text:
How could I share my concern about university ranking with a potential supervisor?
I have a master's degree from a university outside of Canada. I recently decided to apply for Ph.D. in Canada and I found a potential supervisor, I like his research area, he has more industrial research projects going on. I like the fact that he gets projects from the industry, and his personality itself.
I am only concerned about the ranking of the university which is low. I just do not like to study in a university that has a bad ranking. I definitely do not know a lot about the university, I just looked up the ranking on the internet. It is a smaller university. Would ranking matter when studying for a Ph.D.?
Should I choose this university for a PhD. or should I move on? and search for universities with a better ranking?
I came to know this professor has good collaboration with a few good ranking universities, would that be possible that I share my concern with him and ask him about the possibility of having admission to a better ranking university but also having him as a supervisor/co-supervisor? Would that be rude to ask?

You might be interested: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90/university-rank-stature-how-much-does-it-affect-ones-career-post-ph-d

This is like going on a date and saying "You're a bit ugly. Can you set me up with some of your better-looking friends? We could still hang out..."

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

If this is your only concern, and seemingly a deal-breaker, why did you actually apply there?

It's not a good idea to talk about ranking with a potential supervisor, because it can easily offend (example). This is for a few reasons:

Some professors genuinely hate rankings.
The ranking is not something the supervisor can directly control. The entire university is ranked, and they are but one professor in the university.
You are implicitly using the university ranking to rank the professor. It's possible there's a correlation (I don't have the data, but I suspect there should be a correlation) but it's still similar to saying "your brother is a criminal so your integrity is suspect too" - see association fallacy - and people can react badly.
You send the message that you don't consider them to have had a good career since they're currently at a low-ranked university.
What do you expect them to say? You ought to know what the university's ranking is before you talk to the professor, and if ranking matters to you, you shouldn't approach them in the first place.

I do think that all things equal there are good reasons to go to the higher-ranked university: the more prestigious institution is more likely to have comprehensive facilities, better journal access, more distinguished visiting academics, etc., and most importantly, better students. Graduate study isn't a solo activity; the presence of other good students can have a huge impact on your development. Higher rank also means a lot if you intend to work in industry after the PhD; even if you don't intend to, it's still nice to have a fallback.
But it's not something to discuss with the prospective supervisor. If you want to talk to an academic about it, ask your undergraduate professors.
See related questions:

PhD - Well known professor or well known school?
How much should university ranking matter while choosing a place for graduate studies?
University rank/stature - How much does it affect one's career post-Ph.D?

Yeeah... Bringing up rankings that way has an implication of "your career is garbage, everyone obviously follows this arbitrary ranking system and you are just bad at it" which is terrible on so many levels. There are better and more meaningful ways to inquire about your future...

"all things equal there are good reasons to go to the higher-ranked university": I agree, but this should be paired with "but all things are usually not equal".

The ranking of the university should be quite irrelevant to you as an individual: what matters is what you do.  In other words, there is good (and very good) research done everywhere, and there is bad research done everywhere also.  The rankings are affected by all kinds of “meta” factors that have no connection with the quality of research of this faculty member.
In practice, you are more likely to find active researchers at higher-ranked institutions, but you are past that as you found a prospective supervisor already.
Of course, you can inquire about co-supervisions but that’s quite a bit trickier as this faculty member would (likely) need an adjunct appointment elsewhere, and would need to find someone else with the same interests to co-supervise.
Thus, if the project seems of interest to you, and the conditions of the thesis look reasonable, try talking to other graduate students of the group (if any); if all of this is positive, go for it.

This is terrible advice if you want to get a job.  Many employers will not bother to look past the ranking and see the individual.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/92/13240

@AnonymousPhysicist I’m very puzzled by your comment.  The suggestion that jobs go to people who graduated from “top-ranked” university is obviously false else  institutions not so well ranked would not survive.  Honestly, I do not know of any example where the university ranking was an issue.  The quality of the work done (as evidence by publications), and the relevance of the topic are what get you hired.

Check the linked answer.  This particularly applies for very high paying jobs.

@AnonymousPhysicist I work in a large non-academic company in a department that primarily hires PhDs and provides large salaries, and I have been actively involved in hiring for many years. While this does not disprove your hypothesis that ranking of the institution matters for non-academic employers in general, I can tell you that at my company nobody cares where someone obtained their PhD when hiring, the only thing that matters is the quality of the work the specific candidate provided (despite what the linked answer claims).

@AnonymousPhysicist ... for which there is overwhelming counterevidence. What proportion of US engineers have their degree from a top university?  Don't get me wrong: there are advantages in going to top schools, but people will be primarily impressed by what you did, not which school you come from.

@AnonymousPhysicist - I work at a national lab and have hired many PhDs. I care nothing about some wide-ranging rankings - I'm looking for people with experience in some fairly niche fields. We know the handful of professors that regularly produce excellent PhDs, and a number of others that have turned out good students. I've also hired PhDs from outside the 'usual suspects' - good people come from many places.

@ZeroTheHero "What proportion of US engineers have their degree from a top university" A better question is "what proportion of US engineering professors have their degree from a top university". You generally get a job at a lower-ranking institution than the institution you got your degree from.

@nick012000 that is a slightly different debate, but I will point out there is no mention of engineering professor job in the OP.  Granted that visibility - something prestigious institutions more easily provide - would be an asset for a university position.

@ZeroTheHero "there is no mention of engineering professor job in the OP" It's implied by the fact that they want to do a PhD.

ask him about the possibility of having admission to a better ranking university

Do not.  It is unlikely that your potential supervisor can do anything about admission to another university.

You've taken the quote out of context. The full quote is "ask him about the possibility of having admission to a better ranking university but also having him as a supervisor/co-supervisor". I don't believe the OP is suggesting that the supervisor will help them with the admission part.

The only relevant thing is your employment after PhD. If you get PhD from McGill or UToronto, you probably will have more chances. But a lot depends on the reputation ("ranking" if you wish) of your supervisor. The potential supervisor probably had other students who got their PhD. You should check where these students are now.

I don't think you can talk about the ranking of the university to the potential supervisor. This can be very damaging to your relationship, and quite offending to the supervisor knowing that you look down on him/her or their institute.
You should probably see if you have an alternative in a "better" university and decide based on the project, university, supervisor, and future prospects accordingly.
Comment: while rankings can definitely sometimes be misleading (with a small difference in ranking being meaningless), a university ranked 900 almost always will have much less research infrastructure than one ranked in the top 100.

Why would you want more research infrastructure instead of better research infrastructure? Sure, deciding to do something interdisciplinary would be easier but why would a particle physicist care about how great and many are the biology labs?

@Lodinn, yes, I meant more and better research infrastructure, like better students, better labs, better visitors, better research connections, better on average professors, better research offices supporting grant applications, etc.

But rankings are almost exclusively averages over the whole university. Unless you're super-interdisciplinary, most of what contributes to that average doesn't matter to you in the slightest. If the philosophy department is among the top 5 in the world but the entire department of physics is ridiculously incompetent, what does ranking the university as an average one tell you as a prospective philosophy student?

@TooTea, I'm unaware of any single department that is top 5 in the world, in a rank-800 university. The correlations are usually very strong between global and departmental ranking.

I came to know this professor has good collaboration with a few good ranking universities, would that be possible that I share my concern with him and ask him about the possibility of having admission to a better ranking university but also having him as a supervisor/co-supervisor? Would that be rude to ask?

You can try. Most likely you won’t get a response (and you might get blocked automatically if your message isn't from a reputable .edu domain. We get a lot of unwanted academic spam, especially from foreign countries).
If you do get a response and the professor isn’t offended, it'll probably look something like "Sure. First get admitted into this much more selective institution then come back".
Regarding your question on ranking, there’s a few things things to consider.
Some smaller universities prefer to focus on a few super star researchers in one or two areas of expertise, but have their ranking computed on all their research output. Think of CMU in computer science for instance.
If you are looking at a University in the French part of the country, the situation is a little bit different. French Canadians are notorious for wanting to return home, and I’ve seen guys take a massive drop in institutional ranking to get a chance to move back home. I collaborate frequently with someone who did exactly that (from a top 10 institution here in the US to where he completed did his undergrad in Montreal). He’s still technically on an “extended sabbatical leave” but it’s clear he’s getting tenure over there relatively soon.
It’s especially true in AI, with researchers like Yoshua Bengio being clear that he’ll collaborate with everyone interested but won’t relocate whatsoever. I’ve not observed the same pattern elsewhere in Canada, however.

In physics, Sajeev John in Toronto doesn’t appear keen to relocate, and neither does Jim Arthur from Math at UofT also.  The reality is that Canadian societal values are different from US, even in the perspective of English Canadians, and many (possibly even a majority) are perfectly happy with their position.

Looking at their resumes, it seems they spent quite a long time at US universities but could not obtain tenure.

with due respect: these guys are regularly offered positions in the US but have made it clear they prefer not to move.  I mean… come on….  if they wanted to go back to the US they could negotiate their own conditions.  Add to that list Ian Afflek now at UBC, who oscillated between Princeton and UBC.  There is much more to life than an academic position in the US.   The suggestion that you get a “massive drop in institutional ranking” by working at or relocating to UofT or UBC or McGill (or UdeM if you are francophone) is simply misinformed or illustrates the fallacy of the rankings.

Join this university. Choose projects that not only have value in the industry but also are academically significant and prestigious. Work like a beaver to produce stellar results and publish famous and often-cited papers. Raise the ranking of the university from 26 to 25.
Don't think you can do it? Then go join university number 97.

What? Care to explain?


text:
Getting into phd
I'm from India and needed some suggestions for PhD admissions . I have completed my undergraduate this year with physics as my major. I have 2 gap years after my high school .  How much does gap years affect PhD interviews? I have around 8.6 GPA in my undergrad on scale of 10 . If I maintain GPA above 8 and do some projects in master's . Will it be enough to get through? Or year gaps would be problem in interviews? As i will have overall 3 gap years .

Are you applying to Indian PhD programs?

We can't really do individualized answers to admissions questions, you can see general information at a canonical post here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/63475 otherwise you'll have to distill down to one very specific aspect of admissions rather than a general blueprint for you.

I have edited my query . Its related to affect of gap years in PhD interviews.

I will prefer US but will apply for Indian programs too .

There are a lot more gap year questions and answers here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=gap+year

See also https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-are-ph-d-applications-evaluated-in-the-us-particularly-for-weak-or-borderl for guidance on how PhD admissions are evaluated in the US.

thanks for the links .

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Pursuing a PhD on major of mathematical biology with an irrelevant bachelors degree
I am 29 years old and have majored in political science and obtained a B.A. degree with it.
I'm asking this question since I want to ask for some advice about in what case would there be any possibility for me of getting into a graduate school that majors in mathematical biology.
The reasons why I am hoping to pursue a PhD in a topic unrelated to my BA degree are the following:

I am a great fan of mathematics, especially discrete mathematics.
Working in a field related to biology seems to me a promising career since knowledge related to biology should be needed more and more to our humankind.
I want to be a great farmer someday. Also, if I can be a biology researcher in addition to a farmer, I want to make some food that grows well so that could may assist to reduce some poverty issue throughout our world. (In my opinion, the issue of poverty to our humankind would be getting worse and worse over next 30 years. Maybe much closer than 30 years.)

Everyone can have a dream, so I've just listed inspirations that lead to my dream. However, we all know that what matters are the realistic issue, such as, why would a college and a professor related to Mathematical Biology would choose me as their student?
So I would like to list some of my weakness and strength to explain my situation.

I am not from the top school in my country. However I've graduated with some university that is for some top 2% student in my country. My university is ranked within world top 100 or at least top 200 from any of the magazines which deal with the world university ranking.

I can speak two more languages other than English. Those two languages are from highly industrialized medium-big size countries which can be assumed as economic powers. I can prove that I'm good at those three languages with some certified test scores, and have no problem with reading and writing English.

My GPA is 92.5/100 (I assume it is translated to 3.25/4.00 in my country but I am not sure). It is not high, however I've got demonstrating scores on language classes (the languages which I've mentioned above) and political science classes. I can prove that I am good at studying languages and political science with some certified test scores (which is national authorized).  Also I can prove that I am good at dealing with the study of history.

(Edited to be erased)

(Edit after the comments) I've studied microeconomics and macroeconomics. So I can say I know basic calculus and linear algebra. Also I have some scores related to economics which can be assumed as national authorized. I really don't want to go back to my university, since I don't want to let my community in university to know that I'm pursuing some unrealistic dream for most of people. However I may try to get some recommendations from professors on economics.

I am sure that the list I've enumerated above are not enough to appeal to my possible advisors. So I'm thinking of the following. I want ask for your advice, that, would any of the following wish lists would be helpful, or hopefully, being crucial to increase of my chances for getting into the college.

No matter in what country (among English speaking countries) I would be studying, I'm thinking of taking GRE from the United States, including GRE subject test in mathematics to prove that I have basic knowledge to mathematics.
While studying discrete mathematics(especially some topics with combinatorics and related algebraic structure to those combinatorial topics), I've noted myself with some ideas that I've keeping them myself for a possible future publication. Actually I have more than twenty of separate ideas that deals with some different topics to each other. I'm hoping to publish at least 1~2 of those ideas to some low-hurdle journals in mathematics.

It would be grateful if someone could give me some honest advice on my situation.

How do you translate 92.5/100 to 3.25/4.00?

@Nobody: Actually I wondered that to. Maybe the site I've referred would be wrong. 92.5/100 is sure. 3.25/4.00 is referred from some random site but I am not sure. Please take it as 92.5/100.

Have you taken Math courses beyond Calculus/Linear algebra level or Biology courses so that you can have some recommendation letters from Math or Biology professors?

I feel like the country is really important here. For example in germany you won't even get into a Ph.D in your own field with only a B.Sc

@SirHawrk I have information that pursuing PhD in EU countries is hard and well-received. However, instead, I would like to pursue my career in English native countries.

@OrganHarpsichord your information is at least in Germany correct, tho as I said people might have an easier time helping you if you add the country you want to go to or are currently in

I think one thing to bear in mind is that PhDs are often competitive and places are highly limited. Why, as a mathematical biologist / bioinformatician, would I take a political science graduate over a mathematics graduate if I only have funding for one student? I'd also constantly have the question 'if you really are interested in this, why didn't you study it at undergrad'.

Thanks to the internet and to the variety of massive online resources available on specialized sites like Coursera and the likes, you can try to follow some courses related to the food economics, or about sustainable practices in farming (without bullshit) . You will realize soon that you do not need to be a great farmer to save the world. Even worse, poverty is unrelated to the availability or production of "goods", but almost exclusively to how the profit from these activity are shared among different actors ...
You can also follow math-bio courses, to see if you have what it takes.

@EarlGrey: I do understand what you are saying. Easily said, the riches have no problem with food supply, and the poor get poorer and poorer. What I was meaning, is that, even riches would be get starved in near future which was unlikely in our near past. This is just my conjecture, but I am pretty sure this will happen. We will see soon how it actually goes.

I am sorry to say but I do not think you have a realistic chance to get admitted to a competitive PhD program in mathematical biology without any previous record of knowledge in biology and mathematics.
I think you have a few misunderstandings:

You say you know basic calculus and linear algebra, since you have studied microeconomics and macroeconomics. So have I during my Bachelor studies. And working as a biostatistican today, I can tell you that the amount of mathematical details that is covered in the standard introductory lectures in microeconomics and macroeconomics is extremely little compared to what e.g. a student of mathematics studies in the first weeks of an introduction to calculus I. If I was in the PhD committee, I would infer from this that you underestimate the complexity of math required for the program.
Wanting to become a "great farmer" is a rather unusual motivation to study such a theoretical branch of biological sciences.
Language skills (except for intermediate skills of English) are usually irrelevant.
The academic background of your professors is most likely irrelevant. (and analytic philosophy is rather far from computational biology)

There is a shimmer of hope if you can turn your interest and knowledge in discrete mathematics in something more formal. If you would actually be able to publish a paper in a non-predatory mathematical journal, you would have definitely proven your mathematical ability. You asked for honest advice: most likely you will not be able to achieve this, because you lack the formal education. Conducting serious mathematical research is something that very few people can do without several years of formal training and professional supervision. If you are one of the few exceptions, though, I am optimistic, that many PhD programs will happily admit you.
The safer route would be to do a related Bachelor's or Master's program, that provides you with formal skills in mathematics and/or biology. For example, you might have good chances to get admitted to a Master's program in Applied Mathematics or Statistics, where you can further specialize in biological applications.

I don't think I will get some better answer than you gave me, so I chose your answer. I am old enough so no problem with what you are saying.

@OrganHarpsichord that is good to hear. I want to add that I have a B.A. in Sociology, then did a M.Sc. in Statistics after some orientiation time, and today I am at the end of my PhD in Biostatistics. Therefore, I definitely have some sympathy for your situation. I can only encourage you to get some more formal proof of your mathematical skills and then you may be able to successfully apply for some programs.

I have to say again that I am old enough to know that it is a precious chance to have some honest opinions from some strangers, which they might be more objective at evaluating others' situations.  So this kind of site has to be appreciated as the good part of academia.

If I have a chance, I would like to ask you about the career advice from @psithurism who recommended to pursue a post-bacc of the related field. It is a fresh concept to me, and I think it is quite an attractive choice. Can I have your opinion on this?

@OrganHarpsichord I too am unfamiliar with the concept of post-bacc degrees. I am unsure what the benefit of a post-bacc degree over a 1-year M.Sc. would be. But in general, the approach by psithurism seems similar to my suggestion, to get some kind of formal record of your math/biology skills. Internships could also be very helpful and may provide you with the additional benefit of valuable connections.

So thank you. Please have a great day.

I too have a social science background and am now in a biological science field. Here is my advice:

Email the graduate coordinator or department head for graduate programs you are interested in, and ask them how best to prepare yourself to apply.
Consider doing a post-bacc degree or filling the gaps in your transcript (eg. statistics, CS, life science classes) with continuing education courses.
Get research experience, ideally in a biological science or CS lab at an academic institution.

Points 2 & 3 will give you letters of recommendation from people in the field and experience doing the work, making you a more competitive applicant. Some programs may allow you to make up the gaps in your transcript after being admitted, but if you do it on your own beforehand you will have more choice for programs, and a more concrete sense of what exactly you want to research in your graduate degree. These programs care less about what inspired your desire to follow this path and more about what experience you have and what, specifically, you want to research. Additionally, doing this work before applying will show that you are committed and that this isn't just a passing fancy, something anyone switching fields needs to demonstrate.

Thank you for sharing your experience that there is always a counterexample like you. I wonder whether if I can understand your point 2 & 3 as applying to MS as others have mentioned??

No, a post-bacc is not an MS but a second bachelor's degree or sometimes a lengthy research based continuing education experience that doesn't lead to a degree. It is still undergraduate study, and it is easy to be admitted into such programs having already completed one undergraduate degree. Some MS programs may admit you with what you have, but you will have a much better outcome if you do more undergraduate work first.

Mainly due to my ignorance, post-bacc is quite an exotic concept for me. Do universities in English speaking countries accept some graduate students from other countries as their candidate for post-bacc course, or would it be better if I pursue them in my own country?

The programs vary, but any program that accepts international applicants would consider you. Some advertise specifically as "post-bacc" opportunities, but you can also just apply to any undergraduate program and then work toward your BS. This latter route takes 2-3 years on average, but consider that if you are admitted to a grad program it may take that much extra time anyway because you will need to make up for the gaps in your experience by taking classes.

I'm sure your answer and comments would help many people who visit these sites. No need to say I am the most privileged by your help. So thank you.

Your motivation points seem to be a bit all over the place.
The crux of the issue will be funding. You are unlikely to be admitted into a decent PhD program over someone with a lot more fitting background; the situation in academia on the whole is not great already.
Instead, I would try to apply for an industry job. If you want to be a farmer, why not get some hands-on experience in that sector? You may find a startup with close ties to academia and weasel your way in or even end up deciding against it. But either way, you would already be learning new things and, with any luck, doing R&D not terribly different from what you would have in a PhD program and arguably more fitting your background and preferences.

First of all, try to get admission in MS for biology. If you can do so then complete the MS. After this many thing will be clear to you.

I chose the latter answer but I liked your answer too. It is a clear answer as what you've mentioned. Thanks.

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


text:
Would it be polite to ask the graduate program coordinator if my PhD application made the shortlist?
I recently submitted an application to a certain PhD program at a certain university. According the university's website and the graduate program coordinator, the graduate admissions committee will meet this mid-February to make a shortlist of applicants who will qualify for the next round of screening. The final result of the application will be available in mid-April. Now, if my application doesn't make the shortlist, obviously, there's no chance of me getting an admission offer in April. It thought, then, that it might be a good idea to know in February if I was shortlisted, so I could make new plans ahead of time in case I didn't get admitted. But is it polite to ask the graduate program coordinator in February if I was shortlisted?

You can ask, but it's unlikely they will give you an answer until they send out their final decisions to everyone in April.  Given that, I'd be inclined not to ask out of concern they might see it as pestering or pressuring.


text:
The status of my manuscript changed from Undergoing Initial Checking to Under review but the ED: not assigned?
I submitted a manuscript to one of the weliy journals. The status was “Undergoing Initial Checking” on Scholarone system. After 3 days, the status changed to “Under Review” along with "Ed: not assigned" above it.
It's been a month since this status change. Does this mean that it has been with the editors or has it be sent for peer review by referee? Why does the ed: not assigned but the status is under review?
Is it appropriate to write inquire to the editor about the status of my manuscript?

Possible duplicate of the canonical question: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/55665/75368

Note that things are easier here if you actually register for the site. And, see the help center: https://academia.stackexchange.com/help


text:
For graduate admission, would 3-year bachelor’s program without thesis suffice in chemistry field?
I am a Thai graduate from a university in New Zealand with a 3-year Bachelor of Science (Chemistry) without having completed a thesis. Although I could have done my fourth year doing a thesis which is called “Bachelor Honours Degree” in New Zealand, my scholarship sponsor did not allow me.
I am now a research assistant at the research center in Thailand. I really wish to continue my career further in academia abroad since I feel more comfortable when studying or working in English. However, I found it difficult to apply for the international scholarship and admission for master’s or PhD program as the general requirement would be either having completed bachelor’s degree with practical components (I assumed this could be a thesis) or graduated with 2:1 honours degree equivalence such as in UK.
I tried to apply for master’s degree at one of the Northern Irish universities but got rejected since my academic qualification wasn’t enough and they required me to complete my fourth year with thesis.
I am wondering if there are any countries/universities that thesis would not be generally required for a graduate admission?
My employer suggested me to keep sending emails to many potential professors to see if I can be exempted from the requirement. Would that be possible?
Thank you so much for your time.

If you were eligible for a

Bachelor Honours Degree (Chemistry)

at a New Zealand university, then you would probably also be eligible for the the same degree at most Australian universities.  Unlike the UK, "Honours" is a degree sort of like a masters.
New Zealand degrees are not widely known outside Australia and New Zealand.


text:
How to start research in a field with high standards?
I'd like to do research on the field Natural Language Processing. However, the current state-of-the-art (BERT) has raised the standards and for me it feels discouraging to start in this field. Should I avoid doing research NLP since it will cost me a lot of time and there is a risk of not improving upon the current standard? Or should I focus my research on the limitations of the current state-of-the-art? Or should I broaden the topic and focus on a different related topic? What would you advice in this situation?
And besides that, do you start with an research question or would you do an initial literature search first?
Best,
CamelCase

Do you have an advisor?

What are your motivations for doing research?

Is there any field with low standards in research?

For simplicity sake assume that there is a dichotomy of research topics: those where a lot of active research happens and those where that is not the case.
In areas where a lot of research is happening most (all) the "low hanging fruits" will have been taken and you will have a hard time making really big contributions. On the other hand there is an active comunity of researchers that cares about this topic, and also cares about your (smaller) contributions.
In areas where not a lot of research happens, you are more likely to find low hanging fruits, and you are more likely to make big contributions. However, there is a reason why not a lot of research is happening in that area: few people care about what is going on.
Real research areas are much more complex than this, e.g. some areas where not a lot of research is happening now were very active in the past, and there is not a lot of low hanging fruits left. Moreover, it is not so much a dichotomy but a gradient. But you get the idea of the trade-off between making small contributions that many researchers care about (and are thus easier to get published) and making big contributions that fewer researchers care about. You can also see that both are viable strategies.

Science can be very balkanized. When I finished my dissertation (theoretical math), only half a dozen people worldwide were interested, most of them at my university. It contained important results, but they were important to few people. But even there, the field required deep knowledge and long study, though it wasn't likely that someone would get scooped.


text:
Do students get rejected if they did bad on a graduate interview despite having a strong cv?
Long story short, I did bad in a graduate interview because I was not prepared and I am in a depressive episode but was trying to fight it, I am way better than what I presented myself as, I felt that the committee found it weird because my cgpa is very high, the referees wrote me very strong recommendation letters and my BSc. thesis is very good and I presented a poster in a prestigious conference.

Does this mean that I will get rejected for sure?

As a professor doing an interview, how would you judge such a student?

If I got rejected and applied again for the next year. Will I be considered?

One thing to consider is that depression systematically distorts your (self-)perceptions. So, unless you received some objectively negative feedback, it's not unlikely that you did much better than you think.

Answer to all three questions: no one knows. I sympathize with your situation, but the honest truth is your question is unanswerable. Take care, and I hope things work out.

I doubt that you get rejected for sure, but it is possible.
If I felt the interview was wildly inconsistent with the written record I'd either make my best judgement call or possibly suggest another interview. But the latter only if the written record is really outstanding. And as lighthouse keeper mentioned, your judgement may, itself be clouded at the moment.
I doubt that there would be any carryover.
Your other information suggests that your record is good enough that you will probably be fine - unless you called the interviewer a "witch", of course.
And if depression is an issue for you, then you need to get some professional advice to help you deal with it. Graduate study is hard enough in the best case.

Depends in part on how the other candidates fared.


text:
Bad score in IELTS, should I send it anyway?
A graduate program I'm applying for in mathematics requires fluency in English but didn't set the lower bound for the IELTS score. I'm very good at English but I went to the test unprepared and got severe headache during the test, couldn't complete some tasks so I got 6.
5.5: reading, listening and writing.
7: speaking
But in reality I can do better. My BSc. thesis is well-written so my question is, if I sent my IELTS score would it be a sign of weakness in my application?
It would be very difficult to take another test before the deadline of the application process but not impossible though.

Nobody here knows what this program's specific admissions criteria are. Could be a simple cutoff, could be that differences in the test are taken into account.

At my university, there is a minimum IETLS score.  If you don't meet this score, in some special circumstances, we can waive this requirement.  Also, we conduct interviews to judge a candidate; i.e., admission is not based only on one specific criterion.

Does the application require the test, or just fluency?

I went to the test unprepared

One of the purposes of these tests is to see check if you are the sort of person who prepares ahead of time for an examination.  People who have prepared for IELTS get better scores than native speakers who have not prepared.

if I sent my IELTS score would it be a sign of weakness in my application?

Yes.

should I send it anyway?

You are close to the typical cutoff score, so we cannot answer this.  You can ask the program.

People who have prepared for IELTS get better scores than native speakers who have not prepared. -- citation needed

@cag51 Any native speaker who has taken the test, such as myself, will know this.  Of course it is necessary to prepare correctly.


text:
Electrical Engineering freshman want to pursue PhD in Theoretical Computer Science
I'm a freshman in electrical engineering and have always interested in mathematics and researching. But I came to realize by the time I learn EE that it doesn't involve much math as I expected (something abstract like algebra or topology, not the same computational kind as calculus). I feel that EE is not motivated enough to commit my life to. I enjoyed learning Computer Science in my free time and found that Theoretical Computer Science fit me perfectly. Therefore I want to pursue higher education in this field. I intend to minor in Computer Science.
What can I do to prepare myself for this path? Which courses should I take and which books should I read to go ahead in this field? Is there any field in EE that have a close relation to Theoretical Computer Science (or abstract mathematics)? And should I get a MSc in Math or Computer Science after BSc in EE?

Is there any reason you can't just change your major now?

There are many reasons that I can't make a change right now. Maybe I might do it after my bachelor's. Is there another track in which I could prepare myself for MSc/PhD?

As Buffy commented, I would consider changing majors.
With that in my mind I can offer the following:
IMO the best place to start with theoretical computer science is with understanding the theory of computation and complexity.
Sipser has a wonderful book which is available online for free:
http://fuuu.be/polytech/INFOF408/Introduction-To-The-Theory-Of-Computation-Michael-Sipser.pdf
I would also recommend reading a book about discrete mathematics - specifically one that deals with graph theory. For an interesting, more modern connection between mathematics and computer science you can take a look at Expander graphs, which have applications in networking, and see whether the flavour of these notions is appealing to you.


text:
Drastic changes in tenure process and requirements during evaluation
I am an assistant prof. on a tenure-track in the US, in an institution that was heavily oriented toward teaching when I was hired, but that is gradually gearing toward more intensive research activities.
When I was hired, the faculty in my field were hosted by a department primarily devoted to a different field: think of a Math. department hosting a group of Philosophy teachers interested in Logic.
We since transitioned to our own School, and the guidelines and expectations to obtain tenure were re-written from scratch, and considerably inflated (think going from "2 papers in good journal per years and some undergraduate students" to "10 papers in conferences per year and $1,000,000 grants on a regular basis").

Is there any basis to request that I should be granted or denied tenure based on the guideline of the Department that originally hired me (knowing that those guidelines are not a good fit in my field),
Is this actually legal, to change the expectations so close to the deadline (I am suppose to go up for tenure next year, and the new guideline was released only a couple of months ago).

My boss seems to act as if, naturally, I should have followed those guidelines all along, since they believe that they are "standard" in our field (they may or may not be, I am not qualified to judge).
To clarify: I understand that there may or may not be legal courses that need to be taken, but I am more interested in understanding if this is customary among, or forced upon, faculty in academia in the US.
EDIT Hmm, some views and votes, but no answer… Should I try https://law.stackexchange.com/ ?

Nasty situation. Bait-and-switch. My sympathies.

I think it's clear what happened.  Someone wanted to make it easy to deny tenure to any assistant professors in your school, so they wrote the guidelines accordingly.  If you are the only one that these guidelines apply to, you should start looking for a new job.

Sadly, I'd have to second @AnonymousPhysicist's comment. Even if you're not quite the only one who's caught in this, a "structural reorganization" is often used as an excuse to break prior promises/agreements. Don't count on being treated fairly. It may not be personally directed at you, but that doesn't mean that you won't be caught in the mess. Scant consolation. Is there any senior person in the "new" department who can tell you what the "real" new rules are (as opposed to what's "official")?

@paulgarrett There was one other assistant prof. lined up to get up for tenure before me, and he got it before the guideline was released, so he was assessed based on … noting, or just the "bare minimum" from the University. According to that person, they would have not make it with the new requirements, and don't expect that I will make it. A good number of assistant prof. were hired after me, but they knew this new guideline was coming, and have more time to prepare for it. I am unfortunately pretty much the only one in this situation.

Sometimes the faculty handbook states that if there is not a criteria in place then the criteria is determined by the metrics of the last person to have been granted tenure in the unit. Worth reading every clause very carefully.

Are there regular pre-tenure reviews?  If you get annual reviews, and they all say you are on track, it makes it harder (not impossible) for them to justify denying you tenure on the basis of performance.

This is, first and foremost, a question for your faculty handbook. I would assume that, yes, there is a provision to request being evaluated under the prior guidelines. However, the degree to which this will help you is likely dependent on the degree of specificity and objectivity in the prior guidelines.
After checking with the handbook, you likely need to start having some conversations with the personnel committee chair, the department chair, and perhaps higher level reps who have experience with tenure and promotion. Some of the key aspects will likely be making sure the old guidelines are sent to external evaluators and are reviewed at any votes internally. This is easier to do if an advocate makes sure (tactfully) that everyone remembers in advance of any critical step that you are to be evaluated under the old guidelines.

Thanks a lot for your sharing your interesting point of view. Unfortunately, this restructuring came with a big "power grab" from our now boss, who never delegate anything to anybody. I'm afraid whether I get tenure or not will be their last word. While they are somehow re-assuring when discussing, they are unequivoqual in writing, spelling out quite clearly that I will not obtain tenure. And I believe their stance will be impossible to bypass. But, as you wrote, this is something to look for in the faculty handbook, and I will study it some more.

It is useful to note that if the criteria are objective then school-level committee can overrule the department. It is unusual but could be something you could marshall resources around , particularly if you unambiguously meet the earlier criteria. Is your P&T committee chair the same as your department chair? Usually there is a voting process and nothing is decided by one person.

Most universities are very careful to follow the faculty handbook to the letter because not doing so is grounds for a lawsuit. Good luck.

Legal questions aside, getting tenure is ultimately about satisfying the expectations of a department, a college, and the university -- and these expectations are not always explicit, but inherent in the opinions of people, and they change over time. There is little you can do about this: If a department has recently hired a lot of excellent people, then expectations go up and someone who ten years ago might have gotten tenure, may no longer get tenure simply because in the opinion of those who vote on the case, the candidate does not stack up against the recent crop of candidates any more.
This is simply inherent to the game. It is no different to an Olympic athlete who now comes in fifth because the competitors have worked harder during training, even though eight years ago he might have gotten a gold. You can't sue the Olympic committee that you should get a medal anyway. Similarly, departments generally make decisions about candidates relative to others in similar positions, and unless a faculty manual explicitly spells out that "X publications, Y dollars of grant funding, and Z teaching awards will get you tenure", you don't really have much of a basis for a lawsuit. Of course, faculty manuals -- at least at good universities -- do not actually spell things out this way, and that's on purpose. Rather, manuals say that a candidate needs to show "excellence in their research area": A term that is both relative and subject to interpretation, both on purpose.
Whether all of this is something you can challenge in court is a question I'm not prepared to answer. But I am prepared to say that you will always be measured relative to your peers, and that that is universally true, not just when it comes time for tenure, but also for pay raises, promotions, etc., both within and outside academia.


text:
Mature PhD maths student going through a crisis and feeling pretty anxious and depressed about future - advice needed
So, to provide a bit about my background, I did an undergrad degree in mathematics from 2010-2014, and started a PhD immediately afterwards and dropped out after 9 months due to it not being a good fit. I then spent a year training to become a maths teacher in Further Education (so high school level) and did this as my full-time job for a couple of years afterwards. Even though there were parts of the job I quite enjoyed, I didn't find it ultimately so rewarding that I was willing to make a permanent career out of it, and I felt that the challenges were coming from all the wrong places (e.g. the maths wasn't difficult but behaviour management and keeping on top of all these performance measures definitely were). I then applied to a much better PhD programme in 2018, at one of the world's top universities, and was offered a fully-funded place, much to my delight. This was much more in line with my original mathematical interests and so far my experience at this university has been mostly positive.
I am now nearing the end of my third year of my PhD (and have another year left - I joined a doctoral training centre so I am effectively in my second year of my research project) and I seem to have hit a bit of a "mid-PhD crisis". I am 29 years old, and all the others in my close circle of friends from home have either bought a house, gotten married or are soon to have/are having kids (or more than one of these). Whilst I am not absolutely sure myself that I want these things, I feel like I am in a sense "lagging behind" many people my age in terms of life experience more generally, and especially since COVID restrictions are being lifted in the UK I have been a bit desperate to go to social events, look for partners, or other things which provide instant gratification.
Over the last month or so this has been affecting my productivity quite a lot. My current lack of productivity is being compounded by several things:

Lack of self-esteem about my academic abilities and feeling like I haven't achieved very much (even though in the grand scheme of things I have excelled academically compared to most people)
Feeling perpetually "rusty" or like there are things that I should know but still slip up on (e.g. forgetting things that first/second-year maths students know very well)
Feeling incompetent (I keep making silly mistakes, and people have previously called me out on getting something wrong that they wouldn't have expected me to)
Feeling very self-conscious by comparing myself to others in my cohort, who have published at least one paper or are in the process of doing so (whereas it feels like I am a long way towards publishing anything and I am facing casual questions from others about whether my work thus far can be turned into a paper)
Feeling like I am "disabled" or "weak" compared to most other grad students due to a complex health situation (e.g. ASD, anxiety, depression, sleep apnea and suspected ADD) and that my supervisor perhaps doesn't push me very as hard as a result - and may end up letting me graduate out of pity even if my thesis work isn't particularly good or publishable
Conflicting feelings about whether I want an "exciting" life (e.g. moving and working in different parts of the world, doing postdocs, working in different fields) or a "stable" life (e.g. buying a house close to my hometown, and settling down and staying there and in the same job so I can become proficient at it and turn it into a lifelong career)
Conflicting feelings about my suitability for research (e.g. due to aversion to reading papers unless absolutely necessary, needing quite a bit of support and encouragement from my supervisor in working through difficult problems, and finding uncertainty and open-endedness unsettling)
Feeling that I still struggle with quite a few things that I also struggled with about a decade ago (like ringfencing different aspects of life, managing my time, sticking to a routine and documenting my progress)
Uncertainty about what sort of career I want afterwards (e.g. in academia, industry, data analytics, quantitative finance, or even a menial job that doesn't even require an undergraduate degree) and what sorts of life these would afford
Uncertainty about what I find most appealing in life (is it intellectual challenge, lots of money for hobbies etc?)

I have been doing a really good job of looking after my mental health during lockdown through diet and exercise (losing 50 pounds) and I have been having almost weekly sessions with a psychotherapist to help me to navigate all my life challenges. My mental health has taken a dip recently because of all the above overwhelming feelings, and even when I was in a brilliant mental state because of my lifestyle, it doesn't seem to have spilled into my productivity or aversion to challenging tasks.
I could really do with some advice. Is it a good idea to explain these concerns to my supervisor and find a way forwards to help me to cross the finish line? I have a mentor who I can speak to in my department who isn't connected to my research project, and I have counselling sessions at the university as well, but I feel like I need some more help navigating all these challenges.

You've made this so personal and individualized that it is impossible to give advice. Seek it from a professional or from people you know well and who know you well. The values are yours alone.

The point of SE is to answer questions whose answers are useful to people other than the person posing the question.  We don't give purely personal advice.

The harsh truth is that there is only going to be so much help available to you. A PhD has to be your own work and while your supervisor is there to provide guidance, there must come a point where you "fly the nest" and are able to work and motivate yourself independently. You are doing all the right things by talking to a mental health professional -- perhaps you just need to give it more time. Problems that you've faced for 10+ years are not going to be resolved overnight. In short: keep on keeping on.

Sorry to hear your are struggling. You are not alone; graduate school is an inherently challenging time, and the uncertainty of what happens after grad school only makes it harder. It sounds like you are only a year away, so my advice would be to push through, finish your PhD, and also keep thinking about your post-graduation plans; you will feel more settled when you have a permanent position or a path to one. But the only real "question" I see in your post is about whether you can discuss this with your supervisor: for that, see here.

I just wanted to leave a comment of encouragement - I was in a very similar situation.  Started one PhD program in math and left due to a bad fit.  Taught high school math for two years, loved the teaching but could not deal with the classroom management (teenagers, am I right?)  Started a PhD in math fully funded at a different university.  Felt like an imposter and felt not good enough.  Managed to make friends with some others to vent with, and realized that they, too, felt like imposters...

Learned that my history of making mistakes in math, etc., and the stuggle actually made me a better teacher and more relatable to students.  Graduated at the age of 32 with my PhD.  Now am a full time faculty member in a teaching focused position at a university.  Hang in there - you can do it!

First of all, I wish nothing but for you to get back in shape as soon as possible.
I will try to give an answer that is more general, so as to be useful to other people dealing with anxiety or other mental health issues.
(1) You are experiencing FOMO as well as impostor syndrome. Many people across the world are facing the same challenges as you, especially during this pandemic. You probably fear that it's only you who is lost in life, while others seem to be doing fine. In fact, if you talked closely to many of those people who seem to be doing fine, you would find that they are struggling with many other difficult issues. So avoid unfairly comparing yourself to others as much as possible. Focus on your daily self-improvement instead and measure how you are progressing on a daily basis (in writing!).
(2) as someone who has worked in different countries, there is nothing "exciting" about doing postdocs in different countries, unless they are countries in which you are a native speaker (like Anglophone countries). Try doing tax returns in a language that you are not that proficient in! You will find that most of your job opportunities are in such countries: China, Central/North Europe, etc. Unless you feel excited about your research and about taking challenges, I would recommend caution against living an academic "nomad" life. It can be very taxing, stressing, and an isolating experience.
(3) The top-most priority for you right now, is for you to commit 100% to a time-management framework, and devise/write down a step-by-step plan to get you back on track to have a paper published, and complete your PhD successfully. You should write down such a plan within one week, and book enough office time with your supervisor to hash out the details. Regardless of whether or not you will continue in academia, getting some papers published is a necessary condition for completing a PhD in most univs.
(4) I understand that you are feeling down partly due to not having enough opportunities for socialization, but you have to be able to do most of the heavy work in lifting your self up without depending on being validated by others. Sure, we all love to have our work and our presence be validated by others, but you will probably not last very long in academia unless you start to recognize your self-worth (in a humble, non-arrogant way that allows you to be a team player when necessary) as well as the inherent value of others.
(5) Academia is similar to the worlds of entrepreneurship, music industry or architecture: you will be facing failures constantly, and you will regularly have to deal with extremely harsh people (students, for instance!). It is easy for people to claim that one should feel like they "belong" in a certain workplace, or that other people should accommodate to your mental health situation. To be clear, that is impossible: there is no place on Earth where people will accept you without conditions. It is up to you to put as much effort as possible towards "earning" that sense of "belonging" and built it together with others, for example by exhibiting tons of patience when experiencing failures or other people's criticisms/meltdowns.
(6) Whenever you are experiencing some anxiety, the best immediate solution is childish humor. Train yourself to laugh for no reason in moments of apparent crisis! Remember anything from your childhood that made you laugh: Monty Python's Life of Brian, Blackadder, silly cat videos (such as the "mugumogu" channel on Youtube), your favorite memes, etc. Of course, many other advices will apply, like getting enough sunshine, trying to talk with other people on a regular basis, etc. Whatever works for you, keep doing it.
(7) Finally, yes, talk to your supervisor, and any other counseling staff that is at your disposal to help you deal with this situation. But in the end, it all depends on your effort and commitment: other people can point out which "door" you should push (i.e., which methods, approaches might be best for you to pass the PhD), but the door is very heavy and you need to strengthen yourself (mentally and physically!) every day, in order to push that door and get your PhD done, not to mention dealing with the job market!. You can strengthen yourself by seeking everyday to deal with adversity with humor and positivity, by openly admitting that you have self-worth, by expressing to others that they too have value, by taking on the necessary responsibility and duties relevant to your research place, by being of service to others, by showing that you are dependable and can be trusted, and that you are committed to your self-improvement in times of adversity.
Do your best, and take care.


text:
How much background information should I provide in a paper if it is a follow-up to a previous publication of mine?
I have recently published a paper in which I have identified a problem and developed a potential methodology for solving it. In that first paper, I included a fairly extensive literature review of the subject so that I could support my proposed methodology. The primary goal of that review section was to introduce and elaborate on all of the variables that would need to be accounted for in the model.
The paper that I am currently writing is a follow-up to that original publication where I have gathered the data I need to test the methodology. In this paper, do I need to re-write the sections that introduce all of the elements of my model (the literature review in the first paper), or is it acceptable to state that this is a follow-up to a previous publication and refer the reader back to the initial paper?
Of course, I will need to provide enough information in the second paper so that a reader will be able to understand the model. However, if I can simply provide an abbreviated explanation of the background and the elements that make up the model by citing my original paper, that would save me a great deal of work. It also would likely improve the second paper, since I will not have to spend several pages explaining things that I have previously established. However, I wanted to check to see if it would instead be wiser to just re-word the material that is present in the first paper.

I think you need to assume that the reader cannot access your first paper for some reason. If the second contains enough description without it, then that would be acceptable in most fields to refer to the previous work for more details/justification.
However, I would caution against you being the only judge of whether you have enough detail as you are likely too familiar with your own work. If you have a colleague who has not read the first article, that could read a draft for you to give their opinion, I would recommend it.


text:
Value of an arxived paper under review at a journal in graduate applications
I am an Indian physics student who will apply for graduate school in the US around December this year. Along with a European professor I have been working with for one year, I am currently writing a paper that will soon be submitted to, say, Physical Review B. But before that, we will of course, upload it to ArXiv. I am the first author on the paper, and the professor will write me a recommendation letter for solely based on this yearlong project.
Will such a manuscript hold much value in my applications even if the paper is not accepted by December?

See How much do research papers in arXiv count (for graduate applications)? or Are publications on arxiv.org valued by graduate admissions committees?

Hi. My question is actually a little different. My paper will specifically be under review at the time I will apply, and the professor will write me a letter on that project. Plus, I'm the leading author of the paper. My questions are a little specific. Thank you

Does this answer your question? How much do research papers in arXiv count (for graduate applications)?

Under review = not reviewed yet. You being the first author and having a recommendation letter are certainly good additional points, but otherwise answers suggested by @Anyon apply to your case. A paper on ArXiv is not as valuable on a CV as a published paper, but is still a valuable accomplishment.

Interested academics will probably just read your papers directly
As a general rule, the publication records of higher-degree research applicants are small enough that it is not too onerous to directly read all of their papers; this allows direct review of the present quality of their research and writing.  When I am considering taking on a PhD student as a supervisor, I would read all of their existing published works, including pre-prints on ArXiv.  (I would expect that other relevant members of a selection panel for higher-degree research applicants would probably also do this.)  If these works vary highly in quality, I would typically focus on the best ones and also ask the applicant which papers they consider to be their best works.  If papers were done with academic co-authors then I would also inquire into the contributions of the applicant and try to make an inference of what they are contributing to the papers at issue.  I would make further inquiries about this when checking their references.
Since directly reading the papers is feasible in this case, it is usually possible to get a reasonable idea of the present research quality of the applicant directly from the quality of the works, without relying on secondary markers like acceptance at a journal.  The latter may still be useful in showing that other expert reviewers have accepted the paper and also in showing that the applicant has been able to successfully navigate the peer-review and publication process (which is a useful skill in its own right).  Nevertheless, when directly reading the works at issue to evaluate a prospective higher-degree research student, it is not especially important whether or not the paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or just a preprint repository.


text:
Can someone change PhD topic within a department after admission?
Suppose that someone applies for a PhD in the US with publications in topic X, and hence the whole SOP and
the target group both revolve around X. They get admitted, and realise soon after entering that there is another topic they would love to work on, albeit it is worked on by a different group.
Is it possible to switch? Or are they supposed to work on X with the same group during the whole PhD?

Usually possible, but much better to ask the chair of graduate studies (or whatever your department calls it) about the specifics in your case than to ask the internet. If you are realizing this soon after being admitted, it should be relatively painless and not cost you too much.

There might be exceptions, but generally in the US it is possible to change, though doing so might cost you time. The exceptions would be if you were being paid by a particular group (through a grant, say) and then, while it would still be possible, you would have to arrange funding.
But, for the most part, you are accepted into a department, not a specific group within it and you can probably change within that department. You would need to find an advisor to accept you, of course.
Most students start doctoral studies with only a BS/BA and little immediate research focus.

Thank you. This was very relieving.


text:
Undergrad grades in PhD
For someone who has just finished his M.Sc. with extremely good grades, is it possible that their not so extremely good grades during undergrad might affect where they get their PhD?

Which country for the undergrad/MSc/PhD?

India is my country

And you are looking for a PhD in India?  (And please update the question accordingly!)

Since you have not provided enough details in your question I will go with a generalised answer to this end. The answer to this question, however, is country- and organisation-specific. Further, it does also depends on the PhD advisor herself.
I am in academics for a few years now and I have seen some post-grads (not PhD) who do/did have bad grades during their corresponding undergraduate studies.
First, let's quantify what does a bad grade mean: On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest), bad grade would be, according to me somewhere within 4. "Ok" grades would be the ones falling in the range: 5-7, and above 7 is just great. As I said, this can be argued; but lets for the moment accept these as axioms.
So, if your grades in the "bad" category, then you should have something additional to show to the PhD selection committee or the advisor you are applying under. This term "extra" would mean something like a voluntary project that you did, maybe a collaborative work you participated in, or an article that you wrote with some others. Again, this extra stuff that you show may not be well-accepted but would definitely provide a soft edge towards the decision-making process. Also, note that PhD application might require a few recommendation letters if those letters could mention these extras to compensate for your bad grades, then you are okay I think.
If you have nothing to show as an extra component, then this might not be a good sign to have "bad" grades in the CV. A PhD position would expect someone to be serious in studies and highly motivated to pursue research.

My grades in undergrad are around 9/10. And I am wishing for a Ph.D. in Physics. Isn't 9/10 not too good for a physics degree?

@SarthakGirdhar Is 9/10 considered low in your university? What percentile does it place you in? Grading scales can vary a lot, so just the number may not be very meaningful. In some places, 9/10 would put you in the top 5-10% of the class.

@GoodDeeds Yes, you are right. 9/10 could put you in top 5 %ile. But, I think it is still a pretty good score to get filtered in the application process.

Ah, you are safe. Just enjoy :-) @SarthakGirdhar

Care to explain negative vote please?

It's not me who has voted negatively on the answer.  I find it weird too.

Depends - but I feel if you can convincingly communicate why you want the PhD position you are applying for, I doubt your undergrad grades are going to be detrimental.
Also, I recon this differs a lot from country to country and field of research.

I am from India and here we are veryyyy marks oriented.

What is the meaning of "marks oriented"? Why is this answer negatively voted?

@coder marks oriented means here we are obsessed with grades. Your high school grades, your rank, your GPA define you to a large extent.


text:
Second revision, one of the reviewers said I should completely rewrite paper with new ideas and methods, because it is not innovative
I have revised my initial manuscript with a major revision after the first decision. After long months of waiting, I received reviewing results with another major revision.
Two reviewers were completely satisfied with my revision and recommended acceptance.
One, possibly, new reviewer suggested some improvements but didn't question the novelty of this manuscript.
And one reviewer from the previous round said that this manuscript lacks novelty and should be completely revised with new ideas, questions and methods. I don't understand how it's even possible to do that without a completely new, written from scratch, manuscript. Also, we have a comparative literature review and listing what is the novelty in the Introduction and we have comparative numerical experiments in the Simulation section. I don't know if this reviewer advised rejecting because major revision looks impossible.
Please, advise on how best to deal with this situation

When the reviewer says your manuscript lacks novelty, does he/she provide evidence? If not, then you should argue by providing evidences; write the state-of-the-art clearly, and show the reviewer where the gaps are.

He/She did not give any clarifications of why this paper lacks novelty. Also, there were no examples of similar, directly related work in this "review". Only: "The problem is commonplace question, it has been studied for many years". And that's all. This is why I am so discouraged.

Best chat with your supervisor.

Based on your comment, I understand that the reviewer doubts the novelty of your work, without specifying details (previous works achieving the same or something very similar as your work).
This kind of feedback is essentially worthless, and should not influence the decision on your paper (if it's a sane editor).
I recommend the following strategy: Systematically address all other reviewer feedback and, based on your revisions, write a strong author response letter. Regarding the criticism of novelty, include a response among the following lines in your response letter:

To our knowledge, our work is the first to achieve X. We discuss the novelty of our work in comparison to related work in section Y of the paper. We would appreciate any pointers to additional works which should be considered in our discussion.

Many thanks for your answer. What is your opinion, should we also address the Editor with similar arguments before comments to reviewers in Response Letter?

@Tag If the editor commented about novelty as well, respond to that comment as part of the response letter. Otherwise, just respond to the reviewer.


text:
How are scientific research projects planned? In particular computer science, but possibly there exists processes for all research?
Possibly some context:
Take any research endeavor. Finding a vaccine. Going to the moon. Clean energy. I don't have a background in these scientific areas so picking one closer to home (Comp Sci) might be better. But the idea is how to battle the Unknowns? How to do it economically? How to make progress while not getting analysis paralysis?
Some might suggest a scrum, or an agile process try to solve these questions.  I'm not certain that they address the same level or kinds of Unknowns.
Are there previous experiences that work, and those that don't work?  And why?  The questions grows on the way forward through unknowns, and by definition the Unknown doesn't exactly have a road map, and new context is developed regularly.
This maybe simply the question of the 'meta' variety: Is there research on comp sci research?  If so does Comp Sci research have approaches or techniques that they rely on?

Of course, a great many projects are not "planned" in any formal way: someone has an idea for something to do, and does it.  But typically the idea is of far more limited scope than the examples you cite in the first paragraph.

Here are some slides about managing big science projects from Gary Sanders who's an expert on managing really large projects, including the Thirty Meter Telescope.

This might provide a partial answer to your question.

Scrum an Agile are team processes, primarily.

@Anyon Great link!

It seems a little too broad to me. To clarify and improve it, maybe you can specify what you mean by Unknowns? and focus on that aspect of planning?

Scrum, Agile: sound like necromantic spells to evoke the spirits of the netherworld [yes, I know what these are]. This type of stuff is perhaps useful once you know what you want.
But in science, that's usually not the case. You do not know what you want, when you do, you do not know how to get there, and if you think you know how to get there, you may be quite off estimating how long it will take and which obstacles you will stumble into.
So, the way to proceed is to ask/do the following:

what is out there?
what are the techniques?
What am I interested in?
What do I enjoy doing? [No, it's not the same as 3!]
Acquire knowledge. (what's out there, what's known? Literature!)
Acquire skills. (how do I do stuff)
Acquire expertise (i.e. knowledge how to use skills, not the same
as skills)
Play around.
Find loopholes, open issues, improvements, gaps, etc.
Can you fill them?

And the most important one: talk to people who are good in the field.
As you acquire expertise, you will be able to plan further into the future.


text:
MSc dissertation - getting a DOI early, allowing its content to change
I'm about to start my MSc dissertation (in the UK), and I'm thinking about doing it in quite an agile/iterative/continuous delivery way - maintaining a written document that is "complete" pretty much all the way through. I'm wondering about other steps that might usually go at the end, and wondering if I can do them at the beginning.
Is it possible to get a DOI for my MSc dissertation, and is it possible to get one way before it's complete?
I'm doing the dissertation part time, so it will be being edited for a bit over a year.

Kind of the whole idea behind DOI is long-term persistence. It is a way to permanently identify a specific object, (hopefully) even decades after its creation and to be able to still look it up, no matter how often e.g.  publishers change their website layout.
What you are trying to do would kind of produce the orthogonal problem, in that you have a permanent identifier pointing to an object that is continuously in flux. While I don't think that this is technically forbidden, and indeed there is sometimes a grey area in regards to later revisions of a document, I would still call it a bad idea.
Let's say that you are able to obtain a fixed DOI for your dissertation early on while it still is changing. Then that DOI is of no help in referencing it, as that reference might refer to content that is not there anymore in the next version. Any automated systems that index it might also index the first version and then never bother to update. You might be able to change the metadata associated to the DOI accordingly, which might even force updates down along the line, but that sounds like a lot of work for no benefit.
Two other remarks:

If you are using some sort of version control system, this can be used to reference a specific version of your work. However a DOI pointing to the repository with all the versions is not the same as a DOI pointing to the resulting text.

While "continuous delivery" could indeed be a useful approach to writing a dissertation, you should not necessarily take that literally. There is no need to deliver every early draft to the whole world. If you are lucky, some people (other than those who grade it), will be interested in reading it, but they certainly will not be interested in reading it again and again in a slightly modified form every two weeks. Instead they will be perfectly happy to read it once it is finished.


text:
Writing a case report about my own medical problems without treating physician
I am a postdoc in epidemiology. Last year I had a very rare viral infectious disease that got me admitted to the hospital for more than a week, and it is worth a case report because it's a fairly unknown disease and physicians had troubles in finding out what it was.
I had discussed writing a case report with my treating physicians, but eventually they stopped answering my emails or picking up the phone.
Therefore, I wonder if it's OK to write the case report myself, about myself, with the help of a senior physician that works with me and is willing to help, without involving the physicians who treated me. I have all the tests, diagnosis, course of the disease, and my own patient consent.

I cannot think of any ethical problem with this, and anybody who knew you did it would usually be required to keep that information confidential.

There are not many medical researchers on this site.  If you find the answer, please come back and post it.

@AnonymousPhysicist Yes I will, thanks for your input!

As correctly pointed out by @Anonymous Physicist, the “Common Rule” defines research as:

A systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.

Simply reading the “Common Rule” definition of research, it would seem that a case report would not qualify as “research” because it is non-systematic.  If a case report is not research, then it would seem that it does not need to be reviewed by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).
But, like so much related to the requirement (or non-requirement) for review of particular activities by the IRB (or ethics board), policies about case reports in the United States are not uniform among institutions.  And there are further regulatory wrinkles due to HIPAA and problems that may arise from journal policies.
HIPAA
Writing up and publishing a case report generally uses protected health information, that is information that permits an individual to be identified.  Access to and use of this information is regulated by the Health Information and Portability Act (HIPAA) and, at the institutional level, decisions about access to and use of such information is overseen by a “privacy board” or a “privacy officer.”  The IRB often, but not always, serves both as an ethics board and a privacy board.
An institution might not require IRB review of a case report but would require review by a privacy board or a privacy office (or the IRB acting as a privacy board).
 Empiric Data from 2017
A 2007 JAMA publication reported on the policies with regard to review requirements for case reports at medical schools in the United States. [1]
Of 124 medical schools surveyed, 116 (94%) responded.  The following results were reported:

“Ninety-one (78%) of the responding schools did not require IRB approval for a case report.”

“None of the 25 [that required IRB approval] required full IRB board review; 17 (68%) required IRB notification; and 8 (32%) did not have a fixed policy but considered whether the report should have full or expedited review on an individual basis. Six (24%) conducted reviews because they considered case reports to be research, 8 (32%) for privacy requirement, and 11 (44%) for both purposes.”

 The Journal Problem
A further problem that can arise when attempting to publish about work that was not reviewed by an IRB is a requirement by a journal that the work being presented has been reviewed by an IRB (whether or not it was required to be reviewed) or a request by a journal for documentation from the IRB that the work was NOT required to be reviewed.
 Bottom Line
The advice by others to “ask your IRB” seems apt.  The advice might be expanded a bit to suggest (given the additional complexities that arise because an author of the case report is also the patient whose information is being reported) that the OP ask their IRB to review the work formally and issue a formal approval of a plan to publish the information by those who will be authors/co-authors.  This is the safest thing to do (although bureaucratic)
 Reference
[1] Panda M, Heath GW, Desbiens NA, Moffitt B.  Research Status of Case Reports for Medical School Institutional Review Boards.  JAMA. 2007;298(11):1277-1278. doi:10.1001/jama.298.11.1277
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/208845 Johns Hopkins University

I don't know what an ethics board would say about this, and you need to check. Review might be required by your institution or by any journal you would submit to. If they approve then I see no issue, though you may need to anonymize the attending physicians.
But whether you can actually publish it would be up to a publisher.
Be honest, of course, about the fact that you are the subject of the study unless an ethics board rules otherwise.
Note also, that it isn't the attending physicians writing the case report, but others, including another physician, apparently. The rights of those attending physicians need protection, making this case somewhat special.

Not sure about the first sentence -- this article suggests that a physician publishing a case history does not usually require approval from a research ethics board (though if the institution has a board that is willing to review this, it's certainly one way for OP to get an answer to their question).

"The Common Rule defines research as:
“a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation,
designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.”"  So, at least under US regulation, a non-systematic case study is not research and is not regulated by an ethics board.  But ask anyway.

None of the case reports I read recently mentioned ethics review.

@cag51, from your link, I read: "A reasonable approach may be to designate a member of the research ethics board to review case reports written by members of an institution to ensure that consent and confidentiality issues are respected. This ‘seal of approval’ could be used to ensure ethical conduct at the time of submission of a case report to a journal for publication. Journals may add an additional final measure of protection by requesting prior local review before consideration."

You skipped over the part where it says "[IRBs] are not obliged to oversee case reports at present." The "reasonable approach" line you quoted is a recommendation for how things could/should be done in future, not a statement about what is done now. Moreover, OP is a post-doc in epidemiology who is collaborating with MDs, so respectfully, I think telling them "hmm, I'm a mathematician, but I heard you should normally talk to your IRB before doing anything" is not a helpful answer. Better to defer to those who actually know (which certainly does not include me either).


text:
Coauthor removed the 1st-author's name from Google scholar input
Back story: A new postdoc joined my research for a manuscript that I was working on with a senior research scientist for 2 years. The new postdoc wanted 2nd authorship but the senior scientist also wanted 2nd and felt she contribution more intellectually. After the senior research scientist spoke with her, she became angry with me.
The manuscript was published with all the co-authors listed. After the work was published in a journal, this co-author removed my name as the 1st-author on her Google Scholar. Basically manually removed my name as the first-author in the author's list.
NOTE: My First-authorship is not affected as this removal has not been done at the journal level, only on their Google Scholar.
There's no reason to bring it to the attention of the journal because this occurred on Google scholar, not on the journal. I think it is unethical behavior and mabybe even plagiarism.
I know the removal of my name from her Google Scholar page wasn't an accident, because when she realized she couldn't get 2nd authorship, she got angry and stopped communicating with me, and never completed her section of the research.
My question: What should I do about this situation?

Is the authorship 'changed' on the journal site?

The authorship was not changed on the journal site?

i would suggest editing this question and leaving out calling the coauthors abusive or problematic, and clarifying the question is about a faulty google scholar entry. Bad coauthors/advisors are of course bad but not related to fixing a google scholar entry. Whether to use google scholar is also not related to this question IMO

There are really too many questions in your posts that would better be asked separately . You should clarify whether anything changed on the page of the paper on the journal website. I suppose it did not, but please clarify. If you do a search for that article in Google Scholar, what author names does it find? If you look at your Google Scholar profile, if you have it, what author names does it show? If you can search Web of Science, which author names does it show?

The more you edit the question, the more obscure it gets. Every decent person is sorry you went all through this, but no one really cares about the back story can be summed up in one sentence (as I already did).
Are you first author?

Yes. I am the first-author

So, one of the other authors created a Google Scholar record for a version of the paper without including you as an author?  Does the actual publication also appear in Google Scholar?

I searched Google Scholar as someone suggested and the record that she made without my name didn't show on the first page of the results. I see the actual publication with my name when I clicked on the one that she edited too, so that's good.

It is unethical behavior, maybe considered as plagiarism but they didn't actually use the paper other than advertise it on their Google scholar but manipulated the author list to remove the first-author.

Based on what's narrated, that's not plagiarism. Unethical in a way, probably: (edit: intentionally removing an author) and that's even subjective.
PS: deleted after clarification by OP.

What can be done about this situation?

In all likelihood, this co-author might have, on Google Scholar, add article manually. That's how they can 'amend' the paper's entries.
The proper citation/entry will show on others, where the paper is added automatically by Google Scholar's algorithm.
So, is this something to battle, I personally don't see the need for it in the bigger picture of the war.
If however the authorship changes on the journal, then it calls for addressing.
If however the first author or other authors are pedantic about it, then they can also add article manually on their Google Scholar's profile with the correct information.

PS: It's a bit difficult understanding what OP is asking.
[Edit: OP clarification is of assistance]

correcting the entry in the OP's google scholar profile seems very reasonable. I agree the ethics are unclear - what if it was an accident?

Because it wasn't an accident. That's why there is an explanation about the coauthor being problematic. They had an issue with the first-author. @JonasSchwarz this was explained in the original post but it was edited out by someone else.

Reordering the authors would be more defensible.  Removing one is definitely an ethical violation, nothing subjective about that.

I agree with @JonasSchwarz what if it was accidental. With further clarification by OP, BenVoigt is also correct in the context of intentionally removing an author. Although, the original paper would remain intact on the journal!

This is a weird situation. I think it is definitely unethical if she is really misrepresenting the author order, but I also don't think that you should lose too much sleep over it. If she is doing this intentionally, it's no different that lying about publications on a CV. Since it's on Google Scholar, just clicking on the linked article will reveal the truth. So, this shouldn't actually hurt you and it probably won't help your co-author either (in fact if someone noticed it would probably harm her). It's just petty.
As @semmyk-research mentioned, she might have manually added the entry. This will show up on her profile but, as you discovered, does not replace the automatic citation and should link to the proper paper (or nothing at all). Realistically anyone who comes across this and reads the paper will assume it is an error. I have actually had the google algorithm mess up citations like this - leaving out authors. You can link or merge the citations together on your profile. I think linking the citations is all you should do and probably all you can do.
If a copy of the paper pops up without your name on it, then it would be time to escalate.

After claryfing you are the first author, I can say only one thing: your co-author is very stupid if she thinks she can obtain something by falsifying entries in google scholar (or anywhere/anyhow, the tool is just a tool).
You do not need to spend anytime to discuss directly with her or other co-authors, discussing with idiots make you an idiot as well, do not be dragged in this cat fight, just write the editors there is an issue with the appearance of the paper in Google Scholar, they will deal with it.
If they do not deal with it, sooner or later the mighty google tool will find the error thanks to its powerful algorithms.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
I was not allowed to finish my PhD, my work got accepted at a top-tier CS conference, what's next?
I had two PhD supervisors. Let's call the first one A and second one B. A was the main supervisor who had the authority in signature. B was a young professor trying to gain experience on supervising PhD students.
For some reasons I always preferred discussing my research with B over A. These were the main reasons:

A is bad at English. He speaks French but my French is beginner's level. B on the other hand is fluent in English.
A has not updated himself to the cutting edge research in AI. In fact A is mathematician working in CS department. I always wanted to work on the intersection of maths and the cutting edge AI. First, A is bad in English. Second, he has not updated himself to current research. It was hella difficult for me to explain him my research work. Therefore, I preferred B over A.

During the last year of my PhD, my spouse (then my girlfriend) got pregnant and I had to move to a different city to assist her during pregnancy. There were also frequent lockdowns due to COVID, and work from home was becoming more common. After moving to a different location (which was 2hr:00 run from my PhD school), I mostly preferred reporting my research and discussing via video conferences. B was OK with it, but A was not happy with this. He demanded that I must come at least once in a week to the lab and report my research to him in person.
It was difficult for me to follow his request for the following reasons:

I was supposed to assist my pregnant partner during the pregnancy and after the birth of the newborn (she was alone).
COVID was still present.
4 hours (2+2) of net journey in the Bus.
I had to catch a bus 6:30 in the morning and it was difficult for me to wake up early (especially when the child came).

Two months before the end of the PhD contract I got an email from the Doctoral school saying that your PhD defense is not possible as you supervisor A thinks that you should not be permitted for it as your research is not good enough (also my request for three months extension was denied). This mail was the indication for me that since I have disrespected A by not coming to the Lab once in a week, hence I will not be allowed to finish my PhD. I was very busy working on the article for a top tier conference (Both A and B were aware of this, before that mail I used to explain my work to B via video conferences). The very next day after that mail I had a meeting with B, and he said to stop working on the article as it will not lead me to a PhD, and he advised me to start looking for a job. Behind the scenes B was arguing for my case with Doctoral school, but A was not. I had faith in my idea and research competency. Therefore, I continued to write the paper and decided to publish as a sole author, anyway I knew that I will not be allowed to defend my thesis. Looking back, I feel that A always used to underestimated my research potential.
With luck and hard work, my paper has been accepted to that conference with spotlight.
I have the following questions to ask:
But before answering, bear the following points:

I have a spouse and an infant.
Although I can get a job, but research is my passion.
B is willing to give me a recommendation letter and willing to be a referee in future.

Questions:

Considering my good contributions to the opensource on github and given two conference papers, one accepted at a top-tier venue.  Could I apply for a new PhD positions ?
The fact that I have spouse and an infant, would this be a negative point for a future potential supervisor ?
How will I explain this mess to a future potential supervisor ? For sure she/he would be curious ? What is the most optimal way of letting my potential supervisor know about this when I contact her/him for a for the first time for a PhD ? How do I put this in my resume  (those years)?
Apart from a PhD, are there any other research oriented jobs in academia (in Europe and US) ?

Whether you’ll be eligible for another PhD position depends on where you apply, and how you present yourself. Universities and supervisors need to have successful PhD students who actually finish and get their degrees. This is important for reputation and often financing of departments is directly tied to how many PhDs complete. Researchers applying for grants or for promotion also need to show they have supervised PhD students who have successfully finished. So taking on new PhD students is a risk, and supervisors and universities will always consider whether a candidate is likely to be actually complete their degree.
So if you apply for another program, you need to present yourself in a way that emphasizes your ability to complete projects. Most people will understand that Covid and the birth of a child made things difficult, so mention that and emphasize how you completed the two papers. honestly I don’t think going to the lab once a week was an unreasonable request - and not wanting to get up in time for a 6:30 am bus is definitely not something that will make potential employers confident that you will prioritize your research and collaboration with the lab. Definitely don’t get into details of how you weren’t able to collaborate with A.
Your best bet, if you want to start a new PhD program, is to go to the conference to present your paper and network. Talk to professors and grad students at different labs and universities, look for peoples whose research interests coincide with your own. Make friends. Your pitch could be that you really want to do research in X field, and realized during your previous position that Y university wasn’t the best place for that, and you would love the opportunity to work with a group that really specialises in X.
Would you want to move for a new PhD? Be realistic about how this would work with your family. If you’re not going to be able to be physically present at the new lab you need to be up front about that and find a group that is ok with remote work.
You might also be happy or happier outside of academia, so definitely consider that.

+1 for "Definitely don’t get into details of how you weren’t able to collaborate with A." being able to communicate with people who have limited English is a very important part of being an academic.

This will focus only on your questions. Most of the background isn't really relevant.
Yes, you can apply for a doctoral position, though maybe not everywhere. Not a problem in the US. Lots of people change programs for various reasons. I did, and wound up finishing at a slightly more prestigious place. Having a strong advocate will be a big help.
No, being married with kid(s) isn't an issue if you are funded adequately. Lots of doctoral students are like this. When I finished I had two kids and lived in special housing created for married doctoral students (sadly no longer available).
Don't explain most of it. There is no need to explain arguments with one advisor if the other supports you. "Life and COVID intervened and I didn't make sufficient progress. No longer an issue. But I do have a nice paper published, so I'm a candidate for success."
There are other jobs but without a doctorate you probably don't want one. Companies do a lot of "product research" that won't likely seem like "real" research to you. Those who do serious, publishable, research probably want PhDs.