text:
Which is easier-publication in an online free of charge journal or the standart pay-per-view one?
I know this question may be seen as off-topic here or too trivial but nonetheless I would really like to know the answer. I am in an unique position-unlike most researchers I practically don't care about the impact factor I just want to get my work publish as easy as possible and available for as many people as possible but want it to go through the peer-review process. So what will be better, to go through the "standard"(pay-per-view journals)or the online free of charge(for both parties)ones?
If impact factor isn't the key which is better(and/or faster)-going through the big publishing houses who have a "well-oiled machine" and can handle my request with routine and speed or risking in the online-only free-of-charge community?
I know may be I will have problems for that but I think nevertheless I need to tell it. My topic is something quite out of "the mainstream" but I have been working on it for years and I have diverted a lot of from what is "standard" for this community so I am pretty much a lonely wolf and expect enormous troubles going through the peer-review(radical ideas). So what will be easy for me-the pay-per-view or free-of-charge online journals? Can you reflect on that?

This is sort of an XY problem.  The business model of the journal should not be your main concern when selecting a journal.  In your case, you want to make your work widely available and peer reviewed; those are separate goals that can be reached separate ways.  Also your question is a mess.

Not sure about easiness but the open pub might well be quicker.

What else do you want me to tell you? I tried asking my full question-about the ideas I have, the problems I am working on, the results I got, the impact I expect them to have, but even the least I could tell was "wiped out" by the administration who told me I "shopping" something. I have big problems concerning both my work and how to present it but I don't want to brake any rules here by telling you all I am working on and the problems I expect. I don't know how specific can I get on this site? Any advice?

From your question I deduce that you would like to reach maximal impact (within the target audience). So you want your article to be easily accessible, but at the same time be conveyed through a medium that reinforces trust (hence the interest in peer review) and impact.
The former can be reached by making sure that your ideas are accessible without any (substantial) barrier. You might reach this by submitting a pre-print version to an open online venue, such as arXiv (provided that this does not conflict with the requirements of e.g. a prospective journal).
Then there is the impact aspect. Being published in a respected scientific journal may help to get serious attention from the scientific community, but also adds lead time and the chance of being rejected in the peer review process. Many publishers of top-tier journals also offer open access for an additional fee. You might draw even more attention if you send out a press release after you have been published.

Nope, it is actually quite the opposite-I worked on the edge for a long long time-away from anything and anyone in science(actually this is not true because I had connections to colleagues scientists and philosophers in my home university and I got advice from a few renowned scientists internationally, but the point is my ideas weren't excepted anywhere-I just asked for their opinion and they gave me literature do I didn't have to spend money to get their works but it isn't like I collaborated with them or they with me). But back then I really didn't care as my work was incomplete and I felt l

it needed more time and effort. I walked out both from the scientific community and from academic jobs in every way and worked jobs having nothing to do with science or my education. However, I kept on working in my free time and continued "filling" what I perceived were "gaps" in my university research so I can extend it to the point where I can propose experimenatably verifiable results suited for a project. When I started I had great problems deriving such experimentally verifiable results and science is driven by experiments, so a simple explanationary science wasn't viewed by people in my

university as something worth funding. I needed to derive more results I could publish and on their base propose some research project I can verify. At the beginning when I left the university I had a nice starting point but virtually no good research I could propose to make the case my paradigm is correct-the only thing I could do was to explain results derived by others and touch on questions already well established in my community(my community is virology and the question I am talking about is "Does virus evolution has its limits, how they are determined and does evolution makes them alive

But my peers told me Are viruses alive isn't a question of biology, but of philosophy so they sent me to the philosophy department and told me there wasn't any interest in research about the limits of the capability of a virus to evolve that time. I however didn't backed down or changed my research interests(I had the option but I left it)because I just saw the ability to "crack" the question if I managed to work a better theory of what Life is and how it evolves. I just knew viruses are ideal for such research because if there is something we can test evolution on, it is virus. This is how it

started but not what it became out of it. The more I delved deeper and deeper on the relationship between philosophy and biology and on the impact of the definition of Life throughout the Life sciences the more I understood it wasn't about viruses any more. Their evolution was just a part of something bigger-a pattern repeating itself throughout Life and not only it-the "evolution" of technology, of social systems like the free market, social movements, political parties, even empires I saw in the same way-an increase in either complexity or diversity ruled by their ability to choose to sp

ecialize or complexify. I had to study many things I initially didn't intended to and the more I studied the more I saw the same pattern driven by the same reason-a self-sustaining process-one who doesn't require any external causation and can extrapolate itself merely without a limit in time and space. This wasn't what I intended to discover when I began but that "science of complexity" just fascinated me and I delved ever deeper and deeper in things  far beyond my education. I kept my contacts with people in different departments and they advised me to proceed and see how far can I g

I had access to literature, but not grant money. But I didn't mannered I just wanted to see how far the pattern goes. It goes really far far away! So far it returns back to biology-when you understand how do these self-sustaining processes interact with each other you can virtuall define Life and prescribe course for evolution(not predict it but prescribe-there is HUGE difference between these twos-the latter means knowing what options the thing that evolves has, not to predict what it evolves into-this isn't some "magic", just some probability constraints).

In some bizarre twist of faith I ended up where I started to and now am completely capable of achieving at least some of the initial goals of my research-I manage to prescribe the significance of the viruses to the evolution of Life(pay attention to the word prescribe here-I already defined it),I managed to see what their relationship to the definition of Life is, hell, I even got a new definition for a virus and in the process feel like inventing a new science :) But this isn't what I am talking about here. It is the way to present it-I am thinking it is time to finish what I started long

time ago and to "explore my options" but I have diverted so far away from where I started, filled my dictionary with so many concepts virologists don't understand and gone to such lengths it isn't even possible now to communicate them what I have discovered, And this even isn't the problem-this "thing" for a lack of a better word I have developed is HUGE-really huge. The notion of self-sustaining process goes right through the sciences and the more I delve into it the more examples I find.

I have tried explaining problems in physics, chemistry, economics, social science, even political science with it, not just biology. Really think about it-if you have some sort of "looking glass" into evolution on how many places you can see it? And if your "looking glass" can work what can you do with it? I now feel like it IS the time to show it to the community and see what happens. But there come the question-how. Can you understand me? Where to start-what is to be my FIRST step?

I recently also was able to uncover different relationship between the self-sustaining processes I have developed and entropy-I believe it is experimentally verifiable. So I am slowly starting to "go back down" into "the real world" and I can produce experimentally verifiable rpredictions. Does this means this is a new science? Does it means I managed to make a new theory of complexity? May be a new science altogether? If so, where to present it? What should be the first journal to receive the very first paper showing what a self0sustaining process is and how does it works?

I don't want to start big-just one paper, one explanation, one prediction for now, only to present what a self-sustaining process is and how their interactions work to generate complexity. This is why I don't care too much about the impact factor but want easy access-so a lot of people can see the very first time this process is used to explain anything. later, I already have enough material to start spreading the notion. As I told you-it is huge-I can apply it to many problems in many sciences-complex reaction networks in chemistry, entropy in physics, the free market, social movements, polit

It isn't biology only any more, let alone virology. I just need that first "stepping stone" to begun-that first connection back to the community to get "back in the game". I worked in solitude for so much time I now feel I have lost my "grasp" on the community. Working alone can be both very productive and very tiresome activity. I am tired of being alone now. I have come back to where I started, I walked a long long way alone and I now want to present what I believe may be a breakthrough. This is why I tell myself-only one paper, Yordan. Just one for now! To get started!

Then it will be many more-I have accumulated the research for it. I just need to go back to the community now and see what happens. As I expect the papers that follow it to go far beyond the scope of the first one and as I believe it really wouldn't matter in the long run what the first paper is, so I don't want to concentrate on the impact factor, but rather on the accessibility. I need something anybody can look, even laymen, something to get it started, to explain the basics and be online for everybody to see but be peer reviewed.

Then, I will go into the details and start deploying the full potential of what I uncovered. I just must start it by now. I just can't keep up with my work any more-the places I see self-sustain processes and their interactions are growing all the time-now I think basically everywhere you can get more diverse behavior out of a system than the one you started with, there is a self-sustaining process involved. I need to know will the community accept my ideas of self-sustaining processes or reject them.

I can't work all alone any more-the continuation of the pursuit where the applicability of the self-sustaining process ends isn't possible for me any more. There are simple too much of them and they go everywhere! I can't see the end of this research, what is more important-I can't know everything. I have been reading all I can get my hands on about theoretical biology for about 10 years. I have been working on the idea of the self-sustaining process for about 6 years. But the amount of books, articles or really entire sciences I think I need to read is only exponentially increasin

The more I know about where self-sustaining processes are, the more it seems to be known about them. I just can't physically keep up with that research-I think it has gone too far. Even when I spend all days only reading articles that can pertain to fields where self-sustaining processes can be found, I feel like I am only scratching the surface here. It is just enormous-I feel like even if I do it all my life I will not be able to only read what is now available as potential fields where self-sustaining processes can be found, let alone make a proper analysis of them, write pape

and deal with the pressure of publishing them. It is just TOO MUCH both mentally and emotionally(and now I feel also physically)to even read everything pertaining to self-sustaining processes, let alone publish it. I just want this burden out of my shoulders and let it see how far in science it can go. This is why I just want a nice quiet little place to publish my very first paper showing what is a self-sustaining process, how it can start other self-sustaining process, how they interact with each other and how they can help us understand the world around us. I don't particularly

care about the impact factor of this paper or of the journal in which it will be published. I just need to go OUT of working alone now and "drop" the notion to anyone who can use it. Let then, see what happens. I have already managed to finish what I set on many years ago(actually I believe they were like 5 or 6 years ago but it feel heavy now-it feels like it was an eternity ago, as thou I have lived centuries, not years)-my virology research is over, I managed to define Life and uncover a potential Grand Theory of Life. All my initial goals are done.

I just now need to get it over with-once and for ALL! Sorry, if it got too personal but I really needed to get this thing out of myself. If I am at the wrong place here-feel free to delete both my comments and question.

You seem to be conflating two things, namely whether a journal is online and whether it is open access.  I'll focus on the open access part of the question, since whether there's a print edition is basically irrelevant nowadays.

So what will be better, to go through the "standard" (pay-per-view paper journals) or the online free of charge ones?

"Better" is not well defined, but in this case the situation is simple enough that the question can be answered: neither one is better, outside of a couple of specific factors.
Open access journals have one advantage, that anyone can easily read the official published paper, and one possible disadvantage, that there might be publication charges.  Other than that, there is no significant difference between open access and traditional journals, at least among respectable journals.  There are tremendous differences between specific journals (in prestige, rigor of the review process, speed of publication, etc.), but these things simply can't be predicted on the basis of whether the journal is open access.
I said "among respectable journals" in the previous paragraph for a reason.  There are tons of obscure, predatory open access journals that will publish anything for a fee.  (They often claim to perform peer review, but it's clear from the garbage they publish that the review process is meaningless.  This problem is restricted to open access journals, because you can't make money selling subscriptions to a journal nobody wants to read.)  You should absolutely avoid predatory journals, since they will actively hurt your paper's reputation.

If impact factor isn't the key which is better(and faster)-going through the big publishing houses who have a "well-oiled machine" and can handle my request with routine and speed or risking in the online-only community?

You are oversimplifying things by supposing that big publishers have a well-oiled machine.  Some do and some don't, and the same holds for small publishers.  Furthermore, some open access journals are published by big publishers, and some subscription journals are published by small publishers.

My topic is something quite radical I have been working on it for years now and I have diverted a lot of what is "standard" for this community so I am pretty much a lonely wolf and expect enormous troubles going through the peer-review(radical ideas). So what will be easy for me-the paper or the online journals?

If the difficulty is with peer review, then you can't expect an easy time with any journal worth publishing in (i.e., a non-predatory journal).

Correctly criticizing the question isn't an answer.

@AnonymousPhysicist I read this answer as trying to extract answerable questions, and answering those.

I think I've given an answer to the question as written (namely, that neither one is better except in the ways I've indicated).  I'll edit to clarify.


text:
Dead author ethical guidelines
One of my close collaborators passed away last year and since then I have become curious about the question of attributing work to deceased authors. Each journal has its rules but there doesn't seem to be any consensus what the ethical ground of these decisions is. Recently a different collaborator of mine published a paper with a co-author who passed away 3-4 years ago, which struck me as strange.
On the one hand, work should always be attributed. If someone contributed ideas, funding, manual labor, or wrote the manuscript, they should be mentioned somehow. On the other hand, most journals ask to confirm that all authors have seen the final version of the paper.
Of course, in reality contributors are often over- or underrepresented. For instance, should someone who edited the manuscript be a co-author or appear in an acknowledgement? Does it depend on whether their edits change the content of the paper or just the presentation? On the other hand, if a deceased author contributed the main ideas of a paper but was not around to edit the manuscript, who can decide whether they would not object to the content of the paper?
As there are different reasons for citing a deceased collaborator, I think there are (at least) two questions here: (1) what should an honest person do to honor their collaborators, without adding to their name papers they may have disagreed with; (2) what should a dishonest person be prevented from doing in terms of citing deceased collaborators as a form of name dropping (even if there is some justification for adding them).

Welcome to Academia.SE. Thank you for writing out your question clearly. A question should only contain one thing that wants answering (for multi-part questions, separate questions should be used). However, I'm not sure whether that applies to the two parts of this question. It would probably help though if you could pin down one single point you want answered (note that this site is not for open discussion).

The term "scientific legacy" is used by professional archives to talk about the documents, personal letters and in general about the contributions of dead authors. If the author was important, a major archive will buy the legacy and it will take decades until all the material is sighted. On base of the raw materials, librarians will catalog and evaluate the work for future generations. In most cases a "scientific legacy" not only contains the professional work, but also biographical details and the motivation behind it.

A related question is How to acknowledge a deceased advisor’s contributions to a paper?. It does, however, not address the ethics of assuming the deceased consents to be listed as an author. That's an interesting question for sure.

@Anyon I am aware of that post, I was trying to complicate things by introducing issues and considerations that seemed to be absent from it (the post).

(My personal take on this matter - which is only based on intuition/opinion rather than experience):
When you're about to publish such a paper, ask yourself: "How certain am I that the deceased would have put their name on the paper?"

If the answer is "certain", go ahead and name them a co-author. But - explain that the attribution is posthumous, both in a footnote from the person's name (the same kind of footnote used for affiliation) and in one of the opening lines (perhaps a note as the first line.)
If the answer is "not certain", but the deceased's contribution was significant, don't make them a coauthor, but devote a few sentences to emphasize the significance of their contribution or their involvement, and clarify that the work had progressed or diverged beyond what you had worked on with the deceased (or some such explanation).
If the answer is "would probably not", and the deceased's contribution was not significant enough for co-authorship, then you just mention them in a thank-you note somewhere in the paper, same as if they were alive.

As for "preventing dishonesty" - if you're an editor or non-blind reviewer, and notice the name of a deceased person on a paper, without an explanation of the deceased's contribution within the paper - reach out and ask the corresponding author for a side-note (outside the paper) explaining the deceased's involvement with the submitted work.

I think it would help if journals asked that the authors state which version of the paper the deceased co-author saw. For instance, did they see a first draft? Did they see the submitted version? Given that the authors are all supposed to agree on the content of the submitted paper, it makes sense to indicate whether they saw this version, or a much earlier version. Maybe they didn't even see a first draft. Unfortunately this is not the case. In the past I have been asked to state this by a family member of the deceased author, to make sure that readers know they did not see the final version.

This answer addresses co-authors, not journals. For journals I'd write a different answer.

I don't see any dilemma here. If a person would be a co-author if alive, then they should still be a co-author if they die before submission. But if they contributed less and so wouldn't be a co-author if alive, then it may be appropriate to acknowledge their contribution in an appropriate section or footnote.
Even if I disagree with your conclusions in a paper, it may be appropriate to ack me, even if you don't mention the disagreement. But that is a judgement call you need to make.
I don't have a general solution for the last part of your question (name-dropping). I worry that it might require an investigation into the provenance of a paper that we seldom do as a matter of course. But it would be pretty obvious in some cases. I could try to publish a paper with Paul Erdős, for example, but it would be immediately recognized as a scam.

One case where it gets problematic is if the collaborator would have been unhappy with the (final version of the) resulting paper, had they still been alive. Perhaps they would've wanted their name taken off, or been against publication altogether. It's a hypothetical, and I'm sure most do their best to honor their colleague, but it probably happens from time to time.

I don't think we are in conflict here @Anyon. If I don't agree with you in life, you won't put me on as an author. Same if I should die. But if I helped you understand the issues, etc, and so contributed, then an ack might (or not) be appropriate in either case.

It's interesting you should give Erdős as an example, because although he left in 1996, people have continued to publish with him, typically because they solved a conjecture which he posed.  MathSciNet has him as author on several dozen papers published after 1996.  The most recent was in 2015 (here, see #A51) and it certainly isn't a "scam".

@Buffy Well, we aren't. I was just trying to point out where the dilemma might arise. I think my scenario is more likely to arise in experimental fields though, where one lead author might be tasked with drafting the paper, and collaborators might be specialists in different techniques, often at different institutions. The point is that it's not always self-evident if all collaborators agree or not, at least until feedback is given on the draft. Of course the difficulty would grow with the size of the collaboration as well.

It's only one example, but when the above mentioned collaborator of mine passed away, I was told by their spouse specifically not to add them as a co-author on anything they hadn't read.

@NateEldredge, well, for me it would be a scam. Are such authors awarded Erdős number 1 for such publications? Somehow I think it would be presumptuous to claim it. One of the authors of the cited paper (Graham) actually does hold E1 for work when Erdős was still alive.

Butler does claim Erdős number one on his website, and in my view this is perfectly proper.  (Disclosure: I went to grad school with Butler.)

@NateEldredge, I think E2 is a better claim. Butler isn't listed as E1 at the Erdős project, for example. https://www.oakland.edu/enp/thedata/

Erdős Number Project says their data was last updated July 2015, and the Butler-Erdős-Graham paper was only accepted for publication in November of that year.  Also, they have a list of Erdős Number Ones by date of first collaboration, and there are quite a few with dates after 1996.  My own Erdős number of 3 is derived through a posthumous collaboration (Diaconis and Erdős, 2004).

@NateEldredge I must say I find it extremely odd that people would publish "with" Erdös just because the publication solves a conjecture he had stated. This never happens with other authors, and would be considered highly inappropriate, so wanting a higher Erdös number really seems like a poor reason.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can post-docs serve as reviewers for grant proposals?
I am always hearing that being a grant reviewer is  a great experience in learning how to write proposals. I am a post-doc with an eye on an academic career so would like to do this. Does it happen? How do I sign up? I am in physics and in USA, if that matters.

@schester has a good link.  NSF program managers encourage postdocs to sign up.

@AnonymousPhysicist yes I had seen that link. Did not read anything regarding post-docs. I will contact NSF program officers in any case. Do you have anything in writing showing that postdocs are encouraged?

Nothing I will be posting here.

Here's a useful blog post from Prof-like Substance on the subject How do you get on an NSF panel?:

I asked the very question that Anon is positing above to several colleagues and they all told me to call up a PO and tell them I was interested. At the time, this was an incredibly terrifying concept, but I did as I was told and in the next round I was asked. Since then, I have put other people's names in the proverbial "hat" and they have also been asked. This includes postdocs, for those of you postdocs out there who want a jump on things.
Is it really that simple? Yes. POs spend a lot of time and energy trying to fill out there panels, finding the right mix of career stages, gender, academic background, ets., etc. More than half of the people they ask ignore them and probably another 60% - 70% of those that respond decline. Being on a panel is a huge amount of work, so it's not exactly something you just jump on. For that reason it is difficult to fill the room with able-bodied panelists who you can count on to do the work. If someone calls you up and says "I would really love to be on a panel." that person is going on the list for the next round.
Unlike NIH, NSF really does try an incorporate early career stage people into the decision making process. For all of you out there wondering about the process and what the life and times of a panelist are, take advantage of this. It was extremely helpful for me and I have received similar feedback from others who have been early-career people on panels.

and in another blog post (emphasis mine):

People often ask how one gets on a panel and the answer is fairly simple. Ask. Decide on a panel and email or call the PO. Tell them you're an early career person and really want to get involved in a panel. Unlike NIH, NSF makes a concerted effort to involve early career people in the review process. Both panels I have been on has been skewed towards more junior people and has included 2 postdocs in the mix. Use this to your advantage!

There is a useful comment on these posts from someone who identifies himself as a former NSF program director:

Speaking as a former NSF program director I can be more specific about
  volunteering for NSF panels.
Use the "Search Awards" on the NSF page to find awards on topics of interest.
  The award abstracts contain the name of the NSF program director.
Send email (not phone) message to the NSF PD with subject line: Volunteer Panelist for subject area ....
State in the email what topics you are interested in. Include a copy of your c.v.
Panels are usually held 2-4 months after solicitation deadlines.
  New panelists are not usually placed on panels for large size solicitations.

The NSF offers the following on How to become a reviewer:

To become an NSF reviewer, send an e-mail to the NSF program officer(s) of the program(s) that fits your expertise. Introduce yourself and identify your areas of expertise, and let them know that you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer. It is most helpful if you also attach a 2-page CV with current contact information. We also encourage you to share this request with other colleagues who might be interested in serving as NSF reviewers. NSF welcomes qualified reviewers from the academic, industrial, and government sectors.

great! e-mails sent to a few officers. Should I expect a response or acknowledgment or just wait until they choose me for a panel?

Absolutely a postdoc can be a reviewer, if a program manager thinks that they would be a good reviewer to have.  It's more rare than having more established people, but there is no prohibition.  In order to increase your changes of being invited, you need to get to know program managers and let then know you are interested in serving for reviewing.

Yes, a postdoc can certainly review proposals.
Using NSF as an example, you might be able to volunteer by contacting a program manager and discussing what types of grants you'd be best at reviewing.
Another, and likely more realistic approach is to have someone recommend you. This could be your advisor, or a close collaborator who can't make a panel. To make this happen, tell your advisor and collaborators that you're interested in serving on a panel -- otherwise they may not know to ask.
If you do get an invite, however, be sure to discuss with your advisor before accepting. They'll likely say yes, but you keep in mind that reviewing is a big time commitment and you will not be able to work at the same pace on your current projects.

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


text:
How to politely reject a request for a letter of recommendation for a professor
I am a student.
I received a request for a letter of recommendation to a professor for some award. I know for a fact that my letter will be directly used in the application for the award. [I have since graduated from this institution.] I haven't interacted with this particular person in about 3-4 years, and feel that I couldn't write the strongest one, since my interactions with this person were not much outside of classwork (two classes).
It looks like someone else is requesting these letters; how do I politely reject the request? I am particularly not interested in burning any bridges, since I may consider getting a career in academia in the future, but I haven't asked this particular professor for any recommendations (nor do I plan to do so in the future).
Update: I have decided to write the letter. Appreciate all of the feedback here.

I don't see what prevents you to give a honest (lukewarm ?) recommendation letter with maybe a note to the Prof that you may not be the most qualified person to give him recommendation, but here you are.

If you have nothing good to say, say nothing or be honest and tell him he's not that great of a teacher.

I don't understand why a prof will ever need a LOR from a student.

@ooker - I once wrote a letter for someone who was applying for (and later received) a teaching award from a national organization.

The department chair of an undergraduate professor of mine once asked me to write a letter of recommendation for a teaching award for him.

Are you a student or an Alumni of the institution?

@Mindwin Alumnus

@Ooker I wrote two rec letters for professors of mine who were going up for tenure, as part of the "teaching" segment of their tenure portfolio.

If you want to decline to write, then it would be reasonable to reply to the person who requested the letter, saying something like: "My interactions with Professor X were three to four years ago and involved very little interaction with him beyond attendance at two of his classes.  So I do not consider myself to be in a position to provide useful information for award Y."

The most polite way to decline, in this case, is to just not respond at all. As a student, you have no obligation to write letters for faculty members. So, if you don't want to write a letter, simply do not respond to the request. It is common for people to request letters from former students for awards or tenure applications, but it is also common for students to not respond, so nobody will think it is unusual. They are unlikely to harass you if you don't respond.
On the other hand, if you have anything you'd like to recount about the professor, you should consider responding. Even if you do not feel you could write the strongest letter, for many situations the mere presence of student responses is considered. Having had two classes with the professor, you can likely say something about his or her teaching, interaction with students, etc.  I can say that I was very flattered by the fact that students did choose to respond when letters were requested for me in the past. But the decision is yours, of course.

I take issue with the idea that intentionally not responding to a personal request is ever polite.

@DavidZ - But responding by saying, "Dear Sir, Nope. I am not writing a letter for you", won't be particularly polite either :P I think Oswald is suggesting trying to chicken out of the odd situation - not having to take a stance at all.

@TheDarkSide sure, but one could always respond "Sorry, I don't think I can do that." Though I suppose it's possible that one may find oneself in a situation where there is no polite way to respond to something!

@DavidZ Given that he has not interacted with the professor in 3-4 years, it seems unlikely that the request is really personal, but rather has been sent to a large number of previous students of the professor.

I think this is a huge problem in academia: people think not responding to an email is polite.

@AnderBiguri Sending unsolicited mass emails can hardly be called polite. I don't see why ignoring them is anything but a neutral action. From what I've seen on this site, those active in Academia are swamped with so much email that replying to every one could take hours out of your day so ignoring the majority of them might be the only reasonable course if you still want to get anything done.

@Lilienthal not responding to mass emails is one thing (and they are easy to distinguish). Not responding to an email someone wrote you is another. I doubt there is anyone in academia that hasn't got unresponded emails that were sent with honest intentions.  Just pointing out that not responding is a too common practice in academia, and it should be moderated, in my opinion. Plus, someone not being polite to you is definitely not an excuse not to be polite.

@AnderBiguri Fair point, I'm just interpreting the email the OP mentions as a mass mail since they've been sent by a third party, presumably an admin, to at least 4 years worth of students.

@djechlin how is that relevant?

@djechlin well yeah, that was fairly obvious from the fact that you seemed to be disagreeing with me. I think you're wrong, though; I don't believe there is ever such a case. What I don't understand is how any experience I may have meeting someone on an online dating site or getting dozens of recruiter emails a week is supposed to change my mind.

@djechlin if you don't have time to reply to every email, that still doesn't make it polite to ignore them. And sure, ignoring messages on a dating site or similar might be the smart option, but that doesn't make it polite. Sometimes a lack of politeness is well deserved. I do agree that it's rude to act as though you're owed a reply to an unsolicited communication - only actions can be rude or polite, not thoughts - but that still doesn't make not replying polite.

In this case, the OP is clear that "someone else" is requesting the letter. You have to know the system: this kind of request is routine, and not some sort of special "personal" request. The person sending the requests is likely sending them to numerous students, and is busy enough already. They will not find it impolite if the ex-student doesn't respond. They likely have no idea if the ex-student even received the email.  Any response takes them time to read, and is likely just one of a huge number of emails that day. In such a setting, just not responding is perfectly polite. @DavidZ

@OswaldVeblen I simply do not accept that. Not responding is not polite. It may be typical, it may be expected, and it's not necessarily rude, but it is not polite.

It's possible that you're not in a position to judge whether your letter would be the strongest one. Perhaps they are specifically looking for a letter from a  student who's taken classes for him, and they don't have all that many good options to choose from.
I would suggest that you write back that you are not sure that you would be the best person to write such a letter of recommendations [because of the reasons you described here], but that if they would still like you to write one, you would be happy to write a supportive letter. (Of course this answer assumes you liked the classes you took from him and that you would indeed write a positive letter!)
In summary: try to give a good idea of what kind of letter you would be writing, and let them decide if it's the kind of letter they would like to include in their application.

Why make them (and you) go through an extra round trip. Write the letter, and add a cover letter to the requestor explaining you can only comment on the classes you took some years back, telling them to use the letter under that proviso.

You should write the letter.  Most likely an administrator wants to know what you think of the professor's teaching.  Having taken two classes with the professor, you may know better than anyone else how the professor teaches.

Please see the italicized part I added to the original post and let me know if that changes your opinion at all.

No, though it depends on the type of award.

Without giving too much away, it is a national award.

@Clarinetist, there presumably are local and national teaching, research and even textbook writing awards. The point for us to be able to answer is what the award is for (if for research or textbook writing, it looks like your letter would be irrelevant; for teaching it might be relevant; but perhaps it is for "being an all-around nice guy"...), not who is giving it.

It's entirely possible that you were picked because you had only a class or two with this professor.  Sometimes that's how things work.
I was once helping to run an evaluation for a professor who was up for tenure.  This is a MAJOR deal which takes months of effort; your whole publication record is carefully examined, as are all of your course evaluations, etc.  Letters of evaluation are solicited from other professionals in the field, from co-workers, from students, etc.  We went through class enrollment records and deliberately picked more than one kind of student: some who had worked very closely with the professor, and some who had had only a class or two with him.
One student wrote back and said, "I don't think I'm the right person to write this evaluation, because I had only one class with Dr. Smith."  We had to write back and explain: no, dear, that's actually exactly why we picked you.

One other comment.  Years after I left teaching, I still occasionally had former students write to me asking for letters of recommendation.  I just had to do the best I could.  Sometimes my recollection of the student had grown dim, and I had to go through boxes and dig out old course records to find some facts about the student so that I could give the most accurate evaluation I could.
You really should do it.  Evaluating people who you've known or worked with is just one those professional things you have to do sometimes.  Sometime you'll need someone to do it for you.

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


text:
To become a professor of actuarial science, should I pursue graduate school immediately after B.S. or get some professional experience first?
I graduated with a B.S. in statistics earlier this year and have been working as an actuary for the past two months. In all honesty, I'm not very happy with the job position in the little amount of time I've been working at it. I am very close to becoming a credentialed actuary (ASA for those of you who have heard of it) and anticipate making a decision on whether or not I should leave later this year.
My dream is to become an actuarial science professor. I am really wondering whether I should pursue graduate school in statistics or just stick it out until I get a decade or so of experience (as every other actuarial professor I've seen has done).
I do realize that the Actuarial Outpost exists, but typically, actuaries tend to discourage people who want to pursue Ph.D. degrees.

Definitely stay long enough to get the accreditation.
And think very carefully before leaving. In particular, look at why actuarial professors stayed a decade.
Maybe their employer paid for their PhD. (some will shun PhDs, others will welcome them. Guess which you want)
And maybe being in industry gave them access to data that they couldn't possibly have got if they'd been outside industry. Access to lots of data should mean lots of papers. Lots of papers means furthering your academic career.
But don't just stay in industry letting your skills rot and your knowledge become outdated. Be a researcher, while in industry. Maybe do some lecturing or in-house training too.

None of the actuarial professors I know have both an actuarial credential and a Ph.D. As I mentioned, actuaries discourage Ph.D.s - this is because they (actuaries) fear that Ph.D.s could go to academia and leave their company (if the Ph.D. is currently working with actuaries) if they wanted to.

The work experience would be helpful in an academic career. But it doesn't have to be one decade. More like one to two years.
Many people stay with accounting firms for 1-2 years just to get their CPA. You could benefit from the ASA. So stick around long enough to get it, then start looking to leave when you do.


text:
How does one find an advisor for an online graduate program?
I'm in an online part-time graduate program at a well-established state university in the U.S.. I'm having a hard time getting responses from professors when it comes to asking about potential research topics for a final project that is required for my degree and asking for them to be my advisor. I imagine it's a mix of things causing this:

My e-mail messages might be too long. Although they are direct, I haven't met these people before, and I usually give them a 2-3 paragraph message introducing myself and the goal. No more than this.
I'm in a M.S. online program. I'm not a Ph.D. student who is on-site, and thus cannot contribute more to whatever research they are doing as much as I could.

I've read advice online and haven't found anything about this particular situation.
How do people go about finding an advisor if they're in an online program? What can I do to maximize the chances of having a professor at least respond to an e-mail I send?
If this question is too broad, I can delete it.

The problem with online programs is that it's very hard to develop relationships with faculty. In a physical program, you'd take a class with a faculty member who would get to know you as a person and as a scholar. It's very hard to do so online. Are you able at all to travel to meet the faculty in their offices during their office hours?

@RoboKaren Not very easily. I live about 6-7 hours' drive away.

You may want to make that investment.

In many MS programs that have both thesis and non-thesis options its very common that faculty are simply unwilling to supervise MS theses and students are essentially forced into the non-thesis option.

Right. This is part of the subtle rip-off aspect of on-line graduate programs of any sort: there's no easy way to make substantial acquaintance with the research faculty, because the on-line coursework is rarely run by them, but, instead, is run by adjuncts and other people who would not (in general) be credentialed (by the university) for advising MS or PhD students. On-line stuff, to the extent it's not just a give-away, is a cash-cow for universities, in the sense that the faculty who take care of it are often very badly paid...

@paulgarrett You can choose to believe me or not, but a lot of top research faculty do teach the courses. It's just that (I notice myself) they invest little time into it. And it's particularly hard to not be anything more than a number to the faculty when your course sizes are so large.

Seriously, the top faculty may provide the videos or lecture notes or... but I'd be mildly amazed if they were the contact people. For what it's worth, I put lots of graduate-level notes on-line, and when people civilly ask questions or ask for clarification, I aim to reply civilly, ... but I would not want to feel responsible for fielding all possible questions in an on-line course related to any of these, nor implicitly agreeing in advance to "be an advisor" to anyone who signed up. [cont'd]

[continuation] The good thing, and also the bad thing, about on-line stuff is that the thresh-hold one must reach to "be accepted" to participate is very low (regardless of money issues). But, then, that acceptance does not certify much at all, so that the faculty don't have much reason to think that your participation in such a course is a strong certification. (I've been observing and reflecting on "on-line courses" for 25+ years...)

@paulgarrett They do all of the work for preparation of the course in the semesters when they teach them (including the lecturing) and in my experience, they are usually very good about answering questions. However, there is no expectation that they'll do anything outside of this (including the "be an advisor"). The curriculum I'm doing is unique from most other programs I've seen in that that the people in my program take the same core coursework as the Ph.D.s due (N.B.: electives are hit or miss). Note that I don't disagree with anything you've said.

Ah, well, good that the coursework is the same... but/and the lack of personal contact and acquaintance with faculty is extremely unfortunate... surely more unfortunate than people realize when they embark on such a thing.

I think it depends on the nature of the particular online graduate program. Unfortunately, for the reason RoboKaren suggests in her comment, I think that many faculty don't care for online education. Which faculty members recruited you to come? Which of them answered your questions when you applied? Which are teaching your classes, or other online classes available through the same program? These are the faculty members that have made some investment in this program, and I think they are the ones most likely to be willing to supervise you.
Three more pieces of advice:

I strongly second RoboKaren's office to travel to the campus and meet with as many professors as you can. Let them know that you're an online enrolled student and that you're travelling 6 hours each way and hope to meet with them. Knowing that you're going to such an effort will probably lead some of them to take you more seriously.
Don't ask anyone to be your advisor on the spot, or over an initial e-mail. It is a major commitment, which most people wouldn't make to a stranger (whether online or not). Wait until you know each other well and the professor is somewhat familiar with the quality of your work. In the meantime, start smaller. For example, if one professor recommends a particular paper for you to read, read it and ask some thoughtful questions. This has the chance to make a very positive impression.
If this goes poorly, you might consider withdrawing and enrolling in an in-person graduate program, if at all possible.

Good luck to you.

Not that I disagree with you at all - thank you for the advice - but on "Let them know that you're an online enrolled student and that you're travelling 6 hours each way and hope to meet with them. Knowing that you're going to such an effort will probably lead some of them to take you more seriously," I've heard that graduate schools often don't want you to visit unless 1) you're an admitted Ph.D. student or 2) you live close enough away so that driving wouldn't be much of an effort. I have seen evidence of 2 - I used to live about 30 minutes from this campus, and when I was visiting [cont.]

[cont.] , I was asked how far away I live. This particular person remarked that it didn't seem far away, so we went ahead with the visit planning.

Heard in what context? I'm guessing that might have been advice for people applying to a graduate program, not for people who have already enrolled and are paying tuition. If you are paying tuition to this university, you should certainly not feel bad about showing up and attempting to schedule appointments.

That said, I would first recommend contacting the graduate director, or whoever is responsible for this online program. Tell them that your emails have not been answered, and ask how you are supposed to find a supervisor for your project.


text:
Is there a list of research funding agencies worldwide, ordered by money spent?
I have found a Wikipedia page ranking countries based on amount of funding and GDP.  Is there a list that breaks this down further by funding agencies?
For example, the wiki list says US funding, but I imagine it's not so simple or clear where it comes from.  For example, it's not clear how much comes from NSF, NIH, and DARPA.
How can I find out the largest funding agnecies in the world?

any reason for the random up and down votes?

I have not found a worlwide list, but I would suggest you to ask for a Demo in these websites:

Research Professional
Pivot

I found the links here.

The numbers in the wikipedia table you link to are suspect in my mind. The source article doesn't provide the data that the wiki article suggest. If we believe the data that are in that article, private industry in the US spends $280 billion on R&D while the government spends $126 billion. While the private industry funding is staggeringly large, it probably means that no individual company is spending huge amounts and therefore can probably be left out of your ranking.
Of the $126 billion that the US spends, the DOD and NIH spend $64 billion and $26 billion respectively on research which is 70% of the pot. Additionally, NASA, NSF, FDA, and DARPA have budgets of $18, $7, $4, and $2.8 billion, respectively. While that is not all R&D, it probably covers the big players.
As for other countries, the RCUK, which is the major funder in the UK has a total budget of £3 billion which is spread over the 7 sub councils. In Germany, the DFG and MPI have budgets of €2.7 and €1.5 billion.
If we ignore Japan and China (and I have no idea who funds research in those countries), the list looks like

US DOD: $64 billion
US NIH: $26 billion
US NASA: $18 billion (maybe if they actually do R&D)
US NFS: $7 billion
everybody else:

To me the Wikipedia table seems a dubious comparison tool as it crunches together data from all kinds of sources. The more comparable sources seem to be the OECD and the UNESCO which are also sometimes used in the Wikipedia table.

StrongBad has already correctly identified the biggest funding agencies in the US. Nonetheless, here are some more European:

European Union: Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development 7 €11 billion, from which European Research Council approx. €1.7 billion
Belgium: Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique €0.18 billion, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek €0.18
France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique €3.3 billion
Germany: Helmholtz Association €3.99 billion, Fraunhofer approx. €2 billion, Leibniz Association €1.53 billion
Netherlands: Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek €0.6 billion
Spain: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas €0.68 billion
Switzerland: Swiss National Science Foundation  CHF 0.8 billion


text:
Is there a common standard for the title hierarchy of research positions in English?
Is there a common standard for the title hierarchy of research positions in the English language?  Excluding people who do research such as students or professors, but purely researchers.  Something in engineering such as, Junior Programmer and Senior Programmer.
I have heard of these, and in what I assume is a hierarchy:

Research assistant
Assistant researcher
Researcher
Senior researcher

Is there such thing as "Principal Researcher" which describes the job position as opposed to the PI on a project.  Would this title be given to more than one person in the same lab?
Purpose of the question:  In other languages, specifically in Asia, there are many words for hierarchy in both business and academia.  Google translate does not work, as it just recommends "senior" for many of the words, but in the native language they are much different, and are all above the standard "Researcher" position.  The research institute would like things like business cards and website to make sense to other countries and native English speakers.  As of now, the native language shows two different words, but in English they are the same "Senior Researcher", which makes it difficult to understand/explain what position the person is in.

Is there a common standard for the title hierarchy of research positions in the English language?

No.
There is no defined, consistent hierarchy of research job titles anywhere in the world, at least to my best knowledge. Essentially, every university, often even individual departments, handle job titles, responsibilities and hierarchies slightly differently, even if of course a lot of common patterns exist. Don't assume anything about hierarchy purely based on titles.

@NajibIdrissi But "the country" is not everywhere, not even everywhere were English is spoken.

@NajibIdrissi would you care to expand this into an answer that describes the situation in France, so I can upvote it? Although it might not exactly be what the OP requested, I think it is useful information.

In America, at least, outside of university professor ranks there is no standard hierarchy.  You will often, however, see "Associate < [no adjective] < Senior < Principal < Fellow".
In industrial research, most companies have only a few distinctions, as people past a certain rank in research are expected to instead switch to a management track and adopting management titles. There is great variety from company to company, however.  For example, where I work we have an unusually deep tree of technical ranks, which somewhat parallel professorial ranks: "Associate Scientist < Staff Scientist < Scientist < Senior Scientist < Lead Scientist < Principal Scientist < Chief Scientist."

As for the usage of these ranks, plain "Scientist" is the entry level at our lab (industrial research), the majority are Senior Scientists (about 70%), about 10% are Principal Scientists and only 1% are Research Fellows.

It's funny that "Staff Scientist < Scientist".

In UK Academia it usually goes something like:

Research Assistant
Assistant Researcher / Researcher
Senior Researcher
Junior Associate Researcher / Associate Researcher
Senior Associate Researcher
Post-doc Research Fellow
Research Fellow
Senior  Research Fellow
Principal Research Fellow

In Argentina:

Doctoral Research Fellow
Post-doc Research Fellow
Assistant Researcher
Adjunct Researcher
Independant Researcher
Principal Researcher
Superior Researcher

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


text:
Is a Graduate Performance Diploma considered an academic degree for purposes of PhD admissions or faculty job search?
This question might be appropriate for music SE but I am looking for more academic views.
I know of Associate, bachelor, master, and doctoral degrees.  Inside of these are different fields.  I have also seen JD (law) and DM (music).  I have recently seen "Graduate Performance Diploma".  While I usually do not think of these in an academic sense, Johns Hopkins, which I consider a good school, offers this diploma.
What is the purpose of this degree?  Is it only to give more practice time for a musician in an academic setting, or would earning this diploma have some weight on acceptance to a doctoral or professorship?

I did my undergraduate in a large, prestigious music school, which also had (probably still has) a Diploma option.  Before I answer your question, let me tell you something about my degree requirements.
I had to take lots and lots of credits in my performance instrument, and ensembles, large and small.  Then there was lots of music theory, music history, music literature.  A tiny proportion was in other departments -- I took one English, one math, one history, one science, and one social science course, if I remember right.  That's not much for a 4-year degree!  But now, for the Diploma, take out everything except the performance instrument and the ensembles.  Well, apparently at Johns Hopkins, you also do some music theory-type courses as well.
The students that I saw doing the Diploma were typically from another country, were planning to go back after the Diploma, and were there just to further their study of their instrument with a particular teacher, usually a famous name.  It was kind of like a post-doc.  They were soaking up the great person's approach to technique, expanding their repertoire, getting more experience, polishing their performing.
Music schools offer the Diploma because they know there are students who only want to work on their performance instrument.  So they cut out all the extraneous stuff and give the person a Diploma.
This would be good preparation for a performance career (orchestra, chamber music, solo concertizing), and for teaching the instrument in a private studio.  However, it would NOT prepare one for teaching in a public school, community college, college, or university.  However, it would help one prepare for teaching in a conservatory (if the person were a strong enough player -- s/he would have to be extremely strong for this).
If you are from another country and are planning to go back, chances are you are going to do, or you did, some academic work in your home country, and that will fit better with the academic system you plan to seek a job in.
A lot of the Diploma students were astounding musicians, though, who did seem to have a shot at a well-paid performance career.  That I can't be sure of, though, because I don't know what the employment options for classical musicians are in Europe (which is where many of the Diploma students were from).

To give an analogy, the diploma is like the "one and done" phenomenon happening in college basketball. Really good players send a year or two developing their talents before turning pro. Some people need 4 or more years of university to develop their abilities while others just don't need as much time to develop

This really doesn't seem like an appropriate analogy at all, given what's described in the other answer.

well, there is no indication of what is meant by inappropriate. So perhaps people should be able to share ideas as long as they are not rude.


text:
Preparing a manuscript for double-blind review, what is meant by "complete manuscript text minus the title page" and "separate title page"?
I want to submit an article to a journal which uses the system of double peer review, the information that I found was the following:

Confirm that you have prepared: (a) a complete manuscript text minus
  the title page, acknowledgements, and any running headers of author
  names so as to permit anonymous review; (b) a separate title page with
  author information.

so lets suppose that my article has the following structure:
Page 1: Title of the article, author, affiliation
Page 2: Abstract
Page 3: Title of the article, Introduction
...

so for part (a) what should I include? should I do something like this:
Page 2: Abstract
Page 3: Title of the article, Introduction

and for part (b) should I submit only:
Page 1: Title of the article, author, affiliation

is it like that? I have already take care that any reference about me or the place in which I made the research is anonymized. Any help?

Yes, it is exactly as you suggest.

The basic answer here is to ask an editor since it's your first submission, but I would think that this sounds good. There's a lot more to preparation for double-blind review than taking your names off the front. You've got to do a good job making your self-citations look like references to other people. I.e., instead of saying "in [5] we showed" you say "in [5] Layal, et al. showed", etc, etc.

Yes,  the manuscript (A) should contain the abstract, title and introduction but not the author names and affiliations and should not contain any acknowledgement.
Then, in a separate file (B), you would provide title, author names, affiliations, abstract, introduction and acknowledgements if it applies.


text:
Would it be regarded as a conflict of interests if I had described the research I would submit to an editor of the same journal before I submitted it?
I'm in a unique situation. I do my investigations on my own. It means I'm not affiliated with any institutions and am not taking money from anyone. But it also means I have no one to turn to when I have my troubles and I need a guiding light. It means that instead of running to the advisor next door in some educational institution I have to rely on tracking, making contact and explaining my situation and problems to new people whom I meet primarily online.
I have my acquaintances in the universities of my home country and sometimes talk to them but they aren't capable of supporting me. At least I have a link to the scientific search engines and can get the literature I need to continue the development of my interests. I have my dream of building enough materials for a PhD thesis and I have an university degree in science, but in order to turn it into reality I need contacts with people from other countries who can help with the questions the locals are unable to respond to. This is how I proceed for quite some time.
There is this person who may be able to help me but is also on the editorial board of a journal where I might have an actual chance to publish a paper. When I contact this person I'm not intending s/he to actually advice me how to publish in his/hers journal but the idea comes naturally as s/he seems to like what I'm working on and I have been searching for a place to publish for quite some time. I didn't intended originally for this to happen but if s/he is indeed seeing something interesting in my work and is thinking the journal where s/he is editing may be the right place to publish should I deny this long awaited chance for me only because I have presented this research to its potential editor and now s/he may have agreed to help me format it in a way that will make it publishable at his/hers particular venue? Am I doing something morally wrong or unacceptable here?
The problem is this journal seems more like a friendly circle pamphlet than an actual academic research journal. It is peer reviewed (by its creators) and as far as I know it is indexed by at least scopus but its impact factor is something extremely low and it has very few papers published in it even on an yearly basis, so it is not exactly "guiding" the development of any field. My prime worry is that if my paper appears in this journal and I mention one of its editors in the acknowledgements as the person who helped me write my paper I fear this may have a negative feedback not only on myself but on the journal as whole. As I said it has very low impact factor and I think researchers (other than its editorial board) already regard it as somewhat dubious publication medium. And if now articles where the editors are acknowledged by some known-by-noone guy who claims to be a scientist but has neither a PhD, nor is affiliated to any university and comes from a non-Western country, start to appear, may be it will damage not only my non-existent reputation but also the reputation of the journal as a whole. Do my fears have any base in reality or am I thinking too much and blocking what is now my best chance of finally publishing my ideas? Are my fears real or am I shooting myself in the foot?
Does the previous contacts I have with the person who will potentially review my article constitute a conflict of interests between me and this journal?
P.S. I have thought of several ways to avoid the embarrassing situation but it seems nothing works. I thought of advising my article to be reviewed by some other editor but it seems like I know all the editors of this journal and they are all connected to each other by long years of friendship relationships, so they all know me and the person I'm talking about and what this research is about (it is quite unique, this is why it is something they just can't take as someone else's ideas), so whoever reviews it s/he will know who is helping me and what is this research about even before I submit my manuscript. As I told you the editorial board of this journal is extremely small (smaller than the number of the fingers on your hand) and they all know each other and I'm quite persistent "thorn in the foot", so it is no secret for any of them who am I, what I am doing and who is helping me. I fear if this research goes through the "blind" review process the only "blind" thing that will remain s the number of people I would have to include in the acknowledgements, not the material itself. On the other hand, however, I feel like I need these people's help because I haven't been able to master my writing style on my own and they may be my only chance to actually get some professional help and finally format a descent publication. Should I be blowing away my best chance now because of fears I'm breaking the rules of the peer-review process? What steps should I take to keep it? Should I abandon my publication there because I have already made contacts with the editors and told them what would my paper be about and they had agreed here id the right place for it and now the only thing that remains is only to format it properly and fix my writing style so it can go online? Would this actually harm the journal's reputation?
I have also considered proposing the editor to make a joint paper with his/hers name after mine, but the reply I got was it was my work here and I did the job, not him/her, so it would be unfair to prescribe him/her with such credits. Only a place in the acknowledgements will suffice. I feel like I may be doing something wrong here but am I? I have no publications and I have always been rejected due to various reasons up to now, so, I wonder what am I getting myself into, but see no other options left but to either agree with their advice an make the corrections they want to submit my article in their journal or to give up completely and search for other place to publish (may be some day in the distant future). What should I do?
I'm really wondering am I "screwing" the peer review system with what I'm doing?

Authors don't get 'conflicted' with journals, reviewers/editors get conflicted with authors. When that happens, another editor can be assigned, usually upon request. In general, not that big of a deal. It happens all the time in small subfields, you can usually guess the authors of papers with reasonable accuracy...

So, if I have contacted a journal with 3 editors and they have agreed to help me organize and format my thoughts into text, which can be published in their journal this isn't any conflict of anything and I can be calm things like that happen all the time? Is it the meaning of your comment @FábioDias? Do cases like mine happen often?

Didn't read this super carefully but it seems to be in desperate need of some editing down...

@YordanYordanov It happened to me, at least, in one paper that we were invited to submit ( http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8024139/ ). It wasn't the regular double blind review process, but it was far from "compromised". My whole point is: that kind of concern is for the editors, not for the authors... You just write and send it, let them sort it out :)

I removed the "first-time-publishing" tag because it's a "meta tag" - it refers to the person asking the question, not its specific content. Your question would be exactly the same even if you had published before! (Also see the help center. In general: "you should only create new tags when you feel you can make a strong case that your question covers a new topic that nobody else has asked about before on this site", so as to avoid tag proliferation.)

Thank you very much @ff524 .I still have troubles figuring out the best way to present myself. This is true both here on this site and for my research. Actually, this is what is my biggest problem now and the reason why the editors of the journal I'm speaking about want to "proof-read" my work. They think I have indeed novel ideas and they could be helpful for interdisciplinary research in science and philosophy but according to them my writing style isn't "evolved" enough and that is why the journals are rejecting me.

They offered me to write some paragraphs for me and edit my submission, so it can be readable for experts from different background the way they imagine it should look like, not the way I write. I think it may somewhat change the meaning of words and phrases I myself developed but if other scientists can't understand them, may be it''ll be better that way, this is how they will format my manuscript according to their ideas what and how should be published in their journal, I'm just concerned is it the accepted way of publishing and am I doing something wrong here by allowing the journal staff

to rewrite my paper for me without mentioning it in the acknowledgements? Should I at least insist to mention their help? (They think there is no need for that and I think their concern is that if I do it outside experts may think bad of the staff of this journal actually rewriting papers submitted to them to promote ideas rejected by other journals but I don't know if my concerns have any base in reality. As I told you I have no experience being able to pass peer-review, so I have no base to draw conclusions from.)

Most editors are professors from the same field as the journal (or covering part of the journal), and often they or their students want to submit to the same journal where the professor is working. (TLDR: students submit their manuscripts to journals where their professor is an editor). This is no problem, as the prof-editor won't be the handling editor of the journal. Very few times I saw that the conflict-of-interest section mentioned "prof X is editor at journal Y" (when publishing in Y). However, this is when the editor IS an author on a paper. This is not the case in your manuscript.
Therefore, the conflict is even smaller, as long as the handling editor of your manuscript is not one of those that helped you. You can mention your concerns, and the fact that editor A and B helped you in the writing process, in the cover letter of your submission, and - together with the editors - think about whether you should put some note in the conflict-of-interest section.

Short note on your idea to mention the editors in the acknowledgements: just like you cannot add someone against his/her approval as author, all those that are mentioned (identifiable) in the acknowledgements have to agree to that [though this may differ for journals - please check before you do].