text:
Is there a reason to spread your research into multiple journals instead of just one?
Suppose one works in field X, and has say two or three manuscripts ready for journal submission. Journal A is a good fit for all the manuscripts, but journals B and C would be appropriate as well.
All else being equal, is there any benefit in having papers in different journals? Does it hurt to have all of your papers, or say a substantial amount of them, in the same journal A? For example, would it be a good idea to submit one to journal A, and the other one to journal B?
I could think of someone saying "I read journals B and C, but not A", so in this sense spreading your research in different journals would make sense. But maybe this is not so typical to begin with.

There is obviously no right or wrong here, one should try to publish in the best suited journal. That said, in fields where there are several options, sticking to a single journal may look a little strange. If you publish in different (but suitable) journals, it may be looked upon as that your research is accepted by a wider set of peers. Some may perhaps also think you have a special connection to the journal etc.
So the need to publish in different journals should primarily be the focus of the journal. Some people I know enjoy the fact that they are published in widely different journals and some people may see that as your research being more widely accepted (right or wrong).

The bit about looking like you have a special connection to the journal is an important point.  If you publish repeatedly in one journal, people may wonder whether you've identified an editor with a soft spot for your research topic.  That's not necessarily a problem, if your papers are really good, but you don't want your publication record to come across as having repeatedly taken advantage of an unusually favorable editor.

Supplementing @AnonymousMathematician very pertinent comment, I have heard editors say that exactly for that reason (they don't want to give the impression of having favorites), they are made uncomfortable by string of submissions. So it seems that from all point of views, scattered submissions are better.

@Olivier With the exception of planned paper series, of course :-)

I will answer only in the prospect of making one's CV look good; note that I am a mathematician and that this certainly affects my answer, notably because in mathematics (at least from what I see in France) the impact factor is rarely considered.
The way a journal is seen can vary a lot from one person to another (for example, some journals cover several subfields but are important and selective in some subfields, less so in others). So, if you publish all your papers in the same journal, in addition to the effect described by Peter Jansson you will reduce the probability that any given person looking at you CV would think "wao, he or she published in that excellent journal  Y" where Y will be A for some people, B for some else, and C for others.

Isn't this argument going in the opposite direction? If you apply for 10 tenure-track positions, you should aim to raise your probability of qualifying as the best candidate in at least one of them, not your probability to arrive in the top-5 in all of them. So any strategy that has a small probability of raising significantly your 'score' in the eyes of a single hiring committee is better than a strategy that has a uniform probability of raising your 'score' by a little in the eyes of all of them.

@FedericoPoloni I don't think my point goes in the opposite direction for several reasons. First, one starified publication influences the whole CV. If you have one Inventiones, you are stamped badass and your publications in Bulletin SMF will also look better. The second Inventiones might be good, but the effect is lesser. This works for most people, but Compositio/JEMS/CMP will work with different communities in this direction too. Second, hiring committees are diverse, for one position you need to also convince people from other communities.

@FedericoPoloni  Also, I did not only though of getting a permanent position, but of other cases where your CV is evaluated and that are less cutthroat.

In additions to the existing answers:

CV beautifying, part 1: Publications in journals with different focus topics make you look more like an interdisciplinary person (which is usually preferred), while publishing in identically themed journals or even only one journal makes you look rather single-minded.
CV beautifying, part 2: Excessive publishing in one journal may make you look like somebody who never tries new things and sticks to whatever is working.
Publishing in different journals will give you a broader experience, though mostly with how publishing can be handled. There is one important exception to the latter, though: You may learn about advantages and disadvantages of the individual journals, e.g., if you only publish with journal A, you might never learn that journal B is better at organising and speeding up the review process, has a better style file, has better copy editors, etc.

Most people would base their decision on:

The relative rating or impact factor of the journal compared with others relevant to the same field; and
The relevance of your material to what the journal typically publishes and their audience.

The citations you are likely to get will be influenced by both the profile of the journal and the relevance of the material to its readership.
Its therefore perfectly feasible (and sensible) to publish material in a 'lower ranked' journal if the research you are looking to publish has greater relevance for that audience.
BUT - if the research in question is genuinely only a 1-shot-at-goal only situation when it comes to publication - then you would usually be inclined to go for the highest rated journal that you can as these outlets can be very selective.
Be aware however that, for better or worse, most academics will now 'salami slice' the output from their research, or different aspects of it, for different outlets. This is not always a bad thing (and may not actually constitute 'salami slicing'). For example, a paper emphasising theoretical or methodological aspects to the research may go to a different outlet to one that is more applied or gives greater emphasis to context, findings or implications in practice.
This final point does however flag that if you are only ever publishing in one journal it does convey a relatively narrow focus in terms of how you convey the relevance of your research and your willingness to engage a broader audience.
So in this case it sounds like publishing across different outlets is a good idea :-)

It's unlikely that two or three equally good journals exist to serve a single audience. That is: while your work may be a "good fit" to all three, it is likely to reach a somewhat different audience in each case. In my field, for example, one journal has a more "theoretical" outlook than another. Plenty of papers could easily fit in either, but theoreticians may be more likely to read them if they are in one journal rather than the other. This may be a consideration, depending on the content of your paper and what you hope to achieve with it. Equally, you may bring your work to the attention of a wider audience by publishing in multiple journals: even if people do not read your paper, they may come to recognise your name.

"It's unlikely that two or three equally good journals exist to serve a single audience." Maybe you could say a bit more about the particulars of your sample space.  In my field -- mathematics -- for instance, there are for instance hundreds of journals with the name [State/Region/Country A] Journal of Mathematics.  Of these one could identify perhaps five to ten different levels of quality.  This leaves a bewildering array of choices for this kind of journal alone.  There are an awful lot of math journals...

Depending on your country, there might be an "official system" that classifies the quality of publication channels, i.e. ranks journals (this happens in e.g. Finland). Whether you like it or not, people e.g. outside of your field might judge your merits based on these rankings. The rankings live and might change over time, and if all of your papers are published in a highly ranked journal X today, the ranking of X might drop tomorrow.


text:
Are there tenure track academic jobs where teaching and research are given equal importance?
I have asked my advisers this question recently (since in a year or so, I expect to go on the job market) and received a variety of answers, specific to the USA. Very generally, as I understand, with reference to the US, there seem to be jobs which are either primarily research based (R1 universities) or primary teaching based (liberal arts colleges).
I understand that in either case, you are expected to do some amount of teaching and some amount of research but the focus varies depending on the university. In my university, research is generally seen to have more importance than teaching.
I was wondering, specifically with reference to the whole world, whether there are academic jobs where teaching and research are both given equal importance.
I am very interested in discipline and country variations in this.
Thanks.

I think the most likely candidates here are the very best liberal arts colleges.

As a TT at a small liberal arts college let me just say that to gain tenure I have to do both. In my field this amounts to having five or six new articles or a book before tenure. There is a very large spectrum of liberal arts colleges and the top end (figure top 100) all claim that research active professors are better able to teach up to date content in their field and to better demonstrate to their students why the field is exciting and worth studying. (By `all' I mean I do not know of a counter example.)
At the very top end of the liberal arts spectrum you have schools that give their professors R1 teaching loads and more funding. The only thing they would lack are the graduate students. Sure at the lower end of the spectrum are places that only expect teaching. Then there are the community colleges which openly admit they are teaching only institutions but they acknowledge that their mission is distinct.
Another section of schools I'd suggest you could take a look at are the second tier state schools, places like CSU Pamona, or University of Central Florida. These are not flagships and focus more on teaching than R1s but you still have to be research active to get tenure.
Next time you go to a conference, chat up those folks who seem to be pre-tenure and ask them what their institutions demand. The US is a country with other 4000 colleges and universities. They do not form a linear order from liberal arts colleges to R1 universities. So as always, the situation is more complex than you might think at first.

As a liberal arts college professor, are there any implicit "expectations" about your research productivity?

@Shion I don't know about implicit expectations but the explicit ones are that I stay research active for the next fourteen years at a minimum. What counts as sufficient production is heavily field dependent. In article based fields a rough average of one decent publication a year is good. In history or literature a similar number if conference papers or a book is good. I guess the idea is that you should be always working and time not used for teaching should primarily go to research and some to service tasks.

Thanks! This was very informative. I appreciate the response.

I'm not sure what would constitute valuing teaching and research equally. As best I can tell, every department at every school has it's minimum standards in each category. If you are seeking institutions with high standards for both, I would second BSteinhurst and Noah Snyder's referral to top liberal arts colleges. There are many outstanding faculty at liberal arts colleges, and I am aware of a few faculty advising doctorates at nearby research universities. As an extreme example, Bryn Mawr's math department has a PhD program despite being at a liberal arts college. Additionally, there are research oriented institutions that pay more than lip service to teaching. In particular, Dartmouth and Wesleyan come to mind as having this reputation. This can also vary a great deal from department to department, even within the same institution. You may discover that certain departments in your area value teaching or research to an unexpected degree, relative to institution-wide standards.

You make an excellent point about Bryn Mawr - something I was completely unaware of.

Wesleyan is a liberal arts college that happens to have a PhD program, like Bryn Mawr. Bowdoin is another liberal arts college that explictly states that research and teaching are equally important. Any of the NESCAC schools (e.g., Amherst, Williams, Middlebury) probably have a similar 50-50 ratio of research importance and teaching importance.

The basic problem is that you have "research institutions" and "teaching institutions." As a result of this, most schools have a pre-selected bias toward placing either research or teaching as the primary metric in determining tenure.
As BSteinhurst indicates above, at most schools you do have to do both teaching and research. The difference is that in the "minor" area the standards are considerably lower. At a school such as MIT or Harvard, for instance, significant teaching credentials before tenure is awarded is not necessarily looked on favorably by all departments, as that is considered a potential sign that too much time is being spent on teaching relative to academic activities. Similarly, I doubt that faculty members at liberal arts colleges are expected to bring in large amounts of research grants or publish multiple papers per year in high-quality peer-reviewed journals.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
How to find out the editorial times (for article review) of CS journals?
Elsevier has recently lunched a tool called Journal Finder by which researchers can use paper's title and abstract, and field of study to find a suitable journal for their manuscript. Here is the sample
 in which the editorial time is 12 weeks. They surely maintain database for their own, but is there any other source we can do this for other non-Elsevier journals, like IEEE or ACM? I know WoS provides some information about it, but WoS's database accuracy is not yet clear to me since I have seen lots of inaccurate information in WoS reports (for instance, number of "review article" published is often inaccurate).

Why restrict this question to CS?

This would be useful tool if it was to cover all journals,  not just Elsevier.

@aeismail: maybe other disciplines have such features. Because I am unable to find such data on the Internet for my own need, I though maybe I can get some help. Looking for the answer

Many journals have started using "reject & resubmit" very liberally as an answer instead of "major revisions", for the only reason that it makes processing times look artificially faster. I feel that if we publish these statistics and rely on them, we will just encourage this scammy strategy. The correct term of comparison here should be "time between first submission and acceptance", not "time between last submission and acceptance".

Once a year the Notices of AMS publish the backlog of mathematics research journals containing inter alia the data you are interested in.
The 2012 one is here:
http://www.ams.org/notices/201210/rtx121001473p.pdf
and the 2013 is here :
http://www.ams.org/notices/201310/rnoti-p1390.pdf
and both do list some journals in informatics including the non-Elsevier ones (e.g. the Springer's Acta Informatica).

what if we can start maintaining a database for that? using crowd wisdom?

Elsevier has recently launched a new toolbox including lots of useful information about journals. If you visit any Elsevier journal's homepage (I assume it works for all Elsevier journals], you will see the following box there,

Click on it and select 'Speed' link and it takes you to another page like here (example for JNCA journal). The following information let you know the latest turn around time of this particular journal.

Hope other journals start similar approach.
Thanks and hope you find this post useful.

I guess this is better than nothing. But if they really only disclose the average number of weeks to decision, it's not worth much if you don't know anything else.

Please see the following link Here. However, it is more about psychology and non-engineering journals. I with there was such an repository for CS.

Thanks remo, the 'Journal Rate' is an interesting tool, but not yet completed. It does not have much review and rating on journals.

Please expand upon your answer, perhaps by adding a note about what we might find upon following the link you provide?

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


text:
How to demonstrate excellent undergraduate and graduate teaching capabilities in academic position applications?
It is quite common in almost all position opening announcements in academic institutes to demonstrate EXCELLENT teaching capabilities. For instance sentences like below:

Applicants are expected to demonstrate excellent undergraduate and graduate teaching capabilities

But the question is HOW to demonstrate that excellence? Is just listing subjects taught during last couple of years sufficient? I guess we can use teaching statement or teaching philosophy to demonstrate that ability too. But, what type of sentences show that excellence in teaching statement?

Student evaluations and letters of recommendation specifically addressing one's teaching should be quite helpful.

In my university, surprisingly, results of student evaluation is confidential and is not shared to the lecturer!!! So I cannot use them.

Well, then you are left with the letters of recommendation.

I guess the go-to method is to list your teaching awards if you have any.

In my department (biology, at a large public research university), applicants give a job talk in addition to a research talk. They also provide a statement of teaching philosophy.
An applicant demonstrates excellence by:

Providing a teaching statement that discusses evidence-based teaching theory and gives an example or two of how the applicant has applied this ("Even in large lectures, students should spend time discussing the concepts they have just learned. I incorporated the use of clickers to expose a common misconception before each new topic, and had students work in groups to find the best answer.")
Preparing and delivering a job talk that a) demonstrates competence with the material, b) shows you are able to ask and answer "student" questions from the audience, c) incorporates at least a smidge of student interaction, and d) actually fits in the time allotted

I suppose if there is no job talk scheduled, an applicant might prepare as if there were one and be ready to discuss how they would teach topic X, with examples.

In my university, we have a quality system and part of this is the collection of student feedback. The feedback is gathered systematically and in an unbiased manner.
When applying to other positions we can refer to this feedback in stating excellent undergraduate and graduate teaching capabilities. The hiring body can contact our university/faculty/department to verify and receive a document regarding this.
Further, this is also used as basis for gaining additional, teaching skill based, percentages in ones salary.
When properly implemented, I think this is a great system.
Edit: forgot to mention the most important thing: We were struggling with the same issue as in the question and we suggested and implemented the feedback gathering as a partial solution to this.

Relevant reading material: Do teaching evaluations lead to lower standards in class?


text:
Are learning by reading from a textbook compared to listening to lectures different roads to same goal
I have seen few people who learn better(or mostly) by reading textbooks themselves in private as that gives them more time to think back and forth about the material. While there are other students who are quick at grasping things transmitted orally like in a lecture and despise reading it through books. Few of the former even have this habit of not being able to learn at all sitting in a class as lesser time is devoted to discussion on a particular topic and the lecturer tries best to move to the next topic as quickly as possible(not always though). So should those who like to learn on their own through books be guilty for not attending classes(mandatory like in bachelors or masters programs) since they are anyway not going to assimilate much and it will be waste of time?

Hi physicsenthusiasist, the question as it is currently phrased sounds more like a rhetorical question, which is not really what this Q&A site is about. Do you have a practical, answerable question behind it? (like “as a teacher, how to I handle students who prefer to learn on their own” or “as a student who prefers to learn on her own, how do I convince my university/professors/supervisors that it is okay for me to skip classes?”)

Yes.  Guilty, guilty, guilty.  But it shouldn't affect their grade.

Lectures have a specific pace that makes them boring to me. With a book I can set the speed to whatever I want (usually faster), I usually do the same thing with videolectures, up to 1.2x the English is still understandable, and still boring, although not so much. Just to provide a different perspective.

You are operating on the false assumption that class time equates to "lecture". There are other things to do with class time, which may be valuable to the book-learner.
In the lecture-based undergrad classes I teach, I do not take attendance (which becomes impractical anyway as class sizes increase). Students are paying for my time, and they can do with it what they want. They have assignments that need to be completed by certain due dates - some online and some that need to be submitted in class. If they are earning good grades, I let them do whatever. If they are doing poorly, I intervene, but one-on-one.
If the course in question is discussion- or activity-based, then the students should not be excused. These types of courses are not content-based (think General Chemistry), but issue-based (Racial Inequality in American Politics) or skill-based (Introduction to Public Speaking). Again, I would not take attendance, but a majority of the students' grades will be for in-class activities - discussions about case studies or issues, group presentations, individual presentations, peer-lead team learning, active and hands-on learning, demonstrations by students, etc. In these cases the student is heavily penalized by not attending class. In the class on public speaking, perhaps each student is graded as follows: 1) three short in-class oral presentations (20% of the overall grade each); 2) a written critical reflection on their presentations as a final paper (20% of the final grade total); and 3) critical analysis of presentations made by 2 classmates (10% of the final grade each). This student needs to be in class, or he/she will be unable to do 100% of the graded work!
In all cases I firmly believe in placing the responsibility on the student. Just as the student needs to be responsible for the assignments, for studying, and ultimately for earning the final grade, the student needs to be responsible for the decision to come to class. If the student wants to skip class, the student can skip as long as the student knows that there will be real (missed assignments) and implied penalties (missed opportunities to comprehend the material better). The instructor's responsibility is not to ensure that students learn. It is to create an environment where learning can happen and to provide guidance and feedback about how successful that learning is.

"Readers" and "Listeners" is a well-known categorization regarding the main method through which a person learns. But it is one thing to acknowledge this fact, and it is a different thing to argue that any person that is learning mainly through one method, should altogether abandon the other. To take your example, if I am a "Reader", then participating in oral presentations will shed light on aspects of my reading that will never illuminate themselves. I will listen to questions that otherwise I wouldn't realize that I also had, and maybe when I would, I could not be able to answer them myself and through my books.  I will listen to interpretations that I hadn't thought of. Etc, etc, etc: live interaction with other human brains does not substitute for deep reading - but it can not be replaced by the latter either. They are, simply, fully complementary.


text:
What should you ask an applicant's reference?
When recruiting a student or post-doc to join my group, I trim down the list of applicants to a few names (3–5) by looking at CV's, research/teaching statements, existing publications, etc. Then, I will write to the mentors/professors/teachers/PhD advisors they listed in their list of references. I will also write to people who would be obvious choice as a reference, but aren't listed (fresh PhD who doesn't list his advisor, e.g.).
But what do I ask these people? My “standard” email would be something like:

A former PhD student in your research group, Dr XXX, is applying for a position in my group. I wonder if you can give me a frank and confidential appraisal of his abilities and working style. How efficient is he, how quickly does he get things done? Is he able to communicate clearly, both in writing and orally, at a level you would expect from an good researcher? Does he interact well with other scientists, and work in a team?

At least one senior professor whom I sent such an email replied with a rather negative tone, saying “Dr. XXX is a good scientist. I don't want to comment on your other questions.” So, I am wondering: am I asking something I shouldn't? Or not in the right manner? What should you ask of applicants' references?

if you can give me a frank and confidential appraisal ... is probably one of the reasons. Sort of implying that he was not going to give you a frank one if you did not say so. "If you would give me a confidential appraisal ..." might sound better.

If I got a response like that, I might interpret it as suggesting that although XXX is a good scientist, he may not have these other skills (efficiency, clear communication, teamwork).  However, it's far from clear.

How can one possibly be a good scientist without efficiency, clear communication, and ability for teamwork?

@gerrit: It depends on what you mean by a "good scientist".  These other skills may be valuable for an academic career, but it's certainly possible to make important scientific discoveries without them.  I'd argue that anyone who makes important scientific discoveries is a good scientist, regardless of what other failings they have.

An alternative interpretation to @AnonymousMathematician is that the professor didn't work closely enough with him to give an accurate representation, and doesn't want to give you bad information.

This may well depend on the country. In the US, being the litigious society that it is, there have been some people going after (legally and non-legally) people who give negative references. The candidate can have a stronger case if you are contacting someone they didn't approve. Now, there is freedom of speech and many, many other issues but simply put, some people in the US are scared to give candid assessments unless the assessment is positive.
So, I would tend to take the response you received as an implied negative but I would also have to keep an open mind that the referee simply did not want to answer and it might not reflect at all on the candidate.
As for the questions you ask, they seem quite standard and I don't believe anyone would be taken by surprise by them. However, they might not answer out of fear.
On a side note, when it comes to reference checking, you need to be sure you are getting are response from the proper person. Emails get hacked, fake accounts get created. I personally prefer doing my reference checking over the phone. This may also come across as a casual conversation without written evidence, making the referee more comfortable in being candid.

+1 for using the phone. You're more likely to get the information you want in terms of pauses, emphasis, and general responsiveness that cannot be judged in an email reply.


text:
How to motivate a student to attempt solving tough questions?
In any tutorial class some students seem to get frustrated with little tougher questions. While tackling them is important to learn the subject. How to motivate the students to attempt tougher questions without getting discouraged ?

You're asking the impossible.  Better to ask how to motivate students to work on hard problems even though they get discouraged.  Everyone gets discouraged; working through that discouragement makes success all the more rewarding.

An interesting method: Don't let them know that its tough. Some awesome algorithms were published this way.

you could make it so that if they answer a certain amount of tough questions then they don't have to do any of the easier questions at all (but still get credit for them)

This is a tough question and one that teachers have struggled with throughout the history of pedagogy.  Sometimes, students need to find within themselves the curiosity and drive to plow forward despite the frustration.  So, don't be discouraged when you see frustrated students, as every teacher has to deal with this.  Philosophy aside, here are some tips I've found helpful over the years:

Scaffolding is immensely important.  Build up to the harder problems, and give students the time they need to process how typical problems are solved.  E.g., If you're studying friction, have the students do plenty of problems that involve friction on a flat surface, then move to friction on a ramp, then work on friction on a vertical wall (by a sideways force), then move to centripetal friction that keeps a turning car from sliding off a road, then move to cars on banked hills.
Don't try to cover too much material in one sitting.  Students can only process so much at once, and many really do need time to process.
Positive feedback goes a long way.  When a student makes progression on a problem, acknowledge it.
Be available for help, but not always available.  Some students like the easy way out, which is to ask you how to do the problem!  Don't be afraid to turn a student away until they've given it a decent try.  That said, judicious pointers in the right direction can help.
Encourage them to work in groups.  This does run into the "easy way out" for some students, but more often it can lead to good ideas being generated, and students can learn from the collaboration.
Give them lots and lots of examples.  The more they see problem-solving techniques, the better they will become.

Unfortunately, given the time constraints of college teaching, it isn't always possible to use all of these strategies--I found that it was easier to find the time when I taught high school.  That said, students in college should be willing to work harder on their own, anyway (but we all know that isn't always the case!).

+1 for Scaffolding is immensely important - the more they can see that they have been building up to this point, the more confidence they will have when approaching a tougher problem.

Hints and extra credits.
You mention some students seem to get frustrated with little tougher questions. They are students. They don't have enough knowledge/skill/experience to crack tough problems. Hints will get them the starting/entry points.
If a student spend hours or days to solve tough problems and get nothing afterwards, he would lose interests quickly. If he knows he would get some extra credits after solving those problems, he would be more inclined to finish them.
Once they get used to those happy (accomplished) feelings after solving tough problems, some will automatically jump to those tough problems without your hints/extra credits. They become self motivated.

I'm not sure I agree, especially with the extra credits part.  I think that often the weaker students can be inclined to see everything that is for "extra credit" as not for them.  As for the hints, you have to be careful that you don't turn a tougher question into not that much tougher at all by adding too much of a hint.  Figuring out how to approach a problem on your own is an important skill to acquire, and giving hints before they've even started trying to solve the problem can undermine the chance of students learning that.

@TaraB I tend to agree with you if there is only one tough question. If there are multiple tough problems, it'll be up to the instructor to give extra credits/hints to each problem to encourage/help the students. The ultimate goal is to get the students self motivated.

I just would like to amend Vahid's answer, which I think goes in right direction.
Part of the problem is not that students wouldn't have the required skills, often they do not see a way forward. This is more about being "brave" enough to wage the war on the problem. To help with that, I think the following is essential:

guide them through examples of the problem to show them that the problems of that kind are indeed approachable and solvable,
more importantly, help them help themselves. Consider a discussion in which the class, or groups, or individuals would solve the problem themselves, but the teacher guides them through it. I.e., when they get stuck, asks the right questions, answers to which will put them back on track, or point out a mistake in their reasoning to fix a mistake they made.

In the beginning of class I announce the handling of exercises. Where I am we pose weekly homework exercises and collect and grade them. The student have to collect enough points on the exercises to be allowed to take the oral exam (or, obtain a "attended" certificate. However, the threshold for "enough points" is set be each instructor. I usually set 50%. However, I communicate that there will always be tough questions and easier questions and that I do not suppose that any student has to solve all questions. If they want to work for 50% and make it, that is enough. If they want to be ambitious, they can go for 100%. I also communicate that there will be tough (and very tough) questions because I want that also very bright student can learn something. This often serves as a motivation to work on tougher questions. Of course, there are a lot of students who are comfortable with less. However, I set the 50% hurdle and have to make sure that everybody who passes it "has learned enough". On the upper end, the very tough questions ensure that the very good ones also learn something interesting.


text:
How do I come up with a dissertation topic early on in my degree?
I'm currently 2 units into my MSc degree (6 units over 2 semesters left).I know this is rather early, But I would like to start work on my dissertation as soon as I can, to give myself enough time and preparation to do "distinction level" work.
How do I come up with a topic I'll stick with? I've had tons of advise from different sources telling me to choose from an area of interest. Considering I still have the bulk of my degree work ahead, this wasn't too useful for me. Do I read all areas ahead of the units to "fast forward" the process?. Any advice is welcome.

Gee, a down vote with no reason attached. That's useful.

It's tough to pick a good dissertation topic if you don't yet know what areas researchers are actively working in, and why certain questions merit attention.  A good way to speed up the process of learning this is to attend lots of seminar and colloquium talks (even before you think you're ready).  Don't worry about understanding all the details of the talks.  Instead, focus on grasping the main question being investigated and why it's important, and try to internalize a 3-point outline (say) of the methodology.  This should help you to identify an "area of interest".

Half-serious answer: First do the research, then write the thesis.  When all that's done, the topic should be obvious!

This is a classic example where talking to your advisor is of the utmost importance.  Some advisors want their students to choose a topic as early as possible, and others don't mind if their students take their time. As for the topic, hopefully, your advisor should be able to point you in a direction if you don't already have one.
While I understand the rush to get started on something concrete, you really don't want to do a lot of work on a topic that ends up being (1) uninteresting, and (2) unfruitful.  Talk to as many other faculty and students as you'd like, and there isn't anything wrong with reading ahead, with the exception that you might not understand something well enough to make a good decision about whether you should do research in the subject.
My bottom-line suggestion is to take your time picking a topic, because you really do want it to be a good one.

You might not have an advisor during the coursework phase of a master's or PhD program. In my field (chemical engineering), you don't pick up an advisor until after you've picked the project you want to work on. . . .

Whether you have a formal advisor or not, you can approach faculty for advice and for suggestions. It is almost impossible for a novice to pick a really good Ph.D. topic (while working alone in a vacuum). Go by various professor's office hours and talk with them about their work. Tell them you are seeking good problems to work on. Ask good questions, and engage them intellectually. Something good is bound to happen. Talk with other grad students who are further along in their program. Try collaborating with other students: this is a great way to get hands on experience with problems, and if things work out, you may get a publication out of it.


text:
Does wearing a university t-shirt imply that the wearer is affiliated with the university?
My friend studies at a very prominent university and has invited me to visit her. Coming across the university shop, I was considering buying one of the t-shirts with the university logo.
I am possibly over-thinking this, but the following scenario popped up in my head: What if, while wearing it, I am approached by a person who thinks I went to the university, and who'd ask me what my major was, etc. And when I'd say that I wasn't affiliated with the school, wouldn't it look like I'm taking a credit for what I haven't done?
Does wearing a university t-shirt imply that the person wearing it was/is somehow affiliated with the university?

It's a T-shirt, not a uniform. Wearing it implies that you or someone else bought it for you.

I would naturally assume that someone wearing the t-shirt of a particular university has worked or studied there... Just like I'd assume that someone wearing a band t-shirt likes their music. There's nothing stopping you from wearing the shirt, of course, but it's perhaps an odd thing to do if you have no real relationship with that university.

It seems to be fairly common for people to wear university-branded items for universities relatives attended.  This is particularly strong for parents, but also applies to siblings.  I would assume some affiliation, but not necessarily a direct one.

@Moriarty Not really: for example I have a couple of notebooks of the Colorado University at Boulder, but I've never attended any lecture there or lectured there or worked there: I just passed from their shop when I was in Boulder and needed a notebook. Indeed, I could have bought a t-shirt too, just because they were nice.

You are also welcome to wear professional sports hats and jersey's, even if you never played for them :) And if asked you can just say that you visited and a friend of yours attended, if you are feeling chatty.

I have a bunch of university t-shirts that all mean something. Usually that I passed by the respective gift shop and had some local currency to burn.

Watch old episodes of "C.O.P.S." and see how many people the cops deal with wear Harvard, Yale and other shirts. In the 1980s and 1990s there was an odd bootleg world of discount stores selling Ivy League gear. And I am fairly confident most of those people on the show never went to an Ivy League school.

Two word answer: Thrift stores.

If asked, just say, "I have a friend who goes there."

I used to work at the University of York (in the UK), my uncle worked at York University (in Canada). We swapped shirts, so I wore a York University t-shirt at the University of York.

At any school with a prominent athletic team, many people buy the branded apparel simply because they like the team.

I would say wearing a t-shirt with the school logo does not mean much, however, wearing a specific college of that schools t-shirt would more likely imply you have an affiliation to it.  For example, having a tshirt that says Harvard with a logo is one thing, having a tshirt that says Harvard Graduate School of Design, would be another.  The exception to this would be a schools athletic department, similar to BrianDHall comment.

to @BobBrown's point, someone will inevitably mention it as an icebreaker in an unfamiliar situation. but there is no wrong answer.

I used to wear a shirt that said FBI. I didn't get into CIA.

The Italian Clothing Manufacturer Franklin and Marshall sells clothing inspired by the small US college Franklin and Marshall.

Not to mention that almost every college bookstore sells baby and children's clothing with the school logo, for people who can't possibly have an affiliation yet.  It's a souvenir.  I had several of those when I was a kid, from parents and other relatives who wanted to brainwash me about their schools...which worked, because when I came of age, I applied to them as my top choices.

No. It only shows he wants to look like as if.

I know this has already generated a significant response but I think it depends on cultural context.  I use to own a navy-blue shirt with the newer  (American) Air Force logo on it.  I'm not really a military kind of guy, but I appreciated the aesthetic.  After wearing the shirt only twice (yes, twice) I stopped wearing the shirt because I kept getting "thanked" for my service.  Sure, I could have continued wearing it but it just felt wrong.  Universities are different, so your mileage may vary.  Still, I could see it easily being implied that you are were somehow affiliated.

Just today I saw a fella that looked like a drug dealer wearing a UCLA jersey (in London), so it's also somehow found its way into "gangsta" culture, and has been present there for a while.

In the U.S., wearing logo'd clothing (t-shirt, cap, armband, etc.) normally only means that you are a supporter of the thing (school, sports team, etc.) represented by the logo, not that you are a member of it.  When my kids were going to school (both high school and college) I often wore such clothing, though I never attended any of their schools myself.  This is very common.  A Uniform on the other hand is a different story ...

No one would ever think bad of you for wearing one, no matter your situation. There will be a general thought that you at the very least approve of the university if you wear their cloths. Also based on your age and attire, they will likely assume you are most likely one of the following: (want to go there after HS, are currently enrolled, went or work there). But they would never hold it against you if you did not fit into one of those categories. You could use of of these shirts to mislead people into believing something about you, but on its own wearing the shirt is not lying.

I (from the UK) had a bears shirt because I like UCB and, well, I like bears. I was asked all the time if I'd graduated from Berkeley: I was surprised at that, I always assume folk I see just buy shirts when they visit or whatever. Oddly, in the UK, I think I've precisely never seen someone from Cambridge wearing a Cambridge top (I certainly never would).

I have been trying find the Abercrombie & Fitch campus, as there seem to be a lot of alumni wearing those shirts. Is it somewhere in California?

@La-comadreja: "almost every college bookstore sells baby and children's clothing with the school logo" Oh no they don't. Not outside the US. This sort of college-merchandise-overkill-on-anything-that-moves-in-4-inch-Varsity-font is very much a US thing. It comes across simultaneously as pretentious, snobbish, garish and tacky. (What next: affinity tattoo stores? Princeton panties? UCLA underwear? Dartmouth diapers?)

No. Many of the top universities are tourist attractions and it is not uncommon to see tourists wandering around campus taking photos and eventually buying paraphernalia. While in the US it is not uncommon to see students wearing standard school t-shirts and sweatshirts, in the UK, students generally do not wear clothes that are available in the bookstore. Rather, they wear clothes made for particular clubs that they are involved in.

US High schooler here. On fridays the seniors are allowed to wear college sweatshirts but in reality everyone wears them all the time.

To add detail to your answer : in collegiate universities (in the UK at least), students wear clothes related to the college they belong to (and clubs related to that college). In Oxford for instance, you are almost always right if you assume Oxford University clothes <=> tourist , specific college clothes <=> student.

Yes, certainly true in Oxford and Cambridge (and I assume in other UK universities). The tourist shops sell clothes with the university logo/name, so that is what tourists wear. Clothes with the college logo/name are generally only available to students of the college (and even then, generally only from specific sports clubs or societies - it would be unusual to wear clothing that just said e.g. "King's College" and wasn't associated with a particular sports club or society).

College scarves are (or were) common though, and would be included in "students wear clothes related to the college they belong to" (and not to specific clubs), if less relevant to the original question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_scarf#University_of_Cambridge
College sweatshirts that aren't club specific exist, but I've never seen one being worn, by tourists or students (e.g. http://www.ryderamies.co.uk/shop/range/hoodies-sweatshirts/college-sweatshirts/ - I have no idea if Ryder Amies would check if you are actually a member of the college you are buying a sweatshirt for).

Ryder & Amies or Clothiers will check whether you have a Blue, if you want to buy scarves / blazers / etc that suggest you represented the University against Oxford though. They don't check whether you belong to a College.

This may vary from country to country, and from culture to culture, but in the U.S., wearing a shirt with a university logo may indicate nothing more than that you root for that school's athletic program. In some places, it's very traditional, particularly on Saturdays in the fall – and it's not just alumni wearing the garb. Sometimes the entire staff of a business establishment, such as a bank or a restaurant, will sport team colors. Some fans even paint their skin or dye their hair, or fly flags from their doorsteps, in addition to wearing numbered jerseys or sweatshirts emblazoned with team logos.
Aside from athletics, there are other legitimate reasons to sport a jersey, too. Perhaps your child aspires to attend that school someday. Maybe you visited campus and wanted a souvenir. Or maybe you just like the colors. No harm in any of that.
Unless the t-shirt says GRADUATED FROM USC or something like that, you're not doing anything misleading by wearing the shirt.

Frankly, I would take a t-shirt saying "graduated from " as an even safer sign the person has never been to that university than just the name of the university, akin to t-shirts saying things like "Attention - VIP passing through", "I am the president!", or showing the Superman S.

@O.R.Mapper - Yes, I'm with you. I was just trying to come up with the most outrageous stretch I could imagine (plus, I don't think I've even seen a shirt like that). P.S. You mean that guy I saw at the gym yesterday wasn't really Superman? ;^)

"My parent went to Harvard and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."

In the US, it's pretty common for any member of your family to have apparel for your school. Parents especially, but sometimes siblings or other relatives, too. I have a shirt or two from my sibling's college that I wear from time to time.

If you see someone  wearing a sweatshirt saying something like "Property  of  Athletic Dept." you can bet they never saw the inside of a locker room.

Man, I want a shirt now that says that. "I am the president of the United States of America."

I live in Washington State.  The most prominent/classy university in the state is UW (University of Washington), which has the Huskies as the mascot.  The second most prominent university in the state is WSU (Washington State University), who have Cougars as their mascot.  I live 90+ minutes from either University, but people regularly wear shirts/jackets/hats with a UW or WSU logo.  It is just meant to imply that they are a Husky (Husky fan) or a Coug (Cougar fan).  I'm many of them have nothing to do with either university; especially the children.  They just favor one of the football teams.

Not at all. In Madrid it is in fashion to wear UCLA t-shirts (fake). It would be rather weird if so many graduates were from Madrid ;)

Interesting. Do you know why the UCLA trend in particular started?

Not really. I guess the UCLA logo is quite easily recognized and typical American one so marketable (although without permission). Also Real Madrid is doing part of its summer training at the UCLA campus. Strangely enough, I remembered that there is an additional fashion there with Oxford University hoodies (not t-shirts). Weird indeed.

It's the same in Sweden (or was about 5 years ago). Everyone wore hoodies and sweatpants with the UCLA logo.

europeans secretly wish they're american.

And pay thousand of dollars to have university education ;)

When I read the question, I immediately thought of all these people running around with UCLA t-shirts. No idea where this comes from, but most of them have no idea what UCLA is. Then I remember a time when a lot of girls had CI5 t-shirts (but didn't know the tv show). This is in Germany.

@easymoden00b American colleges not-so-secretly wish more non-American students come and pay full-cost tuition so they can subsidize tuition for American students. Has been described as 'farming'.

@smci """"subsidize""".  What a joke.  They're exploiting international students for profit at the expense of American students rejection from said colleges.

@Zane: are you sure 'CI5' isn't a portmanteau of 'CIA' and 'MI5' (British domestic spy service)? :P

@smci: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Professionals_(TV_series)

Zane: my God, I was only making a frivolous pun, but now you remind me I had watched that program when I grew up. One from the passive memory banks!

And when I'd say that I wasn't affiliated with the school, wouldn't it look like I'm taking a credit for what I haven't done?

Certainly not. If those items were meant as any kind of certificate, they wouldn't be publicly available to everyone. Universities sometimes sell various kinds of university-branded paraphernalia, and while anyone associated with the university might buy them for themselves, they can just as well be used as gifts or directly sold to visitors who want to have a keepsake.
I can't imagine anybody assuming that you actually study or have studied at a place just because you wear their t-shirt. That would be just as silly as assuming that all the people who are wearing t-shirts or caps labeled "New York" (or some other toponym whose ring is considered fancy) are from, or have been to, New York.

When I was younger, I'd buy a sweatshirt or T-shirt at every university where I gave a talk. In more recent years, I'd buy ditto for my daughter at many universities where I give talks. So, yes, some connection, but not necessarily "affiliation".

I also used to buy T-shirts for my family wherever I went to give a talk. Eventually, they had more than they wanted. But more recently, they've given me T-shirts. So you might see me in a T-shirt saying "Tulane Medical School" ( where my daughter was a student) or "Carnegie Mellon" (where my son was a postdoc). The first time I was in Marseille, I had great difficulty finding "Marseille" T-shirts, but department stores had T-shirts from lots of U.S. universities.

Another point is that many Universities have great sports teams. American universities in particular have great sporting events and tons of people not in anyway affiliated to the university buy branded merchandise simply because they support a sports team from that University.

Very true. But having seen my share of Ivy League football, I suppose that's not a plausible explanation for all of the Harvard shirts you see around.

With Harvard's reputation, and considering how difficult it is to be go to school there ... most people will just assume your wearing it for show ..

Great point, another difference between the US and rest-of-world. This whole branding thing, and operating student athletics as a money-making franchise and attractor for alumni fundraising, instead of, umm, a mere student athletics dept. Somebody once pointed out that if you ranked individual US college athletics depts' Olympic medal tallies as if they were separate countries, they would come in midtable. See Rio 2016 Olympics: Which college won the most medals?

No, but you may still confuse people, since many of the people who wear such clothes do have an affiliation.

While T-Shirts don't imply university attendance, I only wear shirts from places I have attended/worked.
Once I was on a desert hike in Arizona and a lady asked me if I had been to UC Irvine as my shirt alluded. We then proceeded to talk about my experience at UCI and the research I did there -- it was a great conversation starter. Being an extrovert and not wanting to miss future conversations, I choose not to dilute my wardrobe?
Besides, having attended the university on your shirt gives you better posture. ;)

No.  When I entered college, one of the first things my parents pointed out to me about the other students was that wearing the shirts of other colleges was clearly a popular fashion.  (For my own part, I never had more than a couple of school-related shirts for my own school.)

There will be an association that people have when they see you wearing this shirt - or using anything with the university logo - that may initially make them think you attended the university, especially if you're of an age, or look like you are of an age, that would have recently graduated or attended the school.  This happens to my wife all the time when she wears my sweater with a logo of my Tech school on it.
It is not, however, duplicitous to wear it, and you shouldn't feel bad for wearing it either.  Some people will assume this based on you wearing the shirt, others will correctly assume you know someone who went to that college, and still others will assume something else entirely (like maybe you are a professor at that school).  People do this with shirts that have logos, regardless of the accuracy of this assumption.
Don't be too concerned about it - no one is going to accredit you the full rights and privileges of an alumni based solely on seeing which t-shirt you wear, and they'd be considered pretty silly for doing so.  It is not wrong to wear a shirt in support of your friend's college.

authors: ดุษฎี โภคชนะ


text:
Supervisor not Constructive
I'm a PhD student and I just had my half-time examination. My supervisor thinks my data is "crap", my report "wasn't good", and my presentation was "a disaster". Maybe he is right. However, he doesn't seem to know how to provide feedback constructively.
At other times, his feedback is either vague ("these slides could use a little more oomph") and only helpful half of the times ("the standard way to analyze this is to...").
I am not sure how to cope with with this type of feedback, mentioned in the first paragraph. Any ideas?

I would say, set up a meeting, and explain in advance that you need additional feedback. Then really do cross-examine what your supervisor thinks could be improved---obviously not aggressively, but your supervisor is being paid to help you.

You may want to separate two types of issues here:

the presentational issues of your work
the scientific issues with your work

The first of these types spans presentation style, style of writing, and the structure of your written deliverables. The second one spans all scientific aspects of your work.
You should definitely be able to get some feedback on the scientific issues. If your advisor says that the data leaves room for improvement, (s)he should be able to give reasons for that. Also, if you ask how (s)he thinks how the data could be improved, you should get a usable answer, as this is part of the role of an advisor.
As far as the presentational issues of your work are concerned, you may be well-advised to ask ofther people for help (e.g., your fellow PhD students). Scientists often learned how to do that well by "learning by doing". This doesn't imply that they are also be able to explain how to do it in the right way. The quotation "these slides could use a little more oomph" suggest that this may be the case. But actually without knowing your advisor, it is impossible to tell.
It may also be that that your advisor is expecting you to engage more in discussions with him/her. For example, if (s)he said "the standard way to analyze this is to...", then (s)he may expect that you provide a rationale for the choice of your approach. This discussion can then lead to a better understanding of your work, both for your advisor and you.
Again, because of the limited knowledge of your situation, it is difficult to tell whether this is really the case in your situation.

Usually I find these types of supervisor very helpful in a way as they are never happy with whatever you do. Hence it can cause 2 thing either u will get encouraged or discouraged with this. Encouragement in the sense that you would say to yourself that ok whatever i do he is not happy but i will prove him wrong one day. where as if you think that damn whatever i do i can not make him happy then why even make an effort is the example of discourgement.

Two students thought the same presentation was "great". My reports are generally well received in both style and form. To clarify, this is more of a "scientific issue". The second to last paragraph I think suggests some kind of mind-reading by the student and a lack of engagement with the methods from the supervisor.

The fact that some students thought the presentation was great is not necessarily inconsistent with it being "a disaster" from a more professional viewpoint, so beware... That is, it's not necessarily the case that "more professional" means more-and-better of what students expect from talks.

My solution was to ask another professor who was also present during the presentation for feedback. This gave me a balanced view on 1) my performance and 2) my supervisor's opinion.
Signing off, opinions are not highly valued in academia, especially not in the scientific community, which always strives for objectivity. This is what surprises me about this type of feedback. It lacks style.

Next to the very fine other answer, I would like to point out that different personalities have different guiding needs (students) and guiding styles (supervisors).
Whereas some students appreciate very detailed feedback, others prefer more generic remarks that leave more room for their own personal touch.
It seems to me that your preferred style and the one of your supervisor do not match. This does not mean that his style is not right for anybody, nor that you are necessarily demanding unreasonable guidance. You might be better of with another supervisor, without anybody being at fault.

By what norms are comments like "disaster" guiding?


text:
How to present (key) publications on personal website?
I am a phd student in a STEM field and currently setting up a personal website. The website is intended to be simple and will basically contain contact details, research interests, a list of publications and links to other profiles in the web (I have a very common name).
Beside the pure list of publications I think it would be a good idea to highlight "key" publications in some way, so that visitors can detect at a glance what I consider my most relevant research. However, I am not sure how to approach this at best.
The only idea I have so far is to provide one picture (maybe animated) for each "key" presentation that gives an overview of the corresponding paper, like e.g. in http://innovate.ee.ucla.edu/refereed-journal-publications.html
Any more/better ideas? Examples?

The most common solution which I usually see is having a section called "Selected Publications" or "Key Publications". Often people show the details only for these and you have to take some extra step (e.g. press some link or an "expand button") in order to get the full publication list.

Can you provide an example?

@snaix for example: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/josiemer-mattei/publications/


text:
Composition of academic faculty over time: Fixed-term/freelancer vs regular/tenured
A friend of mine, who's still in academia but not in academia-studies, asked me for help in understanding the prevalence of non-regular employment of faculty in universities over time. It's been a decade since my union days, and even back then I was mostly concerned with local affairs, i.e. Israeli universities. What we're after is a chart, or a table, of the fraction of (senior) faculty members in universities, over time, who are employed precariously: Fixed-term contracts, adjuncts, inferior/secondary tracks, and other such non-regular employment. I need data for one of the following region of the world: The entire world; the US; the EU; Europe (i.e. regardless of EU membership).
The definition of what constitutes precarious employment is not that critical, since I care about the trend. It just has to be explicit and consistent over the course of time, so that I'm comparing apples with apples, sort of.

An older comprehensive report from Boston University (2010) has this chart about the US:

as part of an Appendix of charts and stats.
In 2015, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) published this chart:

But I encourage you all to post an answer with more recent data!

The AAUP's annual reports include information on the long-term increase in the percentage of faculty that are not in tenure/tenure-track positions.  See the most recent report: https://www.aaup.org/report/annual-report-economic-status-profession-2020-21

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


text:
Contact information on CV and cover letter for US mathematics postdoc applicants
I am in the process of preparing various applications for postdoctoral positions in the US, and I need advice on what is the appropriate way to include contact information on my cover letters and CVs.
Presently, I am an international student studying in Australia. I foresee completing my PhD program (including conferral of the degree) by the end of Jan. 2017. Most of my applications will be lodged through the MathJobs system by early Dec. 2016. My Visa expires at the end of Feb. 2017, and I'm not sure if I can get a visa extension. Meanwhile, my current lease agreement terminates mid-Jan 2016. As you can see, there is a fair amount of uncertainty about my situation next year.
I have always thought that the purpose of writing addresses on any document is not primarily based on the desired affiliation with an institution but so that the recipient of the letter knows whom to reply to. However, and I might be wrong in this, it seems to me that putting your home address in your cover letter and/or CV, as opposed to your current departmental address, is deemed unprofessional. Bear in mind, though, that upon submission of my thesis, I am effectively no longer a student at the university, and hence, I think it somewhat dishonest to use the Maths department address for my mail. By the way, I expect to submit my thesis around mid-October.
So my first question is: Is it considered unprofessional to put my home address as opposed to my institution address on my CVs and cover letters?
My second question is: In light of my situation and the answer to the first question, what is the best way to address my cover letters and CVs?
I understand that I can update my application materials through MathJobs. Thus far, my plan is to use institution addresses (with a c/o Secretary of the Mathematics Department) throughout and then update forwarding addresses through MathJobs as things become more certain. What do you think?

Some people here can answer with more authority, but in my understanding, the committees will not need a physical address until quite late in the process (for sending you stuff like a contract), and by then, you are in direct contact with them and can tell them where to send it.

@TobiasKildetoft People still send contracts by physical mail?

@JeffE No idea actually, it was just the only thing I could think of where they might need a physical address.

You can put your affiliation with university, and if there is postal address you can add that for post. In my opinion address doesnt matter, the grades and proposal matters.

Don't list mailing addresses in your CV or cover letter.  Since you're applying through MathJobs, you'll put an address in the AMS Cover Sheet in Mathjobs (and for other jobs, you can print off an AMS cover sheet).  Note that there is a separate line for institutional affiliation, so this is not the purpose the address serves here.
The cover sheet (interestingly) doesn't specify whether they want a home or office address; my sense is most people put their home address, but looking at a few examples, I see there are plenty of people doing either one.  Out of curiosity, I checked, and everyone my department made a postdoc offer to last year listed their home address in MathJobs (I assume from looking at the addresses). I don't think it matters much, but I would only put an address where you will actually receive mail sent there in a timely fashion, though it is true that with very high probability, all communications with you will be via email, Skype, phone, etc.


text:
What's useful/important to put in a contract for a research-oriented industry position (in the US)?
I'm (probably) going back from Academia to Industry after a post-doc. Unlike last time, where I signed a company-standard contract which did not have room for much maneuvering, this time it's a small company with no template and will be their first academically-oriented hire.
I'm not asking so much about the employment conditions aspect of the contract, or about expatriation (in fact, I've asked a separate question about that on expats.SX) - but rather about the nature of the position in terms of doing research, publication / release of code, and other related issues.
What issues, or aspects of the relationship, do you believe it is:

useful
feasible
common/not-unheard-of

to put into such a contract? (I'm asking about the disjunction, not the conjunction, of the above)
Note: I'm in applied Computer Science. You can make your answer more specific to this field or more general.

To clarify, you're writing your own contract?

@astronat: Me and the guy in charge of recruiting me are writing a draft together. It has to get past their lawyer, but, essentially, yes. Of course if I write that they have to pay me.... ONE MIIIIILION DOLLARS... it might not fly.


text:
Why would I want to register with ORCID?
I've noticed that in the ACM article document class you can now list authors' "ORCID" registration key.
I've not heard anyone mention that to me before. They Orcid website says:

ORCID provides an identifier for individuals to use with their name as they engage in research, scholarship, and innovation activities. We provide open tools that enable transparent and trustworthy connections between researchers, their contributions, and affiliations. We provide this service to help people find information and to simplify reporting and analysis.

Whenever someone tells me they want to "enable trust" or that they're "trustworthy" I get suspicious...
So, is this about disambiguating researchers with the same first and last name without relying on their affiliation? Or is there something else to ORCID?
More specifically - if my name is rare and I don't expect there to be another academic with this same name in the foreseeable future - are there benefits for me in registering?

ORCID registration is a prerequisite to publication with some publishers. (So, a "benefit" is being able to publish with them...)

The main benefit is to be able to update your information (website, affiliation, work experience, address, etc.) in one place instead of on dozen (for Computer Science, dblp, arXiv, dissem.in, etc., etc.). Many platforms will offer to pull your information from ORCID instead of asking you to fill (and update) everything by hand.

There's several other ORCID questions on the site already; e.g. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/56235/how-does-orcid-work?rq=1 https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45165/does-orcid-matter-for-a-person-who-would-like-to-work-in-academia?s=7|39.2624  https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4791/why-use-unique-digital-researcher-id?s=17|19.5343  Maybe you would like to take a look at them, and explain what parts of your question are still not answered?

@Clément: Obligatory xkcd.

@einpoklum No, the situation is not like that. The institutions / platforms I refered to previously have no interest whatsoever in developing a "standard" to link information to the profile of a researcher.

Possible duplicate of Why using ORCID iDs instead of DOIs to identify researchers?

@tjiagoM: Actually, that's really n ot what I asked, but it is true that the combination of all answers about ORCID on Academia.SX sort-of answers my question.

Why not? We have Scopus, Google Scholar, Researcherid, ... One more would not hurt.

I have recently found out that you can side-step the horrible registration process in each of the monstrous submission systems for each of the journals you either submit to or review in. Yes, more and more of them accept orcid for your login data now.

The advantages are:

Unique identifiability (as you noted, not everybody needs this).
Stability: There may be some other researcher with your name in ten year from now. Or you might change your name due to whatever reasons.
It's handy: Many editorial system allow you to log-in by just clicking "log in with ORCID". Some years ago I had zillions of log-in for different systems, often conflicting and I ended up requesting passwords frequently, delaying the submission of reviews. Now I use ORCID for everything and the problem is basically gone (sometimes I get invitations to review for journals I did not use before and they give a new log-in but I insist that they use my ORCID, and this works). For example several sites with the url editorialmanager.com allow you to sign in via ORCID. If you do so you do not a new log in and on top of that all your affiliation is already filled in after log in.
Your university library may be happy: When you use ORCID it is pretty easy for them to see how you publish with different journals/publishers and this may give them useful data for negotiations with publishers. You may have heard of the "Project Deal" where Germany is fighting with some publishers and it turned out that the data about the publications habits of German scholars is helpful in the negotiations (at least this is what our librarian told us).

Actually, I don't know of any competing standard and I do not see any downside in using ORCID. The organization behind ORCID is non-profit. I view ORCID as trustworthy and helpful as the arXiv (in case this means anything to somebody…).

Well, I guess it sees more use in some disciplines than others, since nobody has ever asked me for my ORCID, even as an option, or suggested I search by ORCID. But +1.

I think many (all?) Journals managed with scholarone allow orcids.

One downside is having yet another account to manage.

@user2768 Well, somehow, but it actually replaces a lot of other accounts, so this is not really a downside.

@Dirk it might eventually replace other accounts, but I don't think it has yet.

It has already (see my answer).

@Dirk: I've never published anything in ScholarOne nor even encountered publications having to do with it.

further potential downside: while they seem to have some privacy setting (I wasn't aware of this while signing up by myself), their entire "public" data can be conveniently downloaded from their ftp server. This contains nicely machine-readable data, including emails, and personal career information (inferable employment status...), which could be combined with other data about you,...

I would add that even if your name is unique, ORCID can help mitigate problems with misspelling or encoding errors (e.g. some databases strip non-ASCII characters). It also mitigates problems with nicknames and name changes.

@tsttst Individuals have complete control of all the data within an ORCID record.  If they wish for information to be private (and therefore not in the public data dump) then it stays private.  User data control is a fundamental feature of ORCID.

ORCID is now mandatory in order to publish in some journals.
Reference: https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/orcid

The usage of ORCID identifiers (a unique and persistent identifier of the researchers and contributors) will "increase author's visibility and interoperability between a wide range of information services", but also will help to distinguish yourself!

"Will increase etc." - 1. I doubt it. 2. How?

@einpoklum  A unique identifier (as opposed to, say, "Bob Brown") clearly enhances interoperability through disambiguation.  I suspect that enhancing interoperability among information services will also increase the visibility of participants.


text:
Term for a document between an article and a monograph?
I'm looking for a term for describing this writeup of mine which is too long and detailed to constitute a paper, but seems to short to merit being called a monograph. Is there such a term?

@Nat: Over 50 A4 pages, but with generous spacing and many diagrams. I thought about English.SE, but they'd probably say it's too domain-specific.

Is it published?

@henning: No... that might be another question (where can I even try to publish something like that).

The word report comes to mind. To some the phrase might suggest the document is part of a formal report series, but the term is also frequently used for documents that are not part of a series.

But I'm not reporting to anyone.

A 50-page unpublished manuscript is just that: a manuscript. As far as I know, most disciplines don't have a publication format corresponding to this length, although even 100-page articles are not unheard of in some law journals. The exception are generic formats called reports or working papers.
Reports, as mentioned, are the most generic format, and they would accommodate a 50 page manuscript. (Technical) reports are distributed by their author's institution rather than published by a publisher. For example, they may be uploaded to some institutional repository, distributed to a number of libraries, or made available on request. Their content is often less polished, and more tentative or ephemeral than a journal article or monograph. They may go through some vetting, but usually no peer review.
Working papers are similar in all these respects, but they are part of a series that is supposed to be somewhat permanent. Some working paper series prescribe a page limit, some have more elaborate vetting, 'in-house peer review', as it were. I'm not sure, but my impression is that working papers are more of a thing outside STEM than within.
Both of these formats are considered 'grey' literature (although some working paper series might even have an ISSN), and it is understood that they represent work in progress that may become part of a journal article (or several) or of a monograph.


text:
Why do some journals want figures at the end?
This is one question that probably has an archaic answer.  I recently reviewed a paper for a journal that stuck all the figures at the end (with placeholders in-text).  Where I publish, we typically provide camera-ready manuscripts or at least give reviewers a version with the figures embedded so that they can see what the heck is going on.  Occasionally, you embed the figures plus they are attached separately at the end (due to how the system generates the PDF).  However, I recognize that dumping the figures at the end of a journal submission for review is quite common in some fields.
My simple question: Why?
I assume that at some point, there was a purpose to putting figures at the end rather than where they belong.  I am also aware that it is quite common for journals to shuffle around your figure positions.  But why would journals possibly want their copy to have all the figures dumped at the end?  Obviously it is not for the reviewers' benefit, as it makes certain papers nigh-unreadable ("As you can see in Figure 1" - opens up second copy of the PDF so I can see Fig 1 at the same time as the text).  Anyone know the reasoning behind this?

It's a pain in the back both for authors and for referees and I guess also for production guys.I hate to referee those papers. It shows how slow some journals are at adjusting to progress.

The open-2nd-copy-of-PDF doesn't seem like such a huge hassle. Many times a figure is referenced on more than one page (esp. a large chart), and personally I find it a bit irritating like that anyway (breaking up the text into tiny slices on a page where I can't see the right figure).

There is a long tradition of submitting text and figures separated. this stems back to when manuscripts were typewritten and figures were drawn by ink. Many journals have kept this format and now the reason to keep figures separate is to facilitate the typesetting/layout. In addition, many electronic submission systems assemble manuscripts by merging text files with graphics files. The reason for having separate graphics files is that the typesetting processing inserts figures during the process. Not all journals take camera-ready manuscripts (in fact none in my field).
As a reviewer, and if you review from a printout, it may also be advantageous to have figures separately since it is easier to look at them in parallel with reading the text. If you review on screen, it will of course not be an advantage.
There is actually no need to format a manuscript this way as long as figures and text are delivered separately in the end if that is what the journal requires for their typesetting. Always follow any instructions provided by the journal!

As a person submitting a paper, I'd probably find it at least as easy (I tend to use LaTex, unless otherwise required, and can just set a flag to suppress all my in-text figures).  But as a reviewer who doesn't print out paper copies, it was a real scrolling hassle.

Yes, there is no need to format papers this way but the format lives on. I have seen new online-only, LaTeX-based journals take up the format as their default for manuscripts. I can only guess because there are enough people reviewing from paper copies.

I agree w @Namey

If the papers were easier to read with figures and tables at the end they would publish them like that. That is to say, they are a pain to referee, especially when they are double spaced 50 pages manuscripts.

For the TeXies: endfloat :)

You are correct that this has to do with pre-online publishing practices. In "the old days," most images had to be made "camera-ready," and were to be shrunk down to the required size. Consequently, the figures should be on a separate page at the end of the paper, so that different images didn't "stray" into the area that was to be photographed for another figure.
In spite of this, there has been no real need for the journals to change this practice, and thus it persists to the present day in a number of journals.

Because some journals have some specific formats where it becomes difficult for the author to place the figures properly. In my experience, I sometimes spent more time in adjusting those figures than writing the paper. Even after such effort, there is not guarantee that the manuscript would be accepted to that journal. So instead of wasting time and effort, authors simply place the figures at the end of the paper. I would suggest you to save 2 copies of the manuscript and place them in 2 windows. Now refer to the figures simultaneously as you read.


text:
Can post graduate students be forbidden to work in the institution they are studying?
I have seen some graduate (PhD and Masters) students in Turkey, Nigeria, Malaysia etc that can not work in the university they study. In fact I am one of them as I am about to finish Msc mathematics and computer science in Turkey and planning to start PhD in USA. My question is, is it a policy of most universities in the world that post graduate students can not work in the institution they are studying and earn their living? Even to work as graduate assistant perhaps.

See also http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/8618/4394

No.
In North America, at least in science and engineering, PhD students are generally expected to work for their host universities as either teaching assistants or research assistants, except for the relative few who win full-ride fellowships.  This expectation is strong enough that it is considered foolish to accept an offer of admission to any PhD program without a simultaneous offer of a fellowship or assistantship.  Sometimes these assistantships are also available to Master's students.

+1 same here in the Netherlands. Although in the exact sciences almost all PhD's get paid a normal salary, but are expected to help out as TA's a certain amount of their time (10-20%).

Of course for those who are on full-ride fellowships, sometimes taking the fellowship includes accepting a restriction not to take other employment. This is often an across-the-board provision, but would be most obvious if you tried to get a job with the instruction imposing that restriction.

Degree programs need to produce a whole lot more graduates than instructors in order for the programs to be economically viable. Student to staff numbers of around 15-1 are not uncommon. If the average staff member works for 30 years, this then becomes 450-1. In other words, for every 450 students that graduate one position becomes available. Even in the "best" situation of a 5-1 student to graduate assistant ratio and a 2 year average "career", you are talking about 10%.

I don't see how this answers the question.

@JeffE I interpreted the question as "after you finish your degree why aren't you guaranteed a job in your former department". Maybe I got it wrong.

+1 for shedding pragmatic light.  Of course, the quality of your work has something to do with it too.

I get it now. So with all these answers, it means I can work as a PhD student and thereby gaining experience plus salary in most universities in USA, though I have not chosen the university to study yet. Thanks.


text:
Passive voice vs. using "I" in a sole-author paper
I am a fan of using "we" in co-authored papers in order to avoid using passive voice. However, I tend to see passive voice, rather than active voice with "I," in single-author papers. Furthermore, I have read numerous suggestions to avoid using the first-person "I" in a research paper.
Isn't it appropriate to use "I" and active voice?

Thanks @ff524. I still think this question can stand alone because it is specifically addressing single-author papers, whereas the other question doesn't address this directly at all, either in the question or responses.

OK, I changed the duplicate to one asking specifically about single-author papers. Note that the question doesn't specifically ask about third person vs first person, but the answers (particularly the one by Henry) address this.

(Also see: Using first person or third person in papers?)


text:
Do computer science lab sections still have value for flipped courses?
Many computer science courses consist of conventional lecture sections and lab sections. Typically, the lectures are "passive learning" experiences, and lab sections are where students actively solve problems.
Consider a flipped model, where, put simply, students experience lectures outside of class and solve problems during the "normal" lecture meetings. If students are actively solving problems during these sessions, what is the point of maintaining the typical lab section?

Wait, isn't that just renaming the "lab section" as "lecture"?

@John Do you mean renaming the "lecture" as "lab"? Perhaps, but I believe it goes deeper than this.

This kind of question would fit nicely at https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/92460/computer-science-educators (it's still in private beta, so you have to click "visit" from that page)

I assume that if there are lab sessions smaller than the normal lecture sessions then they still might have value, depending on what sorts of physical facilities you have.
One reason for the traditional labs is that students work in smaller groups. This gives them the opportunity for more individualized guidance than can occur in a huge lecture hall.
One advantage of the flipped classroom is that it enables small team and paired work under the view of an instructor. But labs can do this also. In such an environment students can answer a lot of their own questions themselves and don't get stuck waiting for assistance from a too busy instructor.
If you have appropriate facilities and lots of TAs to help with the flipped environment then you might be able to do without also using separate labs. But you probably want to organize it similarly to labs where a TA has an opportunity to know a small set of students and students "know" their TA. Otherwise separate labs seem to have little value.
You probably wouldn't find any advantage if you try to handle a large group on your own without providing smaller (i.e. lab) sessions).

Ah, the size aspect is important to consider.


text:
Isn't the "indirect cost" taken by a university from grant awards a bad deal?
As a young researcher, I find it disheartening to find how much of a cut of total grant awards are taken by a university. Sure, there are overhead costs, but 40 - 60%? Come on. This seems like a terrible deal. Especially in some fields, such as software research, where faculty do all the work, rely very little on physical infrastructure, power, depreciation costs of facilities and equipment, administrative costs, etc, it makes such little sense to me. Why on earth would a modern researcher obtain grants and give up half to an aging academic institution rather than working within the realm of industry-led research?

What makes you think there are not indirect costs in industry-led research?

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29384/why-are-grant-indirect-costs-so-high?rq=1

Vote to close as "opinion-based". This reads more like a rant than an actual question.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29384/why-are-grant-indirect-costs-so-high?rq=1

Possible duplicate of Why are grant indirect costs so high?

I found the dup and also voted to close this.

Bear in mind that indirect costs are calculated as a percentage of requested funding, not as a slice of requested funding. If my overhead rate is 52% and I ask for $100,000, then the total grant request is $152,000 and the percentage of money that goes to overhead is roughly 33%, not 52%. In exchange the university provides me a compliance office, a legal office, a press office, etc. on top of office space, lab space, HR staff, administrative assistants, maintenance staff, janitorial staff, and so forth. You'd be hard pressed to provide all those services for 33% of your net on your own.

Regardless of whether they're egregious or not, indirect costs should be invisible to you. It's a negotiated rate, and if you ask for 100k for your use, you'll get 100k for your use, it'll just cost the taxpayers more.

1) All organizations--including private companies--have indirect costs which need to be added to grant budgets. Like universities, private companies negotiate indirect cost rates with the government which apply to any contracts or grants awarded. The rates can be comparable to university rates, and at some types of institutions (nonprofits) they can be significantly higher! (This Nature blog post dedicated to indirect costs has a nifty graphic of the range of rates across institution types.)
2) If you are working in a private company, you might think you would be relieved of the burden of grantwriting altogether. However, then you need to convince the people above you in the company that the research/development project you want to pursue is the one that is in the best interest of the company. This might be more difficult than you are anticipating.

Even for internally financed development projects, there is an overhead that has to be added to the direct costs. One way I have seen it done is to use a "fully burdened cost" of a developer, which is much higher than the developer's salary.

A "bad deal" for who?

I find it disheartening to find how much of a cut of total grant
  awards are taken by a university.

Note that for many grant mechanisms, and indeed probably the largest single grant agency (the NIH), overhead is not "a cut of the total grant award" but is added on to the total cost of the grant. If the overhead rate was lower, the amount you'd get for your lab would not be larger.

Sure, there are overhead costs, but 40 - 60%? Come on. This seems like
  a terrible deal. Especially in some fields, such as software research,
  where faculty do all the work, rely very little on physical
  infrastructure, power, depreciation costs of facilities and equipment,
  administrative costs, etc, it makes such little sense to me.

Our institution has an overhead rate in the middle-high end of that range, and having looked at it, that rate doesn't actually cover the cost of administering research. I'm also skeptical of your claim that you use little in the way of overhead - I'm in a very similar field, and I derive a great deal of value from the overhead rates I pay. Additionally, overhead goes to things like startup packages, which are consumed in large chunks at a single time, but largely invisible to you.
Further, overhead rates tend to be institution wide, which means that it has to cover the average cost of research - for every cheap software researcher, there's also someone who has to maintain a cattle herd for their research, and a single overhead rate needs to cover both of those.

Why on earth would a modern researcher obtain grants and give up half
  to an aging academic institution rather than working within the realm
  of industry-led research?

Why would you think this is true? Industry has an overhead rate as well - they're just allowed to roll it into the total costs of their research contracts, rather than being forced to keep it as a separate entry. Or are you under the impression that industrial research doesn't have to pay for electricity and internet and offices and administrative support?