text:
Am I too old for an Ed.D?
I know that similar questions have been asked regarding PhD's, but I was hoping for specific guidance on my plans for an Ed.D.
I am 38 and I am a career changer; I went from being in the Army, to working for a distribution center. Now, I'm a third year elementary teacher overseas in Hanoi, Vietnam.
I love my new career and I just finished an MSED in Elementary Reading and Literacy. I've been accepted into the Liberty University Ed.S. program in Curriculum and Instruction. In the beginning, I planned on finishing my education there. But, I realized that going for an Ed.D. would require only an additional 30 credit hours. So, I have really been considering it.
I would love to continue teaching while I chip away at the Ed.D and I would continue to teach until I have 10 years experience (making me 45 years old).
My question is: would I be too old to get a job teaching at a university at this age? I would love to continue teaching overseas, but would return to the US for the right job. In addition to being a career changer, I'm new married with two young babies. So, I want to make sure that I set us up for a good future.
Thanks in advance for your help.

What are you hoping to teach in a university? Elementary education? At least at the universities I'm familiar with, practical experience is considered valuable in this field, and many of the faculty in the college of education have a decade or more of teaching experience before they start teaching the teachers, so to speak. Most of them did not follow a consecutive bachelors -> masters -> doctorate -> professor path, and so they're not particularly young.

Thanks for your reply, ff524. Yes, I would love to teach elementary education and would have 10 years of experience before I sought a job teaching at a university. I also did not follow a linear degree path: I have a BA in Sociology, and MBA, and MSED and would have the Ed.D. I hope this does not limit my opportunities.

Do you have any reason to believe it would limit your opportunities? I don't really see the reason for this question.

In Googling and considering multiple aspects of pursuing an Ed.D., I came across an article that discussed whether it was wise to pursue a Ph.D. at an older (late 30's, early 40's) age. Some people responded and said that while they are happy they pursued their Ph.D., they did experience ageism when trying to land a university teaching job. I know that an Ed.D. is different than a Ph.D., but my goals are the same and I would hate to experience similar things.

Keep in mind that the Ed.D. is typically considered to be a degree for educators working in K12.  You would typically need to have a PhD to become a professor of education.

@BrianBorchers I thought so too at first, but then I looked at the credentials of faculty in my university's college of education, and there are more than a few with an EdD and not a PhD (albeit from much more prestigious universities than Liberty University...)

In education, the students tend to be slightly "older" because they are required to have practical teaching experience in the classroom. One school I worked at required master level education students to have at least one year in the classroom. Another school I worked at required 3 years of teaching experience before acceptance into the PhD program. This automatically pushes the youngest Ed phds into at best the early thirties.
Brilliance is not enough in education you also need the wisdom of experience in order to guide the next generation of teachers who will be of mixed-ability. Your background and wide experience would be attractive to liberal arts colleges. EdD is usually a practitioner degree involving, as you can guess, practical skills for K12 teaching and leadership. PhD is much more theoretical in nature and preparatory for conducting research.

This does not answer the question.


text:
Roughly what date do NSF Postdoc Fellowship announcements occur?
I can't find any information about when NSF announces the recipients of their postdoctoral fellowship awards. I'm specifically interested in the one for mathematics. I'd like to use this information to get a rough schedule for rolling applications.

What do you mean by rolling applications?  If you're thinking about deciding whether to apply for more postdocs after hearing about the NSF, it comes out too late for that.  The NSF is announced after the application deadlines for a lot of jobs, so you need to plan and apply under the assumption that you won't get the NSF.

There are many jobs that are not postdocs, and places like industry labs often have rolling applications.

In another answer, Zach H said that notifications for 2014 went out on January 14th.
In 2015, the date was January 26.
In general, the notifications are sent out a week or so before the coordinated postdoc deadline, the day before which most research universities agree not to require a decision on postdoc offers. http://www.ams.org/profession/employment-services/deadline-coordination/deadline-coordination  This deadline changes from year to year, but it is always toward the end of January/beginning of February.
The idea is that people should have an opportunity to find out whether they've received the NSF before making any other decisions on postdoc offers, and if they were not one of the lucky few getting the NSF, then they should have at least a week to mull over their decision.

In 2020, the informal notifications were sent out on January 26 (a Friday).
For 2021, the AMS says the NSF will try to complete the review by January 22. (Most departments will not require a response to their offer by February 1, also according to that page.)
For 2022, the AMS again says "the NSF's Division of Mathematical Sciences has agreed to complete its review of applications and electronically notify all applicants by Friday, January 21, 2022, at the latest."

Has anyone heard back from the NSF this year? I'm still trying to figure out where my application went. (Two years ago, I didn't get an official rejection until March.)

In 2014 I received an informal notice of rejection for an NSF postdoc in mathematics on January 14th, immediately prior to the Joint Meetings. Acceptance notifications were sent at the same time, though the formal decision was not posted for another eight days. I can't attest to whether this was typical.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Quitting Physics PhD to become engineer?
After a couple of years in a decent grad school, passing quals, many times thinking about quitting (the usual: impostor syndrome, stress etc), and one paper. I feel like I have a clear head to make this decision. I do not want continue with a career path in academia, I want to be an engineer (or other technical field). In short, I will be happier that way and need to support my family with a better income.
I love physics and it will always be a part of my life and would love to still work with it. Currently, I work in experimental condensed matter: know a lot of fabrication techniques, studied lots of mechanics, can build circuits and perform fairly complicated electronic measurements, written programs for analysis (mostly Matlab, but some C in the past). The list can go on... I feel like the transition with this track record shouldn't be hard - but I don't want to be misinformed or get too "cocky".
What can I do to be a competitive applicant that will have to contend with people that have engineering degrees and training?

Industry companies want skills. You have them (You said The list can go on). Put the skill list on your resume.

That is of course my naive thinking. I just want other peoples takes and stories to insure I am not being short sighted. And any further advice I may be overlooking.

Just to be clear, you're going to finish the PhD, right?

No - I am quitting

Make strong the point that your skills are complementary to, not a replacement for, the skills of someone with an engineering degree.

This is the realist position for sure, but how does that give me a competitive edge? Or does it just show I am realistic?

Having worked both sides of the aisle I can tell you that companies want people who can get the job done.  Period.  That's the #1 "requirement."  I've worked with highly-competent people with bachelor's degrees and complete idiots with Ph. D.'s.  And of course the other way around.  If you've got skills then follow your heart.  You might start a bit lower than you would with the Ph. D. in some fields but in most it sounds like it won't take you long to catch up.

Why would you quit when you're this far along? Especially with a published paper. Why don't you just write up what you have, finish with a possibly weak thesis, then go into industry? Simply having the PhD gives you a boost in earning power (cf. the "sheepskin effect"). I would at least talk to your advisor and see if they think what they think the minimal requirements for a thesis would be. You might be surprised, especially if you don't intend to go into academia.

It is a good option, but I work for a very ambitious stereotypical tenure track P.I who would settle for no less than three papers - which means two more years (if I am lucky and really really work). This was even after I brought up this option - "I just want to go to industry, a 'PhD' doesn't mean that much for me"

Could you switch advisors?  I would have a chat with the graduate dean or the department head before making your final decision.

Seems very much like a bate and switch - switch advisors to one that would allow me to graduate with less papers. Just seems like a mess that does allow me to really gain much. One thing I have thought about is writing a mini thesis to qualify for a masters (I already have one though)

There are actually a few areas where you might stand out more than someone with a straight up engineering background.

Look at specific types of organizations like Space research and exploration organizations. These typically have other PhDs in Physics in their program and you might have a better shot. A collection of such roles is here:
http://tapwage.com/channel/space-doctor
Another area are interesting startups. Something like 3D Printing focused startups are looking for bright scientists. Given your experience with mechanics, electronics and tools like Matlab, that could be an interesting area and startups might be more amenable to looking beyond very structured educational experiences as they look for good talent
http://tapwage.com/channel/engineer-in-3-dimensions

Ping me via the tapwage.com site if you have further questions or clarifications and I'd be happy to answer.

You probably already know that, but, supporting @scaaahu's advice, I want to emphasize that you should have an industry-focused resume versus an academia-focused CV. The latter should focus on your skills, but since your future engineering work will likely be in industry R&D or similar domain, make sure that relevant research and education details are mentioned in your resume as well.
Speaking about a potential strategy for transitioning from academia to industry, one IMHO easiest approach would be to try to find positions, relevant to your skills, experience and goals, in high-level research facilities. For example, for condensed matter physics, you could take a look at (here I assume that you reside in the USA) corresponding departments at Brookhaven National Laboratory and many other US government labs as well as Harvard and many other research universities, hosting experimental physics labs. While many of positions there might require specific training and degrees, I'm sure that some don't (probably, highly dependent on area and institution), so your expertise and skills would be enough to secure employment. Best of luck!

First of all, Physics is part of engineering. Not in so much depth but still if you chose electronics or electrical field in engineering, you will still be doing physics.
Just rethink on why you want to do engineering actually?
Is it because you want a better income in your future for your family or you really have your interests. I would say just follow your interests.
It will not be right to change your career just because of good income as their are lots of unemployed engineering grads also.
Just follow your dreams and be happy.

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


text:
Applying for second masters/Which GPA matters most?
I have an MA in Education and I've been teaching for 9 years at a community college. I decided to continue teaching but obtain graduate credits in another discipline. I have wanted to change from developmental to another discipline for some time. Which GPA will admissions committee most likely consider, undergrad or grad? My undergrad isn't so great, but I have a 4.0 grad school gpa. No scores were required for program.

A masters admissions committee will be interested in your grades in the highest level coursework that prepared you for the master's program you are applying for.  You did not say what discipline you are seeking a degree in.  Your teaching experience should count for more than your past course work, if you are teaching in a related area.


text:
PhD Spring Admission
Is there any university in the US offers PhD admission for the Spring? I'm trying to apply for the Cell and Molecular Biology at any university in the US

Not any place reputable. All of the reputable schools follow the standard application schedule of Nov-Dec deadlines and spring notifications for matriculation in the fall.
There may be some online or non-traditional schools with rolling deadlines, however these should be avoided.

Florida Atlantic University and Tennessee State University admit students in the Spring semester for PhD program.


text:
What is the duration between a conference and its online proceedings?
I recently attended an IEEE conference and presented some work. Empirically, how long does it take for my paper to appear online?
On both: live chat and the FAQs, I got the response that it may take several weeks. That is less than useful. What is the average duration in general?

How long does it take for conference proceedings to be loaded in IEEE
  Xplore?
IEEE publishes more than 1,300 leading-edge conference proceedings in
  electrical engineering, computer science, and related fields each
  year. Conference proceedings appear in IEEE Xplore approximately 30 to
  60 days following receipt of the content by IEEE. Please note that
  conference proceedings often arrive at IEEE several weeks after the
  conference date. To view the status of a conference, download the IEEE
  Xplore conference proceedings title list (options at bottom of the
  page).

Well, the bottom line seems to be that the conference organizers have to submit the proceedings first, and then it takes 30 to 60 days. IEEE doesn't have any influence on how long it takes them to get the content, so they can't tell you how long it takes.

What I don't get is what do the conference organizers really have to do? The quote says "Please note that conference proceedings often arrive at IEEE several weeks after the conference date." They are just PDF files! What's taking that long?

@user34618 What's taking that long is a scientist who no longer has an explicit deadline, and twenty other things asking for their attention.

Depending on the particulars of production on both the conference side and the IEEE side, you should expect anywhere from a few weeks to six months.  Both the IEEE and the conference staff can introduce delays here (I was recently publication chair for a conference whose proceedings were delayed by five months by the IEEE simply because they kept dropping the ball).
Note, however, that the IEEE allows authors to put a copy of their own work online.  This means that you can make your own work accessible much more quickly, and can often find PDFs of the works other others as well, well before the official version appears in IEEE Xplore.

In my experience, especially with IEEE conferences in India, it usually takes 60 days to 90 days from the date of the conference, very few conferences may unfortunately have delays, but I've not seen it take longer than 6 months.
Pre-print publishing is widely accepted in IEEE and most publishing houses these days, and you can read more about them when submitting the final agreement and submitting the copyright form to IEEE. Details of the policy are outlined here. For specific examples of how to write the preprint/postprint messages, you can check out the footers in the initial and final versions of this ArXiv article.


text:
Post physics PhD, how could I go about working in ecology, environmental science or earth sciences?
I am approaching the end of a PhD in experimental physics. My work involves building and operating experimental equipment, primarily optics, with some electronics. I also have a significant data analysis and theoretical component. I majored in physics at the same school (a pretty well known one) and graduated near the top of my class.
However, despite what might look like a solid set of credentials proving that I really want to build a quantum computer and the obvious next step being a post doc or industry position researching the same field, I have realized that my reasons for pursuing this line of research for so long were primarily to earn prestige and respect and not because I personally care about what I am doing (although it is wonderful that others do!). In doing this I have always enjoyed the process of science and the combination of thought and creativity with the practicality of lab work, however due to my lack of enthusiasm or motivation for the actual topic of research I have often been unhappy.
I am trying to remember what exactly it was that motivated me to be a scientist and what I used to enjoy. My undergraduate degree combined a broad span of sciences and I worked on lab biology projects during vacation. However, I am quite sure that my real lifelong passion lies somewhere in the direction of ecology, earth science or environmental science, with maybe a preference towards plant sciences or broader scale ecology.
I am really aware of how vague and naive that might sound. I grew up outdoors but I never took seriously the things I care about as a possible option I would be allowed to consider in my adult life. Following a few personal revelations I now know that this is the way to madness, and you are never going to be a successful researcher in a field you don't care about anyway!
There are many things I don't know right now, but I do know that I remain a scientist and I am very much not afraid of a great deal of hard work.
Given all this my questions are:

How likely is it that I could make such a large career shift?
How do I go about finding out more about what research is out there and what I might like specifically, given the very large quantity of research that exists??
Does anyone know of any examples of people who have made similar shifts? (Partly just because right now I need the inspiration and belief I am not trapped!)
What sort of things might I do directly after my PhD to build experience/learn more? Is trying to get field experience a good idea? Should I start to consider Master's programs?
Am I completely as doomed as I think I could be?? :)

How likely is it that I could make such a large career shift?

It is very common for people who studied physics to end up doing something rather different.  Studying physics is great preparation for many different endeavors.

How do I go about finding out more about what research is out there and what I might like specifically, given the very large quantity of research that exists??

Fun ways to do this are to attend seminars and take a look at journals in the target fields.  At this point you're mainly getting your feet wet and getting a few ideas about what's out there, and what the culture of those other disciplines is like.

Does anyone know of any examples of people who have made similar shifts? (Partly just because right now I need the inspiration and belief I am not trapped!)

My advisor, Akira Okubo, is a good example.  You might enjoy reading this tribute and overview of his life and work: http://www.yen.biology.gatech.edu/papers/Okubo%20tribute.pdf

What sort of things might I do directly after my PhD to build experience/learn more? Is trying to get field experience a good idea? Should I start to consider Master's programs?

Perhaps the shift would be less drastic if you started out by making a slight sideways move into environmental science.  But that might not even be necessary.
I think you can go straight into a two-year postdoc after you graduate.  As long as you choose the right sort of person or group to do it with, I don't think you'll need to do another degree or more coursework first, because of your undergrad broad span of sciences and the lab biology projects.  If you find you have some gaps, you can fill them on your own or by auditing some classes while you're in the postdoc.

Am I completely as doomed as I think I could be?

There are some interdisciplinary fields, such as mathematical ecology, that are new enough that many of the people in those fields originally trained in something else.
Final comment: the tail end of a PhD can be a desolate time, and a stressful time.  So please take this growing ennui with a grain of salt.

Let me offer you some advice. Please note that it is not too specific to physics-to-ecology transition, but it should be helpful as a general approach. Also, note that for the purpose of this answer, for brevity, I'm referring to ecology, environmental science and earth science simply to as ecology. First of all (and it seems that you plan to do that), I think that your top priority at this point should be to graduate from your program as best as you can, in terms of both academic performance (mainly, dissertation research) and knowledge acquisition.

How likely is it that I could make such a large career shift?

Nobody could answer this with certainty. This is because the outcome of the transition in question very much depends on a variety of factors, many of which include your personal traits as well as external circumstances, some of which you can control, but not all. All I can say is that is possible. Several examples that I'm providing below (answer to your question #3) illustrate / confirm that.

How do I go about finding out more about what research is out there and what I might like specifically, given the very large quantity of
  research that exists??

I'm surprised by this question, considering your background. An ability to find needed information, including an ability to find the large-scale sources (repositories, databases, journals, etc.) is IMHO a fundamental skill for any Ph.D. student. Yes, the amount of existing research is tremendous and is growing exponentially. This is why it is even more important for a researcher to be able to find what information do you need to find and how to do that. Basically, within academic context, I'm talking about a process of systematic review of literature aka literature review. I suspect (and hope) that you're aware of all that (then it's not clear to me why ask this question - perhaps, your formulation wasn't clear or I misunderstood it), but, just in case, please check my relevant answer, which contains some advice as well as basic references.

Does anyone know of any examples of people who have made similar shifts? (Partly just because right now I need the inspiration and
  belief I am not trapped!)

Over the years, I've read about quite a number of people, who successfully transitioned not only from different academic fields, but even across completely different industries and occupations (which makes your potential transition look like child's play - just kidding). For example, I know about, at least, several people with mechanical engineering or business undergraduate education, who changed their career and became medical doctors(!). I also know about people with undergraduate and/or master's degrees in zoology and music (two different persons), who became successful executives (CEO/CTO) of software/IT companies. I'm sure that many people might provide many more similar examples. So, the point is that, since such career switches happen, your potential transition is possible. However, the big question is whether you can be among those, whose such transitions were successful, and how to increase the chances of that happening.

What sort of things might I do directly after my PhD to build experience/learn more? Is trying to get field experience a good idea?
  Should I start to consider Master's programs?

I would suggest you to avoid making drastic career changes, unless you have solid reasons to do so (for a hypothetical example, you realized that you absolutely hate physics and tremendously love ecology - I'm intentionally exaggerating here). What I suggest is a smooth transition, where you could capitalize on your existing skills and experience, which are transferable to the other domain. Considering your source and destination domains as well as other information in your question's background ("significant data analysis and theoretical component"), I would recommend you to focus within ecology domain on research methodology and data analysis areas as well as statistical or other complex models, which seems to be well aligned with your physics background. I would not consider master's programs in your situation. Perhaps, some specialized certificate programs or several courses, or, alternatively, some MOOCs in the target domain.

Am I completely as doomed as I think I could be?? :)

Not completely and, maybe and hopefully, even not at all, as shown above :-). Best of luck!

"I'm surprised by this question, considering your background. " -- But people don't (often) formally write down what OP would really benefit from, which is "what ecological fields could use novel opto-electronic equipment?" The ecological researchers themselves don't necessarily know, as they don't know what's possible equipment.  Maybe Decagon or Campbell, etc., would.

@cphlewis: Strange comment. Most likely, you didn't understand my point. Regardless of knowledge domains and fields of study, a good researcher should, in my opinion, be able to not only find information, but know where and how to find it.

But there's tacit (unwritten) knowledge in almost all fields. If everything we needed to know about operating in academia were published and amenable to a literature search, we wouldn't need academia.stackexchange.

@cphlewis: While this is true, it is not applicable in this case. Simply because the skills I referred to are basic (fundamental) for a Ph.D. student, let alone graduate.

@cphlewis Thank you, I think tacit knowledge was exactly the kind of knowledge I was referring to. I am of course attempting to perform a systematic literature review and I do know how to go about this, but very commonly there is a world of difference between what a field looks like from the outside, in publication, and the reality of the research process. Specifically, and I apologise for my poorly framed question, I was hoping for advice on who to talk to and how to approach this subject given that I appear to be making a very strange transition when looking solely at my background.

It sounds like it's time for you to go to a conference!  Here is a list that might get you started: http://www.smb.org/meetings/index.shtml

@perilsensitivesunglasses: Check the comment above by aparente001. Since it is missing the mention tag, I'm sure that you were not notified, which is not right, hence this comment.


text:
Publishing a research (graduate level) book with a publishing house
I am considering to write a research graduate book on some advanced material in my area of research and I am considering to knock the door to a big publisher to see if they would be interested on publishing it.
My question is the following: if interested, which is the usual offer the publisher would propose? I do not know if they pay once (or null), and which is the topic of the royalties (if they apply at some moment of the life of the book).
I have some experience with some non-technical dissemination books not fitting inside one big company (Springer, Cambridge Univ. Press, American Math. Society, etc), and I guess their conditions are way different to a technical book on mathematics.

The standard deal is to be paid royalties based on the number of copies sold. For a graduate level textbook, this will typically not amount to a lot of money.

The problem you will have is that for advanced material, the likely market is very small. If you aren't widely known already, there is the possibility that the market is zero. So, publishers will be wary. They like to publish first year textbooks where the risk may be there, but the potential upside is large.
I wouldn't expect an advance payment (which is likely a charge against royalties in any case). A book that would sell for over $100US might carry a royalty of around $5 per copy, less any marketing charges that are assessed against the book.
Publishers also don't generally spend much on promoting books beyond the first few years. If the book "sells itself", as some do, then you can expect a royalty stream for several years, otherwise it isn't all that lucrative.
If you have a way to do it, try to figure out what the annual sales might be for the book. How many places teach a course for which the book would be useful? Are there already good books that are used? What sorts of enrollment in those courses? Have your materials been tested? Publishers have a good handle on some things, but especially lower level courses.
I have a friend who wrote a (professional) book that we all predicted would be a huge success, but it turned into a bomb. It's just that the market turned elsewhere as there was nothing wrong with the book (I bought one, actually). On her next book deal the publisher (large and well known) required that they recoup their losses on the previous one before they would pay her any royalties at all.
If you want to publish, do it for its own sake. You will get some recognition in, perhaps, a small circle, but it is unlikely to pay for your retirement. The fraction of highly successful books that sell well over several years is very (very) small.
But, you might get lucky and you will probably learn some things just by doing it.

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


text:
Someone else's grad student not interested in following up on a project
Some months ago, in the context of a workshop, two graduate students (from other PhD advisors) and myself found a technique to solve a certain problem that could give a nice research publication.
I am trying to push the project, mostly because this can be beneficial for both students in the last period of their PhD studies. However, the problem I encounter is the following: one of the students does not want to make the work/is not interested anymore in it. I have written her a couple of times saying that would be good that we go through the project but she never replied. So it seems to me that she does not have any interest on the project (while the second student does).
If it were the case of a PhD student of mine, in a very similar situation, I would talk with him/her seriously but due to the situation that she is not an student of mine I do not know which is the best way to act.
How should I proceed?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what makes you think that your project should be what a PhD student in the end of their PhD works on? Isn't that the phase where most time goes into putting a wrap onto their core publications and getting their thesis nice and tidy? This isn't usually the best time to start working on side projects.

Also isn't it quite common in academia to start new side projects/collaborations that lead to nowhere?

@xLeitix: she has already the thesis finished and a Postdoc accepted somewhere else.

This is tricky for a couple of reasons. Adding a person as a co-author of a paper requires, at least, their agreement. Normally it also requires actual contribution to the work, but that idea is compromised in some fields, such as when a PI only contributes funds that make the research possible. Second, even giving an acknowledgement to a person normally requires their permission. This is more important in some fields than others. But if you attribute controversial statements to another you need their permission, generally.
However, there is nothing especially wrong about pushing someone a bit to elicit their permission or participation. This is especially true if you don't have a power (superior-inferior) relationship with them. Forcing subordinates is often done, though usually wrong. But that doesn't seem to be the relationship here.
I would send them each a note that you would like to pursue the topic and publish some results when done. Offer them co-authorship if they will participate effectively, but only acknowledgement of past contributions otherwise. Suggest that they talk it over with their own advisors. Then evaluate what you hear back.
I'm assuming above that all results so far are preliminary and tentative.
If there is nothing to do but the writing or minor clean-up this would be a different situation. In that case, write it up with all of you as co-authors and send it to them for approval or updating. Yes, you would be doing a large part of the work yourself, but that might be worth the effort.
The tricky thing here is that I don't know how much contribution each has made so far. Perhaps they are already due co-authorship of anything you produce. You will need to deal with that collectively.
If they have already contributed substantially, then a joint publication seems warranted (three co-authors). For that, all you need to do is get their permission. If they are unable to help work on the paper (no time, advisor objects, ...) then this might be your best option. Even a generous interpretation of substantially might be warranted.
I assume that, unless the topic is controversial, a publication is more valuable to them than to you, who already have a position.

To add to what Buffy said;
If you come up with a good idea that someone else further develops, you're entitled to some credit. In fact, you're entitled to a sincere invitation to a collaboration.
But if you had the idea but don't want to do any work on it, you're not entitled to a work-free co-authorship. You're also not entitled to keep squatting on the idea and obstruct others from doing anything with it.

So in your case, you should make it very clear to the students that they're welcome to get involved as co-authors, or to do nothing and get a nice acknowledgement.

How should I proceed?

Do not continue to implore the uniniterested Ph.D. candidate to pursue the project. Whether it's a good idea for her to drop the project or not - it is her decision to make. You've mostly exhausted the extent to which it is legitimate to pressure them (except, perhaps, when you meet her face-to-face, you could ask her about it in the context of not having received a reply to your email; but again, don't press the matter too much).
Do ask the uninterested Ph.D. candidate for permission to pursue the project further without her, including publishing papers, software, etc. She might not answer - in that case you're in the territory of a "contributor XYZ could not be reached" on future published work.
Do remember to give appropriate credit to the uninterested Ph.D. candidate if and when you do publish something, even though she gave up the work. That may mean offering her co-authorship even though she "lazied out" on some of the effort, or an acknowledgement for her initial contribution - depending on the specifics.
Do ask the interested Ph.D. candidate if there are unusual circumstances involving their uninterested colleague which be causing this situation (e.g. health issues); but
Do not pry into the uninterested Ph.D. candidate's private life to figure out what's going on with her.

If they are not answering at all offering them co-authorship seems out of the question. That said, unless they have somehow provided exemplary extensive contributions in this "workshop" I have a hard time imagining that it's not possible to simply go ahead without them and simply acknowledge their contributions.

@xLeitix: It depends on how much the uninterested PhD candidate has contributed already. And - remember that answering a "do you want to work some more" email and a "do you want to be listed as a coauthor" email is not the same thing... she might answer the second but not the first.

I think what you may be asking relates less to actually getting this work done and more to how far should you go in, as you put it, talking with him/her "seriously" if they are not your  PhD student. In other words, you are asking if it is right to use this as a teaching moment and talk to the PhD student about what types of opportunities they should be seriously considering and what types of academic behaviour they should engage in regarding communication and correspondence. In other words, what is your role as the non-supervisor in advising this student about their career choices.
The answer is that it isn't your job to interfere if neither the student nor their supervisor has asked you to give career advice or mentorship. It sounds like this student's loss, but you do risk stepping on toes or violating what the student has already agreed to with their supervisor. If, for example, this student is easily distracted by side projects, the supervisor may have  told them to focus only on their PhD right now just to get it done, and while it is rude to not respond to you with this information, you pushing the matter might challenge what their supervisor has said to them.
One possibility might be to have a chat about this opportunity with the student's supervisor if you know them...and ask if your mentorship on this matter is welcome.


text:
management in academia
I want to explain the particular situation in my university, and advice for how should I act (or at least how my mental status should be).
Traditionally, the management positions in my university (dean of the science school, head of studies, director of PhD program, etc) has been taken by either Full Professors (with a longstanding research record) or Associate Professors with some kind of recognition (an strong research record, mostly).
From a time on, there is an phenomenon that is happening: Full Professors are not willing to take these positions (most of them they have acted already taking such positions) and younger Associate Professors are more interested on research that on management (which is on the other side, something normal, as I think the same :-P).
My point here is that now all these positions are taken by people (mostly Associate Professors) without research perspective (people with 20 years at university but with 2-3 research papers), and without global perspective. The consequence is that the institutions are decreasing the excellence and the level, and this is something I consider very bad.
I am very active on research and I would like to continue in this way, but I am very worried about this, because I love the institution and I believe that if everybody contributes (just a little!) the things would go better.
Here is my dilemma: as an Associate Professor who loves the institution I am and who wants the best for it I am considering starting doing some management, because I do not like the situation I am seeing. Of course I would prefer to continue focussing on research, which is why I am at the university. My point is that my colleagues (associate professors) that do not care about this issue and continue focussing on research will have an easier path in the forthcoming years to be promoted to full professors (and being clear, a better salary is also something to take care in a decision).
So: which is the mental state I should take: as I want the best for my institution I should sacrifice a little (or a lot) my research time in order to do some management, or should I be more egoist, focus as I am doing, in research with a more chance later to be promoted to Full Professor and take this more apathic point of view?

This is a fairly common trend lately. See: Ginsberg, Fall of the Faculty. At my own university a few years ago the policy became that professors taking an administrative role had to give up their tenure, so obviously now absolutely no one wants to take those positions.

I heard a quote recently from Bill Clinton (fmr US president). He said when deciding to run for office you must ask yourself "Is there anyone more suited for the job?" If so, support them. If not, then you do it. Not sure if that helps, but it seems relevant.

@earthling: that sounds like a great quote :-)!

This is a good question, but I don't see how anyone other than you can answer it. You write that you "[love] the institution ... [and] do not like the situation I am seeing." You also write that "I am very active on research and I would like to continue in this way." You have to ask yourself (i) whether you have the capacity to address both of these things -- some people do, and (ii) if not, which is more important to you. In other words: Would you be happy 5 years from now knowing that you did the best research possible but that you let your environment fall apart? Would you be happy 5 years from now knowing that you tried your best to make your university run well, at the cost of answering the research questions that drive you? Some people would answer 'yes' to the first question; some 'yes' to the second. No one but you can answer this.

Sorry, but I don't recognize anything in your question that suggests why you would want to take on management duties. What you have sounds like a pretty good situation as you aren't describing any sort of dysfunction.
Realize that you can't do everything. You are probably better off focusing on what you do well and do, primarily, that one thing. It sounds more like you are interested in research, or the institution mostly rewards research. If so, do that, and leave the management to others, whoever they are.
Also be aware that a manager's chief job is to optimize he environment so that other people can do well. It isn't to be a "boss" or to carry out the main work of the organization. It is to enable others to do that. It involves working with people, rather than ideas, and finding compromises that let everyone succeed, not just within the department but within the larger structure as well.
My advice is to discover what you do best and to work into a situation in which you can do that and do it well. Management won't necessarily be any easier or harder than what you do now, but it will probably be very different. Among other things, expect to have much less time available for the research that leads to publication.
By the way, some institutions rotate many of the management positions (especially department head) among the tenured faculty. It isn't necessarily the most efficient system, but it gives everyone, eventually, a better sense of the workings of the organization as a whole.
I used to think that I could do a better job than any of my superiors. Often that was true as I had quite a number of poor administrators. I eventually wound up in a situation when everyone from the president down to my department head was excellent at what they did and was totally supportive of the faculty and students. Over a 45 year career it was a rare occurrence, and it didn't last.

"it was a rare occurrence, and it didn't last." - alas, how true, and, how sad.

Others have already spoken to your personal dilemma, but I'd like to also address this:

My point here is that now all these positions are taken by people (mostly Associate Professors) without research perspective (people with 20 years at university but with 2-3 research papers), and without global perspective. The consequence is that the institutions are decreasing the excellence and the level, and this is something I consider very bad.

I don't think it necessarily has to be this way. Of the administrative positions most departments have to fill, there are the department head, the graduate director, and the undergraduate director. For all three of these, it is not necessary to be an excellent and recognized researcher: The skill set to be good at these jobs is actually quite different from that of being a good researcher.
Now, there clearly are colleagues whose research has come to some kind of halt, for many possible reasons. (In fact, that happens to some degree to most faculty over their career.) If they happen to be good at administration, I see nothing wrong with them becoming administrators in the department. In fact, it is one of the avenues for them to contribute to the department, have a job that is valued, and that helps them get decent annual evaluations that they couldn't get if they were evaluated on their research. So it is an honorable way to serve a department once their research wanes.
What you describe then seems to come down to the fact that you have people in these positions who are neither great researchers, nor good administrators. That's a bit of a shame, but it is something that can be addressed. For example, the (under)graduate director positions really are mostly administrative: talk to people, keep the wheels spinning, and things will be mostly fine even if there is little long term planning happening. If the people you have in these positions are good at keeping things going but bad at planning, then institute an (under)graduate committee that is responsible for the planning part. That's where the research active people can then spend an hour a week bringing in their perspective -- without having to spend 20 hours a week at the administrative part.
What I'm trying to say is therefore: Build structures that utilize the skills that people have and augment those they don't. These are things a department can do, and as a member it's up to you to make the necessary suggestions to make it happen!

I see your point, and I understand. The problem is not that they (despite not doing research) they are good administrators...the problem is that they are also bad administrators in general! In my country (Mediterrean European country) there is a generation of professors (50-60) who entered at the university with a permanent position because of the need of teaching personal, not because they had merits enough to get the position. In general they take the administrative job as a civil servant, doing the minimum to make all work and reducing the academic level...

I understand the issue. But I think that your solution -- to make sure that only research active faculty do administrative jobs -- is correct.


text:
Is it a bad thing to send an application for a master thesis late at night?
I am looking at an advertised Masters thesis/internship that could lead to a PhD. The first contact should be made by email.
Is there any chance it could be looked down upon if I send that first email late at night?
I live (and currently study) in the same timezone as that of the research group, and that will be made evident by the contents of my first email.

Apart from etiquette, you should do your final review and transmit of an important e-mail at a time when you are as alert as possible. One of the common themes here is "I made mistake X in my application. What should I do about it?", where X can be something like putting the wrong college name in a cover letter.

I doubt anyone will notice really.

Officially and practically, no. Applicants often worry about things that faculty hardly have time to even think through. Your application is understandably your central focus but it can't be the faculty's with the same level of attention.
In a nutshell, on the faculty side, I really can't imagine a colleague would care about that unless there were instructions for the time etc.

As long as the application arrives on time, you do not need to worry. Sometimes, there are hard cut-off times on the advertisement, stating time and timezone; that is an indication that you need to be on time.
Apart from that, nobody would bother about the time you send it anyway. After all, you could be logged in from anywhere in the world when you send off your mail.


text:
What to include in Abbreviations and symbols?
My supervisor asked me to make an Abbreviations and Symbols part to my thesis, as I use a lot of mathematical equations and variables. Now, obviously I won't put every variable (and abbreviation) into this list. What should the criteria be for putting an entry to the list? I also have tried to explain the variables where I'm using them, is this now redundant when done in conjunction with the list?
Additionally, should the symbols and abbreviations appear in the list in alphabetical or appearance order?

My supervisor asked me to make an Abbreviations and Symbols part to my thesis

This is a reasonable request: when there are many symbols, a list can be definitely helpful to the reader.

Now, obviously I won't put every variable (and abbreviation) into this list.

You won't put every variable, but you surely want to put any abbreviation.

What should the criteria be for putting an entry to the list?

I suggest you to put: special quantities which are defined in your work; special operators and functions; mathematical spaces; and all the abbreviations, even those you think are well known in your field.

I also have tried to explain the variables where I'm using them, is this now redundant when done in conjunction with the list?

No, it's not redundant because a list of symbols does not typically give the complete definition, but just a short one. Actually, it would be also useful to list the page number where a certain symbol has been defined for the first time.

Additionally, should the symbols and abbreviations appear in the list
  in alphabetical or appearance order?

If you can define an alphabetical order, go for it. Unfortunately, this is not always possible (in a universally recognized way) with symbols. In any case, I'd separate symbols and abbreviations.

Thanks, makes sense. But what about the order? Alphabetical or appearance or either is good?

Ok, thanks. I think I will separate greek and latin letters into subsections and order them alphabetically.

@Shepherd: I've just edited the question for the order. For this you can also consult a style guide.


text:
Lack of available reviews on scientific papers
It is common practice in computer science to have papers peer-reviewed, however this is often not made public and after the paper has been published it is hard to find ANY reviews on the paper. There will always be mistakes in scientific papers and if someone points out the flaws in a simple manner in a review it could save everyone a great deal of time. Some things are of course too complex or subjective, to be put into a single paragraph, but there are plenty of things that can be pointed out.
My question is why are there no reviews included on sites like ACM or IEEE? Papers sometimes have thousands of citations, but not a single comment or review has been linked. Or are there simply no reviews and comments available? Does the conversation and discussion take place somewhere else?

In mathematics, there are the Mathematical Reviews, published by the American Mathematical Society (see http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/ though it is behind a paywall). Similarly, the Zentralblatt, published by the European Mathematical Society (https://zbmath.org/). Usually these give summaries of published papers, but they sometimes point out errors.

There is (or used to be) an ACM publication called Computing Reviews which is/was similar to Mathematical Reviews. The quality of the reviews (in Computing Reviews) was highly variable, though, and sometimes was little more than a minor modification of the published abstract. In an April issue in the 1970s, the journal self-deprecatingly referred to itself as Computing Refuse and as Confusing Reviews.

Usually the issues pointed out in a review have been corrected by the time the manuscript has been published, so old reviews wouldn't really be relevant to the online version.
Critiques of published articles are sometimes prepared, if one thinks the issue is significant enough; they're usually published as "Comments" or "Responses" to the article in question. However, since they're normally also peer-reviewed, they won't simply be appended to the article, but instead have their own independent status.
As for the reason why more articles don't have reviews and commentary associated with them—it takes a lot of time to do so, and that's time that can be used to make progress in one's own research. And there isn't much incentive right now for such efforts.

In addition to 'fixed' issues, the reviewers' comments and authors' responses may also contain other useful points not mentioned in the published version. I found it very useful to have a look at the review history of open access articles.

My personal experience is that the review comments should be accessible to the reader.
I do not think preparing such a document is time consuming for the editorials because the review process is a back and fourth process between the author and reviewers. And their could be few rounds of re-submissions before the paper is accepted (for example in IEEE journals). Therefore, it is meaningful to make it public all the previous submissions (together with review comments and author replies). And these documents can be appended on top of each other based on their time of submissions.
The other simple approach of providing more information about the paper is by revealing quantifiable review results. For instance, again in IEEE there is a question to rate the novelty, appropriateness, timeliness etc.

How do you preserve the confidentiality of the reviews?

What do you do if the first version of a paper contains an incorrect and slanderous comment about other researchers' papers? Right now, the reviewer asks the author to delete the comment, and they generally comply.

Thanks for the reply. It is correct that making the review comment available for the public may have negative impacts (to the level where it may hurt the reputation of the author). However, its advantage far outperforms its disadvantages as I stated above. I suggest to leave the judgement to the readers. Blocking such comments will not show the true strength of the paper. As an example, imagine we have two accepted papers one get 5 (novelty) and 8 (presentation) whereas, the other get 9 (novelty) and 6 (presentation).

Now if the reader is interested to get new idea, he will give more emphasis on the first one, and if interested on presentation he just focus on the second paper. Please note that in most cases (at least in my experience), peer reviewers try to confront the idea written in the paper especially when it is a double blind review.


text:
Academia vs. Industry in a short graduate program (computer science)
I am an M.S. in Computer Science student at an excellent school, and I am trying to decide between pursuing a career in research (getting a PhD), and going into the industry to work for a company like Google. Unfortunately, the program I am in is only 3 semesters long, so there is not really sufficient time to do research before graduating without sacrificing a course I really want (and need) to take (I also did not do Computer Science as an undergraduate so I have a very high return for any courses I do take / high opportunity cost for any courses I don't take).
With this in mind, my questions are:

What type of factors should I be considering, knowing that doing research to see if I enjoy it is likely not on the table? How does one know that they want to do research? Is loving the theoretical aspects of your courses enough?
I am quite confident I could do the PhD at my current school, which is my top choice given the faculty advisor(s) I would have. The research would be absolutely fascinating, well funded, and almost certainly set me up for a fantastic career in either academia or industry when I graduate.
Getting the PhD would take 5 - 6 years (starting from now).
I would be giving up roughly 600k in income (before tax) if I did the PhD, not including any promotions I may get during the the way or inflation, which would drive this number up. I would also expect to be doing fun and interesting work in industry.

My program is geared towards setting people up for a career in industry, but it has also been made clear that it can be molded to set students up for a PhD track as well. My apologies if this is too open ended. I can clarify further if you would like.

"The research would be absolutely fascinating, well funded, and almost certainly set me up for a fantastic career in either academia or industry when I graduate". That is the reason that you should definitely go to industry. You really do not get how difficult getting a PhD really is, or how hard it is to actually become a professor afterwards.

Could you clarify? I don't follow your logic. I am familiar with the advisors' research that I was referring to above, as well as the type of research I would be doing should I decide to do pursue a PhD under them.

Also, I purposefully said, "...set me up for a fantastic career in either academia or industry when I graduate." I don't expect to be a professor at Stanford, nor would I consider working elsewhere a "non-fantastic" career. (I only used Stanford as an example, I don't go there).

The advisor's previous research <> your research you will be doing under him. Even the best advisors cannot guarantee that you will get a Phd or that the PhD and the publications you will produce will be good enough to "set you up for a fantastic career afterwards".

@Alexandros as I said, I know what type of research I would be doing under the advisors. We have discussed open problems in the field that they think would fit my background and interests. Of course nothing is guaranteed, that is a valid point. At least I am currently guaranteed to have a great job when I graduate should I decide to go into industry.

I think what prompts the comments of @Alexandros is that there is a fine line between enthusiasm and confidence, and overconfidence. There is also no guarantee for a "great job." The fact your program places presumably well doesn't guarantee anything. This isn't only hypothetical, but based on personal experience (I graduated 2 weeks before Sep 11 to see my target jobs literally blown to pieces); and another hi-tech bubble burst is at least conceivable. A little humbleness goes a long way.

Understood, I will keep that in mind. If you don't mind though, I would appreciate an answer to the full question (including that point).

If you google "academia versus industry", you get a lot of hits (the first one popping for me is very extensive, although I didn't read it through carefully). You don't know how you'll like industry or academia - the fact aside that you don't know if google (which is very choosy) would hire you, I would not want to work there (it's enough that they have destroyed 2 neighborhoods I care about - one I used to live in, and my current one); but I would also fear to face tenure pressure. You might feel differently. It's really a personal choice - you might regret it, you might not. :)

I actually don't think you have to pretend that your choice is firm.  Lots of people leave Ph.D. programs and join industry.  Some of them then go back to their Ph.D. programs afterward.  Lots of people work in industry for a few years and then do a Ph.D.  Some of them go back to industry afterward.  And this is true in lots of disciplines, not just CS (which is rather closer to industry than some others I can think of).
It's a mistake to think that this is a choice you have to make right now and then the rest of your life will be a march down a fixed road.  Careers, and educational paths, don't work like that.
It's also a mistake to think that these kinds of decisions are hugely consequential for one's happiness.  A lot of happiness comes not from choosing the right path for you but from finding the you (as it were) in the path on which you happen to be.  See, e.g., the many Cal Newport posts on the subject, e.g.: http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/09/10/the-danger-of-the-dream-job-delusion/
If I were in your position, I'd apply both to PhDs and to industry jobs, see what I get, and then make a short-term decision, with the recognition that long-term decisions do not necessarily follow.

You are at a divide in the road.  Put in job applications or apply for the PhD program?
One thing that makes it harder for you to decide is that you haven't tried getting involved in a research project yet, so you haven't had the opportunity to find out if you like doing research.  Your schedule does not permit you to give research a try before you graduate.
I suppose one possibility would be to try a semester of PhD and see how you like it.  Similarly, you could try working for half a year and see how you like that.
It would be ideal, however, if you could find a research opportunity for the winter or summer break.
I imagine that deferring starting would be easier for the PhD than for the job branch.

I worked for a couple of years between college and my masters program, so as you suggested, I will try to fit research into my schedule next semester.


text:
The initial hump of a master's program
I started an MS in Computer Science program this Fall at a super top-tier university and I'm worried that I'm a bit in over my head. The program is extremely tough, and I'm nervous that as the semester goes on, the difficult courses I'm in are only going to get harder.
My questions are:

Is it normal for new graduate students to feel very overwhelmed and discouraged when they first start their program?
What happens when a graduate program realizes they've made a mistake in admission? What would qualify as a "mistake"?
If I'm feeling discouraged and/or overwhelmed by my courses, would it reflect poorly on my reputation in the program to speak to my advisor about it?

You might like to look up "imposter syndrome". You seem to have a textbook case of it.

@NateEldredge you were absolutely right, thank you for the reference.
To anyone else who sees this post and feels that they're in the same position -- don't despair! As NateEldridge and ff524 said, it's very normal. My recommendation is to not waste any time or mental bandwidth worrying that you're not cut out for the program. You are.

Speaking from my own experience, it's turned out that I'm one of the strongest students in my program; which I was not expecting. Interestingly, once I stopped worrying I was an "imposter", everything started to become easier. Just be grateful that you're in your program, and enjoy yourself :-)

Is it normal for new graduate students to feel very overwhelmed and discouraged when they first start their program?

Yes, absolutely. 1000000x yes.

What happens when a graduate program realizes they've made a mistake in admission? What would qualify as a "mistake"?

A "mistake" is admitting a student who is not capable of meeting minimum standards in the department (or at least, not now), and is
therefore dismissed from the program
for academic reasons. This is an unfortunate mistake for both the student and the department (as it represents quite a bit of wasted time, money, effort, and emotional energy on both sides), and so we try very hard to help students who are in the "danger zone" to recover and avoid dismissal.
Generally, a graduate program has very specific regulations describing how and under what circumstances a student is dismissed from the program for academics.  In my program, this starts with a semester of academic probation, so students have some warning that they're in danger of dismissal and have a chance to bring their grades up. Many students do manage to bring their grades up after a probation semester and successfully complete the program.

If I'm feeling discouraged and/or overwhelmed by my courses, would it reflect poorly on my reputation in the program to speak to my advisor about it?

In my department, it would reflect well on you. It would show a maturity, self-awareness, and sense of responsiblity that your advisor probably wishes every student in the program had.

Thank you for your response, that is encouraging to hear. In regards to (3), though I do not know my advisor very well at this point, he strikes me as the type of person who would agree with you 100%. If it gets to the point that I think I'm slipping, I'll let him know. Thanks again for your input and time.

Contact your advisor before you get the feeling you age slipping. Your judgement will be subjectively biased and it might be too late by then.

As someone who advises people in a graduate program -- yes, loop your advisor in fast if you see trouble ahead. It's lots easier to go to bat for you while any issues are still small, and it's also easier when you take the initiative to resolve them. I guarantee whatever's going on, we've seen it before... and if you're in a healthy department (yeah, "if," not all departments are healthy) we WANT you to succeed.

@ff524, going against the general StackX policy, I wanted to thank you for your answer. It was very encouraging and made a big difference in getting over my initial hump, I'm doing great in my program now :-)
Thanks again!

@110100101110101 thanks for following up. I'm very pleased to hear the news :)


text:
Am I allowed to use published research in building an industry project?
I am a graduate student of Computer Science and am currently building an advanced project based on a paper that was released earlier this year at a major conference. I originally undertook this project as part of a course I am taking, but based on some initial testing results it looks like it has potential to make an impact in industry. That being said, I would like to continue working on this project and possibly market it in industry.
My questions are:

Am I legally permitted to build and market this project without notifying the paper authors, or am I legally obligated to include them in this process?
Assuming I have no legal responsibility to notify and include the authors in my endeavor, would it be unethical to omit them from the process, or is applying research in industry par for the course (i.e. the original researchers need not be and often are not involved)?
Business ventures aside, should I reach out to the authors and let them know that I am working on this project, even if it's just in an academic setting? I have no need of their technical insights or expertise, but I would like to know if it is common practice to notify a researcher that their research is being applied and practiced (I know if it were my research, I would appreciate being told just to know that it was making a difference).

In general, research that has been published openly in the scientific literature is freely available for anybody to use and build upon.  As such, there is no requirement, either legal or ethical, to involve or notify the authors of the use to which you are putting their work.
The exceptions to this are:

If there have been patents filed (which should be stated in a conflict of interest statement in a journal paper, but may not appear in a conference paper) you may be constrained by patent licensing if the patent actually gets granted (though that typically takes a number of years).
If you publish a paper yourself, then you are ethically required to cite their work.
If you think the users of the system would find it interesting/useful to know about its origins, you can include it in appropriate parts of the documentation.

Beyond this, of course, most people would be happy to learn that their work is being put to good use: if you decide to contact the authors at some point and tell them what you're doing, they'll probably be glad to hear it.

Being able to point to applications of ones research in industry can be a relevant aspect in research evaluations. So letting the authors know is not just about warm fuzzy feelings for them, but could bring them tangible benefits.

@Arno  Good point!  It's also worth noting that it is not an obligation, however, as industry applications may sometimes turn out to have strong reasons to keep the internals of an application confidential.

Strong +1 to @Arno. Universities increasingly are required to document their contribution to economy. So, if it doesn't cost the OP much effort, it would be a good deed to provide the authors with a tangible document evidencing the usefulness of their work.

Thanks for the advice, I will notify the authors that I am using their work.


text:
If I work on a project but don't do research, should I be included as an author on a paper?
This semester I started working with a professor and a PhD student on one of their major projects, which is an application of their research. Though I was not involved with the research that went into developing the "idea" for the project, I have spent a significant amount of my time helping them to actually build the project, and a lot more work is planned.
Would it be typical for someone in my position to be included as a co-author on the paper that motivated the project I'm working on? Again, I wouldn't say that I have done any research myself, but I have done significant work in getting this project built, and the project is the main product / showcase of the research they performed.
Assuming it's reasonable for me to be included on the paper, how should I go about bringing that up?

For a thorough discussion of guidelines for authorship, this is a useful article: http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2010/04/conventions-scientific-authorship

I was in a similar situation once. In that case, I suggested that I might actually write part of the paper to explain some of the technical details of the implementation. They agreed, and after that it was only natural to include me as a co-author.

Taking your statements at face value (and thus imagining something like the others having designed X and evaluated X in a study, while you implemented X based upon their designs), this sounds like a typical situation where you should be mentioned for having conducted  the implementation/practical construction. This should certainly happen in a presentation of the work, and possibly (if the paper has an Acknowledgments section and if space allows for it) also in the written text.
Admittedly, this is at the verge participating in the design / idea of the research at hand (and maybe you even did contribute some detail decisions without realizing), so including you as an author depends a bit on the concrete circumstances - and also on the main authors' personal preference (but then, so might accusations of gift authorship in this case).
As for how to bring this up with the authors, you could ask in a somewhat unspecific way such as "I'm interested in gradually increasing my level of participation in research papers, is there a chance for increasing my contributions and acting as a co-author in the future?" That way, chances are the main authors will immediately get the idea of adding you one way or another in the current paper, while at the same time, you are not burning any bridges by appearing too demanding.

That's research in my book. I would include you as a co-author, but I'd also make you write up some of it as part of your learning experience.

It is really up to your advisor to include you as a co-author or not. If he feels that your work has significantly contributed to the paper, then s/he (without you telling him/her) should include you. Co-authors can have different responsibilities/roles when publishing a paper. One can have the IDEA, another will find the APPLICATION, the third will WRITE, the fourth will bring the FUNDING etc. Even if somebody was not a part of the research (for instance, friend's PhD co-advisor, did not really contribute much to his research but was a co-author in all of my friend's paper (3rd author to be exact)).
Also, if I was your advisor, I will ask you to write a/few sections (in addition to your work that you have done) to include you as a co-author. Giving that you did not do "research", maybe your writing needs work (it will a pain for me to go over your work/teach you). Still, this would be my way of encouraging you and introducing you to the publishing field.
After all, students need to learn, advisors need to advise/teach. Publications are the outcome of interaction, quality work and research.
Even if your advisor declines, ask him/her "respectfully" to be part of the next study. Tell him/her that you are willing to do some research because you would like to be a co-author. The more you engage, the better your chances you will have of being a co-author.

It depends on what your code does.
Writing code that collects, generates, or interprets data is actually research, as is designing and building an experimental apparatus. This is true even if you're not the person who actually "takes the data" under experimental conditions. Similarly, visualizing and analyzing already-collected data is also research, particularly if you are choosing the analytical techniques (or developing new ones).  These ideas are in line with authorship guidelines for some major collaborative projects (e.g., ATLAS).
In both cases, I'd argue that you have the strongest case for authorship when the work was done specifically for the current project. You might also bolster your claim by offering to draft figures and text describing the code and its output. On the other hand,...if you spent a few minutes reusing work from your previous project, it might be more reasonable to ask for citation as in "Data was collected using the system described in YourPreviousPaper, LastYear." It is also a little churlish to demand authorship for "minor" contributions. If I spent a few hours helping a colleague--or even longer for a closer friend, an acknowledgement might be reasonable.
Finally, it is possible to write "essential" code that is difficult to slot into a specific paper. For example, perhaps you built a database that tracked information about the specimens or patients. This would make it much easier to plan experiments and select appropriate controls, thereby increasing the lab's scientific output. Despite this, the database has limited value to each specific project and a correspondingly reduced claim to having contributed to any specific paper. For some types of code, it might be possible to write a companion paper describing the tool specifically (e.g., The Journal of Statistical Software is a good venue for describing data analysis tools).

According to Harvard Medical School, and in agreement with APA standards:
" Everyone who is listed as an author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work."
Someone who simply writes analysis scripts would not qualify.
Someone who conceived of an original analysis, however, would.  I cannot tell from your context, but simply 'spending a lot of time' on a project does not substantiate authorship. It must be an original intellectual contribution.
That said, these rules are lax in practice, at least in the biological sciences, of which I am familiar.
@The Fire Guy: FUNDING is not grounds for authorship by APA guidlines.

I strongly disagree with the idea that "simply" writing scripts to analyze data doesn't count as an intellectual contribution. In fact, I would argue that it is at least as large of an intellectual contribution as doing the actual pipetting, mouse breeding, imaging, or whatever.

@Matt doing the actual pipetting, imaging or whatever is also not sufficient grounds for inclusion as a co-author unless there is also a significant intellectual contribution to the work: designing the project, interpreting (beyond the obvious) what the results mean, original analyses, or contributing significantly to writing the paper. Technical work under direction is grounds for acknowledgement.

That's basically my point--I can't really imagine that someone would be able to write code in a way that doesn't involve some element of design or interpretation. Perhaps if someone were porting a program from one language to another, or writing to a very very detailed specification....On the flip side, using Qiagen kit involves zero thought: solution A and B in Tube C.

That said, I think people's standards in this thread are much higher than they are in practice. Otherwise, I'd expect to see a lot of single-prof-authored papers with a masters' student buried somewhere in the acknowledgements.


text:
How should a student address a professor in a letter of recommendation?
I am a graduate student in Computer Science, and I recently received an email from my department requesting that I write a letter of recommendation for a professor who is being considered for a promotion. The letter requests that I address the professor's teaching abilities, as well as my experiences in regards to conducting research with the professor. It is also likely that the professor specifically listed me as a person to write a letter of recommendation.
I have a very positive relationship with this professor, and plan on writing an absolutely stellar letter on his/her behalf. However, I am unsure of how to address the professor in the letter.
This professor strongly prefers that students address him/her by his/her first name. This is part of what makes this professor so great: s/he is able to come down to a student's level, and is excellent at communicating complex topics because of it. With that in mind, I would prefer to use his/her first name in my letter as I think it communicates part of the "charm" that I want to convey in regards to his/her teaching ability. On the other hand, I don't want to come across as disrespectful to the committee who will be reading my letter, nor do I want the committee to take my letter less seriously.
My question is: can and should I address the professor by his/her first name when writing this letter of recommendation, or should I address him/her as "Professor Xyz"? It may be worth noting that most professors in my department choose to be addressed by students on a first name basis, though in their request for a letter, the professor was referred to by their proper title (Professor Xyz).

If your prof's name was, say, Jack Mehoff, I think you should be more formal and say "Professor Jack Mehoff..." -- using just the first name "Jack..." would make it sound like he is one of your peers.

You should not be "addressing the professor" in the letter!  You are not writing to the professor, you are writing to the committee.  If you are asking how you should refer to the professor, do it formally, as "Professor Xyz".

I wouldn't worry a lot about it.  The worst that can happen is that part of the letter sounds a little off, but I'm sure promotion committees see much worse in letters from students, and understand it doesn't reflect on the professionalism of the professor.
If I had to chose, though, my personal inclination would be to write "Professor X" in the letter, rather than the professor's first name.  It's much easier to go wrong in the direction of being too informal, rather than being too formal.


text:
Should I notify competing researchers that I am working on the same problem?
Say I am working on some specific research question, and during the course of my research I discover that some other group of researchers are working on the exact same problem (in my case I learned this because the authors of a paper had my research problem listed in their future work section). My questions are:

Should I notify the other researchers that I am working on the same problem? It seems unethical to let them continue on their way without knowing that they may be wasting their time and money.
If I do notify them, is best practice generally to start collaborating on the problem, or should we continue separately knowing that we're "racing" towards a result? Theoretically the goal of academic research is to expand the realm of human knowledge, so it seems counter-productive to knowingly avoid sharing information that would probably lead to a deeper result (and more quickly).

Full disclosure: I found myself in this position last year and did not notify the other researchers. Luckily, I suppose, I ended up publishing my results first. I have heard some horror stories from other researchers about months of research being wasted because of this exact scenario, so I am curious as to what I should do in the future should this happen again.

Even if you do notify others, this doesn't necessarily help anyone. After all, how can they know you'll solve it before them? Or how can you know they will?

My suspicion is that people have completely different styles of dealing with this issue, ranging from "don't share anything that is not publication-ready" to "communicate every little step". Great work has been done using either strategy, so don't expect any hard rules.

I would imagine that it's at least helpful for them to have it on their radars, no? Or maybe they haven't started working on it yet and they can work on something else instead. Or they'll tell you that they're about to publish so you can work on something else? I can see many advantages of having an open line of communication.

It seems unethical to let them continue on their way without knowing that they may be wasting their time and money — If you do decide to notify them, do not use this language; it sounds arrogant and condescending.  What makes you think they're the one's wasting time and money?

This is really really really dependent on the culture of your field.

Norms on this probably vary between fields (not to mention between individuals in a given field). In my corner of theoretical physics it's not uncommon for people who know that another group is working on a similar problem to check in with each other on the status of the project and, if they are at similar stages, to coordinate posting papers on arXiv simultaneously so that no one scoops the other. This also has the advantage of helping to publicize the result--if someone skimming new articles notices that two or even three groups have put out papers on the same topic at the same time, it can attract more attention than the papers may have if they were spread out.
It has also been my experience that even when two groups are doing roughly the same thing at the same time, and even when the results have some overlap, they typically end up with different perspectives and some amount of complementarity. Sometimes the results even have no direct overlap but, taken together, build a stronger case. So I would generally not stop working on something just because someone else is, even if I know or suspect that they're farther along.


text:
Do I have to be secretive about my research until it's published?
I'm a Master's student studying Computer Graphics and Animation. I've already proposed my thesis and have been deep in prototype development for a while. I've gotten some pretty cool results already (mostly pretty pictures and animations). I'd really like to share some of the images I've created to get the attention/support of other graphics researchers and to encourage public interest in the field. However, from day one my advisor has encouraged me to keep most of the details of my research a secret until I've published my work. I've gotten almost the opposite advice from other sources.
Besides some protection from stolen ideas, what other benefits are there to keeping my work a secret until it's published (or submitted to a journal/conference)? Are there compelling reasons to start sharing some of my work now?

I think you've nailed the most compelling reasons for and against secrecy in your question. But perhaps your supervisor knowns a bit more than we do, from experiences in their particular community - have you asked them for the specific reasons for being secretive?

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that some kinds of presentations of unpublished work (e.g. conferences and sometimes seminars) may complicate or prevent obtaining IP for you work in some circumstances.

Since you said it's pretty pics and animations you're sharing, maybe make sure to put your name and © in a corner in the graphic.

If you act in spreading out your work without official publication, against your advisor's explicit suggestions you risk:

making a costly mistake in that you find your work being presented by others without attribution (I for sure know cases where this happened)
upsetting your advisor if the work included ideas that he wanted to accumulate credit for using in a publication
taking away the impact that a well-established impressive publication can achieve and exchanging that for a gradual acclimatisation of the community in the sense that "yes, we always knew this works, it is kinda obvious" (I have witnessed this too, namely that an idea which nobody seemed to have before, but was pushed incrementally rather than in a singular step was later called obvious)
losing credit for novelty if someone else presents it even if you are attributed; after all, the work has been presented, and your later publication will have lost freshness  (again, I am aware of a concrete example).

That being said, there are benefits of being open, namely when it is unlikely that people will claim the work, or it is hard to copy, or so exotic that people are not likely to engage in it. In this case, your problem is to convince them that it is good work and you have to permit them to acclimatise to it, anyway. Then, being open and spreading the idea to get them to get used to it is helpful. This is the counter scenario to above setting.


text:
Explaining Temporary Voluntary or Medical Leave from Prestigious PhD on CV?
I am in a bind. I just decided to take a voluntary leave of absence for medical reasons (also partly financial reasons) from my PhD program and I need to look for a job. I have stupendous credentials and recommendations but most of my recommenders are academics who recommended me two years ago for this doctoral program.  My urgent worry is how to brand and market myself on my CV. If I list that I am enrolled in a PhD program there is always the risk that I will be asked to provide a transcript (which at this time shows failing grades for the last semester)? Also, if I don't list the program on my CV it looks like I have 2 gap years because I took a year to travel between the last employment and the start of the PhD. However, the benefit of listing my program is that because it is very prestigious, it is likely it will push my CV to the top of the applicant pool for interviews.  If I list my PhD program on my CV I am almost guaranteed interviews, but in doing so, I run the risk of  having to go into detail to explain my extraordinary poor performance and decision to suspend my study for a year.  What should I do?

I recommend you list your PhD studies on your CV. Industry is full of people who have left a PhD program for one reason or another! It's also unlikely anyone will look down on you for your poor grades in one semester.
There are two issues I would give some thought to: (1) how will you describe your reasons for leaving the programme (temporarily), and (2) will you tell them about your intention to return to the PhD programme. It's best if you can describe (1) in a way that won't give potential employers concern that you might not be able to handle the job. Being honest about (2) may discourage some employers from hiring you if they want a long-term employee, but others may be willing to gamble that you'll change your mind and stick around.

I agree, but I'd go further: leaving the PhD studies off isn't even a viable option.  Surely any employer will ask what you've been up to for the last two years.  Then you've got a choice between lying (and risking being fired when you're found out) or explaining why the PhD studies didn't seem worth listing.  Both options are bad.

Well, the way I am thinking of explaining it is by saying that I've had family and financial responsibilities that were difficult to handle  while being a student. As far as my intentions to return to my program, I also have an explanation for that. On the heels of the financial responsibility and the financial strains of living in New York City, I plan on telling the potential employer that I will be resuming studies but on a part-time basis.  Many folks in my program do so, so I don't think this should be a big obstacle.  What do you think?

"Surely any employer will ask what you've been up to for the last two years."  Or just reject your application immediately and move on to candidates without suspicious gaps in their resumes.  Figuring out how you will explain those gaps isn't very helpful if you don't get far enough into the interview process to actually explain anything to anyone.  I agree with @AnonymousMathematician that you really must include your studies on the CV; then be ready with an explanation as to why you have suspended them and how/when you plan to resume them.

You are only in your first year. By the time you are wrapping up your dissertation, it will likely be five to seven years from now. Ancient history.
Postdocs are more interested in your research, publications, and letters of recommendation than in your grades. Many won't even ask for transcripts.
Same goes for jobs.
Grad school is a marathon not a sprint. Pace yourself and try to keep good energy reserves at all times. Steady Bs with occasional Cs and finishing is better than a semester of As followed by a flameout.

I think the question is about how to handle the CV right now (e.g. while still on leave), not after finishing.  At this point the OP is presumably applying for short-term industry jobs, not postdocs.

Thanks, I read it too quickly. Will try to revise when I get a chance.


text:
Grades and Predoctoral NIH Grants
I am applying for an F31 Diversity Grant for Predoctoral studies to support my 3-5 year of PhD studies. There is no mention of needing to submit transcript of grade with the application. Is this true? Does the NIH not require transcripts for F31 applications? Are applications solely graded on the merit of the proposal or do student grades also considered?

Thanks for the prompt response. This was my first time using this website and found the responses very useful. Thank you all for your tremendous help.

The Program Announcement (I believe the current one) for this Program is probably http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-14-148.html#_Section_IV._Application
These announcements tell you (or point you to) ALL the info you need to apply. This one states:

Note that scores for standardized exams (e.g., MCAT, GRE) as well as a listing of the applicant’s courses and grades must be included in the Fellowship Applicant Biographical Sketch, and NOT in this attachment.

So yes, if this is the announcement, you need to provide this info, and it needs to go into your BioSketch.  Whether you need to use the (ugh) new biosketch format or not, I can't tell you.
The best advice is to ask the office at your school that coordinates sponsored research, as well as have a chat with the program officer involved with this PA at the institute you would be applying to.

Each NIH grant comes with extensive guidance. For the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Individual Predoctoral Fellowship to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research the guidance says

Note that scores for standardized exams (e.g., MCAT, GRE) as well as a listing of the applicant’s courses and grades must be included in the Fellowship Applicant Biographical Sketch, and NOT in this attachment.

The guidance also says

Follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Individual Fellowship Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate “optional” forms.

SF424 (R&R) refers you back to PA-14-148.
In general, it is advisable to talk to the Program Officer at the NIH whenever you are considering applying for a grant/fellowship. They are more than happy to help navigate you through the submission process and generally can provide you with invaluable insight about how to improve your application. Each institute at the NIH and each funding mechanism has a different Program Officer, but they are generally pretty easy to find online.


text:
Retaking GRE during gap year from PhD to improve pre-doctoral fellowship award chances
I am taking a year off from my PhD program. I was funded for two years but because my academic standing is no longer 'good' due to substandard performance I have been terminated from my funding mechanism until I return and get back in good standing. When I return I will reapply for the same funding and there is a good chance that it will be awarded again. However, I've used up one of the two years of funding and will have to repeat the first year of the PhD when I return. Thus, I will need to apply for NSRA and NSF pre-doctoral fellowships when I return to my studies in fall of 2016 to fund the second year of classes. I don't know if GRE scores play a significant role in NIIH F31 grant applications, and I am now wondering if it is worth retaking the GRE during this time off to get a more competitive score that will help my application? Any thoughts of how best to proceed.

Is the GRE score required for the application or a tack-on? I would not say the GRE represents anything much except for an entry-level graduate student that knows how to add and can answer the tricky reading questions, as someone who has taken the exam before. Are we talking about a GRE subject exam?

No, this is the general GRE.

And depending on the fellowship the GRE scores are required.

The return of investment on a GRE score is much less than other activities. If your score is horrid, then go for it. I wouldn't spend more than 2 weeks prepping, though. Squeezing out every point from that GRE is not worh the effort. I would wager that the score is only to determine the seriousness of your application, and that it would not be a major deciding factor otherwise.


text:
Impact of gap year during phd program on future post-doc and employment options?
I am a Doctoral candidate in a top program in my field in the U.S. I should be starting my second year of classes in September before sitting for qualifying exams, however I had an catastrophic academic year. My program Chair and Dean of Students are have been understanding on my situation and have offered me all the support possible to allow me to resolve the issues that got in the way. Provided this, they  have recommended I take a medical leave of absence from my program to I would start fresh.  The way things currently stand, my transcript shows okay grades for the Fall semester and failing grades for the spring. I have asked for a retroactive medical leave that would wipe my slate clean, at least  for the spring semester. This may or may not be possible to do.  In the event that I can't wipe my failing grades from the spring semester record and return to complete my program with an outstanding record, I wonder if and how having a gap year will on my transcript affect my candidacy when applying for top-notch post-doc positions and fellowships?

It is not uncommon to have a break doing a PhD program, especially in the U.S. where it normally takes longer than in other countries. A list of reasons to have a gap includes maternity, health conditions, family situations (in some countries / cultures), or even temporary financial reasons. All these explanations seem fair to me, and I would not hold such them against the candidate.
What is very important, though, is

how (and whether) you will address the gap in your cover letter
how your supervisor will speak about this in the recommendation letter.

If you are open to your colleagues and do not let them down without a reason (in other words, if you are doing your best given the situation), I do not see why the situation itself should be held against you and diminish your chances of future success.