactory, you can approach her and ask for their code and tell her that i am trying to reproduce the results but there are some differences which i can not sort out, and it will br nice of you if you can help me in. In that case she wont feel bad and if there is something wrong, that can be corrected as well

I would add that it's really useful, when someone approaches you to say that you're wrong, if they can provide some insight into what went wrong. If they say "I wrote the code from scratch and got a different result" then you know you can't both be right, but it doesn't tell you anything about which of you (or both) is wrong. On the other hand, if they say "your paper states, and therefore I suppose your code probably relies on, [this obviously wrong thing] and here's a paper that proves the opposite of what you assumed", then you can immediately relate what they're saying to your paper.

(I speak not as an academic, but as someone who writes code for a living. I have written a lot of wrong code that has needed correction either by myself or others).

I would say that it's possible to ruin other people's work. I'd also say that it is necessary to ruin wrong work, for the reason you said, it might ruin other future research otherwise.

The point is, if the work is wrong, it's already in ruins, and most mentors will much prefer to find our right away and from someone in their own group, so they can quietly start fixing things and deal with the public embarrassment at a time when they have already taken steps to get past it.

It's the duty of people who work in science to try to reproduce the published work of others once in a while: that's why people publish their work. It's also their duty to reveal their success or failure when they do try to reproduce published work.   (Science --the pursuit of knowledge-- suffers when irreproducible work goes unchallenged.) So this answer is correct.

In addition to putting it out "respectfully and carefully", just do so casually. Don't make it anymore of an Issue than it has to be.

I suggest you treat this as a learning process. After all, you have spent on this only a week, while the authors have spent significantly more, so there is a chance you are wrong.
So, with this working theory in mind, present your results to your mentor and discuss with her what you think is wrong with their work and why and ask her to explain what you could be missing.
After the discussion you should, ideally, either realise why you were wrong; convince them of what they did wrong; or all of you agree to disagree on the correctness of the results. In the second and third scenario, your mentor should be able to suggest some path.
I do not think you should be asking them to retract the paper unless they have shown gross negligence in the research process or outright cheated; it should be up to them.

I agree completely.  The OP's job is to understand why his recent computations produce results that are at variance with his mentor's published work.  He should talk to the mentor focusing on that.  Things will go naturally from there.  If the explanation is that the OP's computations are correct and the work of the mentor is not, then the mentor will almost certainly not need the profound implications of that pointed out to her.   Just seek the truth, one step at a time.

Agree to disagree is good in political disputes, not when discussing things that can be experimentally verified.

@TomášZato unfortunately, that is not always the case, because the experiments would be prohibitive to run in a short timescale, or because the disagreement is in the interpretation.

I think there is a simple answer. From what you wrote it sounds like you rather "could not reproduce the results" than "proved that the results are wrong". While the first is often an indication for the second, this need not be the case (especially since you "rewrote the entire code").
Now focus on a solution instead of the problem. What you should do is: Approach your mentor with "I tried to reproduce the findings of the paper in this and that way and ended up with different conclusions." From there on the story may evolve differently: It may be that there is a misunderstanding about the "missed obvious things", it may still be bugs in your code, it may that the paper was ambiguous about some things, also it may be that there is something wrong...
In this discussion be sure to be open minded and free of prejudice. As an example: When somebody tells me something in a scientific discussion that I think is wrong or bogus, I get a much better and helpful response when I say "Sorry, I did not understand that, can you say it differently?" than "That's nonsense."

This - even if you believe (or even know) you are right, it is often easier to get someone to engage by asking for help with where you went wrong. Let that person realise they are wrong rather than start by telling them they are wrong.

+1: The "I tried to reproduce your results and couldn't. Where did I go wrong?" approach is perfect. It doesn't go in with a "you're wrong" attitude, it asks for help, and it allows the mentor to say, "Hey, looks like there is a problem in the original", IF they decide that this is the case.

I would recommend that instead of talking directly about the flaws of their work, you take an approach of explaining what you did.
Here's an example:

Hello Ms Mentoress, I have a question about that paper you published with co-authors A, B, and C a while ago. So I was trying to reproduce the results with code I've written on my own and I couldn't get it to  work. Can you have a look and help me with this?

There are several reasons for using this approach:

You are not blaming anyone for anything, and you are not being aggressive. Retractions and the likes are not under discussion now, and they shouldn't be until the mistake is understood, by all parties involved.
There is a small possibility that you are wrong and not them. This will save you the embarrassment of blaming someone for being wrong while in fact they were right all along.
In the case that you are correct, your mentor will realise on her own that she was in fact wrong. She will hold you in high esteem for this, because in her mind you are now a scientist who can rigorously test other people's work, which in this case happened to be hers. This will build bridges instead of burning them
In the case this results in a comment or discussion paper, there's a good chance you will be co-author with that group of people who will most likely try to correct themselves. As these are probably people with some reputation who have published in high ranking journals, this will put you together with people you want to be in good relations with, not against them.

Is there the chance it has to do with deprecated hardware no longer available? the OP didn't mentioned what the code was about, so it is likely it could be some kind of benchmark and we know benchmark change over time

@DarioOO It seems strange for the OP to try to replicate a benchmark on different hardware than that described in the paper and then become confused when the result is different.

From personal experience, I know that it may be very difficult to replicate results. I would recommend first asking yourself the following questions: Can I explain in a sentence or two what drives your mentor's results? Can I do the correction that gets results I believe to be correct? Are these results central to the paper?
Allow me to elaborate: You need to be able to say "You get result Y only because you did X. But X is incorrect methodology because Z. When I try to replicate your result, instead of X, I do X', and then your result Y goes away. This is important because your result Y is central to the paper."
If you can fill in the variables in these sentences, then it may be time to talk to the mentor. It is then a matter of being diplomatic. Make sure that they understand that your intention to discuss these with your mentor only, and absolutely no third party. (Don't say this directly, but let this be your approach and let that show.) I would also recommend de-personalizing the issue in grammar: Say "these results" rather than "your results".
Finally, should you even talk about this? The decision is up to you and there is no clear answer; but it is a function of the answers to the following questions: How many years have you known your mentor? How good are you at being a diplomat? How insecure is your mentor as a person? What do you have to gain or lose in case of go / no go?

I would take out the last paragraph.  Other than that -- strong, helpful answer.

Can I ask my mentor to retract their paper?

You can ask her anything. But you shouldn't. Don't tell her what to do; rather, tell her what you have found. If the paper is wrong, you should assume that the authors will behave with integrity and take the appropriate action: they almost always will.
A retraction is absolutely the last step, which will only happen if the paper really is wrong and it can't be corrected. It's not something you discuss the first time you mention that there seems to be something wrong: that would be a bit like beginning a conversation with, "I can't find my phone. Have you seen it? The maximum penalty for theft is ten years in jail."

Or should I ask her permission to write a comment about the paper?

No. On a technical level, you don't need anybody's permission to write and publish about their work. However, if you do end up publishing something saying "X is wrong", it's polite to let the authors of that work know in advance. It can also save a lot of time, because it means that there are more people working on the fix (you and them) and some of them are the world's greatest experts on that particular thing (them: even if they're the world's greatest experts on a wrong thing, they know much more about what they did than you do).
But you're not ready to write anything, yet. Talk to your mentor about what you've found and try to come up with a solution together. The only reason to continue without her is if she refuses to cooperate. In that case, because you're at an early stage of your career, I'd strongly recommend that you find somebody more senior to work with, since writing "X is wrong" papers is rather delicate.

If I do either of these (or something else which reveals that those results are wrong), would I be considered guilty of destroying the thesis of the first author guy?

No, not at all. Just as you're not guilty of destroying somebody's freedom if you call the police when you see them committing a crime. If people produce work that is incorrect, that is their fault alone.

@LeonMeier I've written a paper that says that X is wrong. But, in mathematics, one can at least make such a statement objectively.

The paper has been published. X was a published claim made by a group of people, which was backed up by an erroneous proof.

Of course it was serious/reputable and peer-reviewed. The suggestion that I might publish somewhere non-serious/non-reputable/non-peer-reviewed is, er, not very complimentary.

@LeonMeier Apologies for being unclear but I was somewhat insulted by the suggestion that I'd publish my work in any other way and refer to it as a "published paper".

I wouldn't describe a tech report or somebody else's work as a published paper.

Right now, you don't know that your mentor's paper is "wrong." What you do know is that your results differ from hers.
Because she is your mentor, I would approach her in this spirit, and say, "I was trying to replicate your paper, and came up with entirely different results. One of us is doing something wrong, and it's probably me. Could you explain why your results are so different from mine?
It's possible that she'll point out some error in your logic or code, and you'll be saved the embarrassment of making a false accusation. It's also possible that you are correct, and by treading softly, you will keep her on your side. If you are right, you will give her the chance be a "hero" by contacting the others involved with the paper and suggesting that it needs to be corrected. Inwardly, she will be grateful to you for saving her from embarrassment.