text:
Early Career Publishing strategies? (Keep publications to a minimum before tenure-track job?)
I read that whatever you publish before beginning a tenure-track job does not count towards tenure, so it might be wise to wait with those publications until a tenure-track position is reached. (I read this in the book The Professor is In, by the way)
On the other hand, I would imagine that a tenure-track position is obtained quicker (or: at all), if one has publications, and to have more publications seems generally better than to have less publications (with some other assumptions here, regarding equal journal impact factor and so on)
What do people think? Is there a strategy which might make more sense than others? Does it make sense to hold back? Or not really?
edit:
Here is the quote I am referring to in the book, I hope it is ok to share this here:

“Write your dissertation with an eye to the publications that it will
  become. As I have said, you need at least one refereed journal article
  while you are still ABD. At the same time, be aware that publications
  that date from before you accept your tenure track job do not
  typically count toward tenure. So the balance is delicate indeed. You
  must publish enough to get a job without prematurely exhausting the
  supply of material you will need for tenure. That is why I recommend
  writing a master’s thesis, which will give you material for a
  publication without cutting into your dissertation material.”

From: Kelsky, Karen. “The Professor Is in : The Essential Guide to Turning Your Ph.d. into a Job

It really makes no sense in holding back. If a paper published before you start a tenure track position wins you the Nobel prize, do you think they wouldn't consider it? Plus, the way to get more funding and papers in your new position is to be a well-known contributing member in your field before you start.

If a paper published before you start a tenure track position wins you the Nobel prize, do you think they wouldn't consider it Well, this is an extreme example that does not really address what is going on on the more average level and is thus not very helpful for me or most people. Or is your point that it's simply not true that publications prior to tenure do not count?

I not read the book, but I have read blog posts for, The Professor is In. In the blogs, Karen talk about saving publications until you have a tenure track job. (e.g., here). Can you share a sample passage where the author recommends this?

What does the committee really want to see? A strong publication record, getting grants, supervising students (which needs grants and publications), and the usual teaching/community duties. If you and your students are getting the research end funded and done, publications will follow. Not getting funded early could well be a result of not having a track record to base a funding decision on. Do you really think you will run out of publishable things?

I think the advice Karen is giving is specifically to be aware of the issue and especially to hold things back in the time between when you have gotten the tenure-track job and started the tenure-track job. (I think that this would mostly apply in fields where you can get a piece from submission to acceptance in under 6 months.) Publishing during those 6-8 months will neither help you get a job nor count for tenure.

I edited this to clarify tenure-track vs. tenure. I hope that matches the intention of the OP.

@RichardErickson I have added the excerpt.

@Dawn It does not sound like she is talking about the time between when you have gotten the job & when you start the job. She talks about a masters degree in order to get one publication but to hold back with PhD publications etc. even before applying for such jobs.

The answer is likely field-dependent. In my field, you want to do absolutely everything possible to get the best tenure-track job and only then worry about getting tenure, as that is more straightforward in comparison.

The Professor is In's advice about getting a publication out of a MS thesis and waiting until tenure-track position to start publishing dissertation results may not work well for many in practice: my advisor encouraged/required his students to publish several articles before he would approve of scheduling a defense.

@Thomas & Mad Jack: What are your fields?

I'm in computer science.

Electrical engineering.

I read that whatever you publish before beginning a tenure-track job does not count towards tenure. This is wrong at my university and, I'm pretty sure, many similar US institutions. Well, I guess anyone who relies on a self-help book to plan their academic career deserves whatever is going to happen to them as a result.

More constructive advice would be useful here. What field are you in? Why do you not like the book / can you recommend a better one?

@GeorgeWelder I'm in math (I assume it was me you were asking). I haven't read the book, but I don't like that it has inaccurate information. And yes, I have many good books to recommend, but that's not the right forum for this sort of thing :-). By the way, when you write a comment here, it's helpful if you say who it is addressed to.

@GeorgeWelder - I can see that you're fairly new here. Welcome! // What Dan is saying is that if you want to respond to a specific comment, please notify that person by including @ and the username, so they'll get a notification (top left of the web page).  It took me a while to notice those javascript things happening up there.  Please send me a comment here, so I'll know that you figured out what I'm trying to describe.

On the flip side of the author's point of view: each time you publish something, you become better known, and more collaboration possibilities open up.  In this sense, putting a mute in your trumpet would have the effect of stunting your natural growth. // +1 for an interesting question!

Please take extended discussion to [chat].

I read that whatever you publish before beginning a tenure-track job does not count towards tenure,

The first part may be formally correct at some universities, but this restriction is impossible to enforce in practice.  Your reputation has a high-quality researcher doesn't depend on only your faculty publications; it depends on all your publications.  The people who write your tenure letters will write about your best work (in their opinion), regardless of when you published it.  Pretending that your pre-faculty publications simply don't exist would be stupid, even if it were possible.
A much more accurate statement is that your tenure case will focus on your publications since being hired as an assistant professor.  Faculty publications are more important, but that absolutely does not mean that pre-faculty publications don't matter at all.
(I am assuming a reasonable tenure process, where the committee actually makes a good-faith effort to assess the quality and impact of the candidate's research record, as opposed to merely counting CV bullets.  Sadly, some departments are stupid.)

so it might be wise to wait with those publications until a tenure-track position is reached.

This is absolutely wrong.  Competition for tenure-track faculty positions is fierce—a typical tenure-track position, even at a mid-ranked department, attracts hundreds of applicants.  Submitting anything but the strongest possible application is foolish.
Candidates for tenure-track jobs are judged primarily by the quantity, quality, visibility, impact, and reputation of their research record.  All else being equal, applicants with more good publications are much more likely to be hired than applicants with fewer good publications, not only because they have longer CVs, but because they can attract stronger recommendation letters (because the references have more research to talk about).
Normally, of course, all else is never equal, but here I'm comparing your changes if you publish more versus your chances if you publish less.
In my experience*, getting a tenure-track faculty position is considerably more difficult than getting tenure.  Most PhDs do not get faculty positions; most assistant professors do get tenure.  Worry about getting the tenure-track faculty position first.
(*I'm a full professor at a highly-ranked American computer science department; I've written dozens of tenure letters and have many years of experience on hiring and tenure committees.)

This is the correct answer for computer science (and I suspect most fields). However, there are some fields where getting tenure is just as hard as getting a tenure-track job and where the tenure decision may rest on one or two publications.

@Thomas there are some fields where getting tenure is just as hard as getting a tenure-track job — Can you give any examples?

Not from experience, but I've heard the economics tenure process is brutal.

It seems that 50 - 65 percent of R1 types get tenure where first hired. http://www.opia.psu.edu/sites/default/files/spring10-tenureflow.pdf  http://science.sciencemag.org/content/335/6070/864  And this article says the rate may be hire because some of the people leaving before tenure are not being forced out: https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/dont-worry-too-much-about-whether-youll-get-tenure-because-you-probably-will/

In many economics and public policy departments, there is a minimum number of papers required for tenure (or at least a known range you have to get in to have a realistic shot at tenure). Other departments may have a minimum number of points required, with higher-ranked publications being worth more points. Those papers are only counted after you are in a TT position, you do not get to count earlier papers.

@Dawn Yes, such rules (hard requirements about number of publications and when counts) are what I was thinking of as a strange situation where sitting on publications may make sense. Perhaps you can elaborate on how tenure works in your field in your answer.

At least in the sciences, the tenure committee can usually distinguish quite easily between the work that is from after candidate is hired and setting up program at university, and what is finishing up stuff from before. Nobody is  very impressed if all the work published since being hired is 'old' work based on PhD or postdoc or simple extensions of older stuff that took a while to get published. It basically suggests that perhaps the candidate's trajectory  forward is not very strong (and even worse, smells as if candidate won't have much ambition if granted tenure - (i.e.,will stop)

I think the main takeaways of this paragraph are "be aware" and "the balance is delicate indeed". I think the advice in the book about one article and a master's thesis is a bit humanities-centered, so let me try to elaborate.
I am a public policy person trained in economics. I interviewed with econ and public policy/affairs/admin departments. These departments typically had a stated minimum number of tenure track articles needed to get tenure, and pre-tenure publications did not count. Some departments had a point system with various points allocated for the different journal rankings, and you had to get a certain number of points. Some of the best departments had a guideline number to give you the best shot at tenure without having a firm number.
Here is what you will do:

Find out how many publications are considered "good" on the job
market in your field (i.e. how many publications the average new
hire at your school has, not how many the average candidate has)
Publish that many papers, plus perhaps 10-20%
If you have more potential papers and you are near the end of your degree, talk to your advisor about continuing to work on these papers so they will be published (not submitted) after you have started your tenure-track job. A bonus of this is that you may be able to do some additional analyses during that time and increase you shot at higher ranking journals.

Obviously you don't want to hold back papers if you haven't hit the "good number" for your job market. But, for instance, one of my colleagues had published several things, and so didn't feel any need to push her dissertation research out. She got several TT offers and Ivy League post-doc offers without that. She can now take her time with these papers and make some additional improvements and maybe they can hit top journals.
You should especially consider holding things back/perfecting them in the time between when you have been offered the tenure-track job and started the tenure-track job. (I think that this would mostly apply in fields where you can get a piece from submission to acceptance in under 6 months.) In my field, although all publications may improve your letters, publishing during those 6-8 months will neither help you get a job nor count numerically for tenure.
The idea is NOT to minimize pre-tenure-track publications but to have a research project with a stream of publications ready to deploy once you hit the tenure-track.

-1 for advocating gamesmanship, a self-defeating approach to managing an academic career and to life in general.

How, exactly, is this user advocating gamesmanship? I do not really understand.

@DanRomik That is interesting! I do support being strategic as a job market candidate and junior faculty member. I suppose this may come partly from being an economist and teaching about game theory. However, I don't see any reason to encourage a student or junior faculty member to work against their own best interest.

This answer does not reflect only my own opinion. I got some "holding papers" advice from my committee chair. I also had a conversation with my TT department head who noted that I need to be strategic about when my papers come out, because it will look better if I have a steady stream of papers rather than several clumped in year one followed by a dry spell.

@GeorgeWelder actually I was referring to the related concept of gaming the system, sorry.

@Dawn I don't disagree that people should work in their own best interests, but it looks like you and I disagree on what those interests are and how to best further them. As I said, I think the approach you are advocating is self-defeating. It may lead someone to a job (even that is a premise I don't necessarily agree with) but it won't lead to greatness or to maximal happiness, fulfillment, or contribution to society. And my opinion, like yours, also seems to be shared by others.


text:
Ask professor for reference and at the same time propose to do phd with him? (UK)
I need a reference from my former professor, for my PhD application, but I would also like to work with him for my PhD. He would be my top choice, but I will of course need to apply to other universities too. How do I do this? I feel like it's a bit much too ask, and I feel unsure about how to phrase these things.
Also, if I apply to do a PhD with him, can he also write the reference for this application too or would i need to find a different academic?
edit: I am in the UK, and I hold a MA, so I would be applying straight for PhDs (no Master included etc.)

Its completely normal and it would depend more on your professor than anything else. I would vote to close as primarily opinion based, but I can't with open bounty

Keep the email brief and to the point. If you haven't spoken to him in a while, introduce yourself and tell him what you're doing (1 sentence should suffice).
Explain that you're applying for PhD positions and that you would like him to write a reference for you. It's probably a good idea to mention your research interests and remind him of any projects you worked on together, so he can write an effective reference for you. At this point, you can also ask if he is currently looking to take on a new student, as you're very interested in his research and would like to work with him.
If you do end up applying to work with him, you will need a reference from another academic. There's no point him writing a reference for you which he will then read. He will be able to find out more about you and get the full picture if you have a reference from someone else.
Note that most UK PhDs will require at least 2 references anyway, so you should have at least 3 people in mind who you can ask should the need arise.
Your first email to him may go something like this:

Subject: Reference letter
Dear Professor X,
Hope you are well. I am writing to let you know that I am planning to apply for PhD positions in Y and consequently need some letters of reference. Would you mind writing a reference for me?
It would be helpful if you could mention when you supervised my work on project Z, as this project was very successful and the topic is in line with my current research interests.
On this subject, I noticed that you recently published a paper on topic Z. Are you currently looking to take on a PhD student? If so, I would be interested in applying for the position, as our research interests align well and we had some success with the project I mentioned above.
Many thanks and best wishes,
George Welder

thanks a lot!! One problem I see is that my research interest is not fully clear yet and I would not apply for positions this year, but next year. Would I still write the same email? I know the area I want to specialise in, which is this professors area, but I don't know the exact topic yet. Also, I don't really have any other competitive reference to show. I have him and another professor, who could write references, but that's about it. I could get other people to write something, but the letters wouldnt be so strong, as I haven't worked with them as much as I did with him & the other prof.

why was this downvoted? I'm curious, what's wrong with the advice given

@GeorgeWelder I think you could write broadly the same email, but modify it so the professor is aware that the request for the reference is more speculative than urgent. While the letter from another prof might not be as strong, I think you should find another-- I myself had to when I was in a similar situation (the prof himself asked for me to find another reference as it was pointless him writing one for himself to read). // I would also be interested to know why my answer was downvoted...

"If you do end up applying to work with him, you will need a reference from another academic.": not necessarily. In my case, I got a reference letter from a professor under whom I then started working (though I later switched advisors). If your advisor-to-be already knows you well, he doesn't need the reference letter; the rest of the committee does.

@darijgrinberg it still seems like you're "wasting" a reference though- if you're applying to work with someone who already knows you, they can unoficially/ informally recommend you to the committee, plus the 2 official reference letters = a 'bonus' reference.

Tell this professor your intentions. I imagine this discussion will put you at ease (or settle the issue for you).
Ask for the letter of recommendation for other programs. They understand the plight of a prospective PhD student.
Remember stuff like this happens all the time in their world, so just be polite and respectful. Be direct and voice what your thinking and what you want. If you don't share your thoughts, they can't read your mind.

I am not sure if official rules are available regarding your questions, but I will share my thoughts.
1) It is great that you think Professor X is your top choice! Let him know, he will be glad.
2) Nevertheless, it is your right (and your duty) to apply to other PhD programs as well. Tell this to Professor X. Any clever professor will be happy to hear this. You show him that you know that applying to one single program is not enough to obtain a good opportunity. Do you think he might be upset hearing that you dare applying to other positions? If he does, he is not someone you want to work with.
As a non-native English speaker, I do not even attempt to draft a letter, but the one written by @astronat with the needed modifications is perfect.
3) Frankly, I wouldn't be happy if a student asked me to write a reference letter for him for a PhD committee I am sitting in. Sounds like he tries to get special treatment. I would suggest not to do that.

I dont understand why I cannot use him as a reference. When I applied for my Masters at the same institution as my BA, my professors wrote a reference for me, but well, they were the ones who ultimately read it, as it was all at the same institution. Is there a difference when we are talking PhD?

mmm... Sincerely, I cannot help you, because I don't know how thing work in UK, but here in Italy it would sound strange if you ask to a member of the examining committee to write a reference letter for you. Actually, if you are unsure you can ask his opinion. He will know.

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:
Does it make sense to get an LLM in preparation for "law school?"
Someone I know thinks he wants to go to law school and pursue a career in law. One way for him to "find out" is to pursue a one-year LLM degree after graduating college. He has two reasons for feeling this way.
1) Some of his older friends have started, then "aborted" law school programs. Going for an LLM instead of a J.D. would put only one year at risk instead of three. Of course, if he later decides to pursue a J.D., he would have spent four years in law school. Which leads to the second point:
The LLM would enable him to take some, not all, of a first year law program, such as legal writing, contracts, and property, as well as some electives to discover his areas of interest. Given the rigors of a law school program, that would lighten the burden of going for a J.D.later on.
Would pursuing the LLM at a state school (where he is getting a 3.8 GPA) help or hurt my friend if he later decided to pursue a full blown J.D. law program at a good private law school? His idea is "soften up" a law program, but he fears that with a master's degree, he will be held to a "higher standard" for admission.

No. It does not make sense to do a LLM before a JD.
The length of the program is not the relevant thing to consider.
The standard course is to do a JD -- which is a first degree in law -- before a doing a LLM to gain specialized knowledge. Usually a JD or equivalent is required for admission into an LLM program.
I understand the confusion since usually a doctorate (JD) comes after a masters (LLM). Note that, outside the US, the first degree in law is often called a bachelor of laws (LLB), which makes more sense.

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


text:
Pros and cons of (co-)authoring a reference book in early career?
I am early in a tenure-track position. I undertook with a publisher to write a reference book a while back and with a light load to start with in my new position, I recently agreed to set a deadline of later this year.
I progressed quickly through some of the core chapters where I knew what I wanted to write.
Now I have a heavier teaching load, preparing course material from scratch week-to-week, and am struggling to cope with my work hours.
But spending all my few spare cycles in the book seems to be carrying a huge opportunity cost. Though my research profile is sufficiently strong for me not to have to worry about journal output for a while, and I'm currently in the "harvest cycle" of a couple of journal papers that are coming through from about a year ago, I feel I am missing opportunities to start collaborations with other faculty members. I want to start on some new directions and target new communities with the help of new colleagues.
Furthermore, I feel like I don't have the bandwidth to bring the quality of the book to the level I would like. Writing the book has thus become a disheartening chore, trying to balance progress and quality. Working odd hours here and there, I can't dedicate myself to it. There are more pressing things to think about while showering in the morning. Every time I go to work on it, it's a cold start.
In this rather excellent answer on an unrelated question, @Pete L. Clark mentioned the following:

With regard to writing books: one of my most distinguished colleagues, Dino Lorenzini, wrote an excellent and rather successful book near the beginning of his career. He now tells anyone who will listen that junior faculty should not write books. Of course sometimes the heart wants what it wants, but from a strategic perspective I think this is eminently sound, and I say this as someone who may turn around and write some books now that I am solidly into my mid-career.

This prompts me to ask, is it generally the case that writing a book early in one's tenure-track career carries too much of an opportunity cost? My hope is that the book will stand in good stead for my tenure application, and may attract citations in the long term (I believe it is in a good niche), but would I be better off with two-to-three more good journal papers instead (what I estimate the opportunity cost to be)?
Essentially I'm looking for anecdotes on how writing a book helped/hindered early-career (tenure-track) researchers.

You don't say what field you're in. That's surely relevant.

Computer Science. I think the question generalises though.

It generalizes to some extent but I'm under the impression that books are much more important in the humanities.

I've heard a similar story to the one Pete Clark recounts. An early-career researcher I know who had written a book told me that it stopped his research dead in his tracks and he had a hard time getting it going again after the book was finished,

You might want to consult with your department head how much a book publication like yours will help your tenure case and research profile.

@JimConant, good point about asking the department head. I believe the book will of course contribute in the tenure process, but it is more of an informal consideration. With regards the story you heard, if you have details, perhaps you'd like to share as an answer?

@badroit: there's not much more to the story. I don't want to reveal anything too specific in order to preserve the person's anonymity.

Fair enough. :)

The problem is that you're asking arguably the wrong question. The question you're asking makes sense before you start the book. But now, with the time you've already sunk into it, the question is whether you "throw good money after bad" or "stick to your guns".

I've also heard stories similar to Jim Conant's. I agree with Suresh—the right time to ask this question was before you started, and the answer at that time was almost certainly NO.

@Suresh. Sunk costs fallacy? All it means is that the cost of writing the book is lesser now, because some of it has already been done.

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


text:
What are the pros and cons of choosing my own research topic?
(This question is one of three correlated questions: Can I get enough help? (first part), How should I do it? (second part).This is the third part.)
I am an undergraduate student (in Computer Science and Engineering) and I will be starting undergraduate research for my thesis. I have talked with many professors about possible projects and all the projects they proposed to me seemed interesting enough.
During summer, though, I read a paper and I was very interested and excited about it, but this paper was not for the projects that were proposed to me, but in a different area. I would like to do research in this area but I have some questions, because none of my professor is doing research in this particular field.
So, my questions are:

What are the downsides of choosing my own project instead of
doing a project that a professor is working right now (with his
Ph.D. students)?
How harder will it be to get something good out of it (in
comparison with doing a proposed project)?

P.S. I want to understand whether it will be beneficial to do a project that I want to do because of some paper(s) that I read or it will be better to do a project that was proposed to me. Also, I would like to go for a Ph.D. after I graduate.

Nominated for re-opening, not sure why this was downvoted or closed. It's entirely relevant to research. Meta discussion going on here.

Along the lines of earthling's answer, you do have a strong say in your topic, and you'll definitely want to be interested in the topic as you'll be putting a lot of work into it.
However, do realize that, as an undergraduate, you have far less experience in doing research than your advisor. You will save yourself a tremendous amount of work and effort by working closely with him on your project. One way to ensure that your advisor will be willing to invest that time in you is to work on a project that (1) interests him and (2) is related to his research. Even better, both. You are definitely free to choose whatever project you want, but it would be a good idea to choose something on which he can offer his expertise.

In my experience the topic is normally self-chosen. Your adviser might have some ideas but generally the research (and subsequent writing) requires a significant amount of work.
Because of the amount of work involved, if you are not excited by the topic it might be difficult to follow through with the amount of work required. This might be less true for undergraduate theses but at the graduate level, you will need to really spent a lot of time and, therefore, maintaining motivation can be a challenge.
Of course, if your adviser has some ideas that person might be more willing and able to provide support for you.

This is probably depending on the field and/or the habits of the group/supervisor/department. There are theses where the general subject is set beforehand and can only be changed if it turns out that the project cannot be done for some reason.

I would like to answer you as a senior undergraduate computer science student.
I wanted to do research (I had no prior research experience, so I asked an instructor for support for research. He gave me a topic, I found it OK, and I began to learn about the field and work on an existing paper.
Yet in 2 months I realized that I lacked motivation to go on because that field was completely out of my interests and what I have always wanted was something else. ( I couldn't choose that as my research topic because there was nobody with that field's knowledge)
Research requires deep knowledge and unless you are completely interested in that area, you might find it hard to continue after some point. You should really love and embrace it.
But of course, everyone is different. Yet I strongly advice that if you are gonna work on something, make sure you are really interested in it and not doing it just for the sake of doing research. It can harm your motivation and discourage you from being a determined scientist.
It will definitely be harder to get something out of it as your instructors don't know the topic. If the aim is to get fruitful results, you should choose one of the proposed topics. If your main aim is to develop yourself in an area that will contribute to your personal desires, it is better to choose your own topic.


text:
Is it normal that the editor says "the referee report is for editor's eye only so I cannot share it with you"?
I recently receive an editorial letter that is unwilling to share referee reports. The letter explicitly mentions the existence of such report but the editor don't want to send it to me.
Is not sending referees reports normal and happen frequently?
Related: How to interpret this rejection email from Journal of American Math Society? Anything to read between the lines?

I decided to accept the second answer, though all answers are very good. The editor told me that the referee is unwilling to share his report. This is exactly the case suggested by the David's answer.

What are you looking for that isn't already explained in the question you link to?

The editor's answer may be unpleasant, but it does not seem unclear. What is your question?

Contrary to other opinions here, in my experience as an author, reviewer and editor it is entirely normal to receive referee reports that should not be shared with the author. This is an action taken by the referee and not the editor normally. Some reasons why referees don't want the text of their opinion shared with the authors.

They know the author well and their identity would definitely become obvious should the report be shared.

The report contains technical details that impact on the paper, so need to be in the report, but would definitely break anonymity if shared, because it would allow the author to immediately work out the referee.

The referee is unsure about whether they are correct in what they are saying. They might say something like "I think this might have been done before, but I'm not sure where. Try X, they are likely to know for sure."

The report is very short, and the referee simply doesn't think it's particularly useful to give the author. This is particularly true of quick opinions, which many journals in mathematics try to obtain before a full referee's report, which can take a long time.

The referee wrote a report, and it contains personal details about somebody -- the author, referee, or a third party -- that they think would be inappropriate to be shared with the author.

The referee clicked the wrong box in the form.

Out of curiosity, what is your field and how common is it not to receive referee reports?  In my area (pure math), I'd say it happens from time to time, and it is more common for weak papers, but even in the case of initial rejections (no request for revisions), you get back referee reports/quick opinions most the time.

Kind of agree with most of your points but 5. Why would he referee share personal details in the report? 3. Why would the referee use something unsure to decide the future of a paper?

@Kimball Algebra. I'm saying what I saw coming in as an editor, because obviously I cannot say whether there were such reports as an author. I have needed to make some reports unavailable to the author as a referee for various reasons, but these were quick opinions rather than full reports. There's no obvious point to making a full report unavailable to the authors.

@dodo I mean that if there is anything 'unprofessional' in the report, the referee will flag it as not for author consumption. Suppose I write a report that says that the results are fine, not particularly interesting but good enough, but I'm worried about X, and you should check with John Smith about that, as it could collapse the whole thing'. I'm not going to make that report available to authors. Then John Smith gets back and says that X is fine, but he doesn't think the paper is that good, just in an e-mail rather than a report (this happens very often)...

Now the editor has enough to reject the paper, but no report to give the author. He either rejects, or tries to convince either me or John Smith to write a second report to hand to the authors. You have to understand that editors are grateful if any referee responds, so bothering them again is not an option.

@DavidA.Craven Seems like editing is not an easy task, even if the editor is famous and established. Finding and commanding referee could be difficult

@dodo to answer your question about 5, at least in my field things are quite close knit. Often, the editor knows the referee and author personally. If I have sent a paper to be evaluated by X, and I sent one a few months before for another quick opinion by X, the referee's report might make a comparison between the two. "This paper is much better than the one you sent me before by Y, so if you accepted that you should definitely accept this." No way can I send that to the author, but it's a very useful report for the editor.

@DavidA.Craven Ok I think I understand: so X is a referee and you are the editor. You two have been evaluating two versions of the same paper in two different submissions. Is my understanding correct?

@dodo No, I mean that the editor might send two different papers to the same referee over the space of a few months, and the referee might reply that the newer paper is better than the previous one they were sent.

@DavidA.Craven I am not sure I fully understand. Are those two papers on the very similar topic? If not I am not sure if such direct comparison is always rigorous.

@dodo So what if it isn't rigorous? Referees' opinions are just personal opinions. There is no objective standard for a paper. I'm asking someone their opinion of how good a paper is. They will definitely make comparisons to other people's work.

In my experience, the web sites for sending in referee reports often have spaces for two reports, one for the author (and editor) and one for only the editor. I've often left the second space blank, so that all my comments could (and presumably would) be forwarded to the author. But it's entirely possible for a referee to put almost nothing in the first space and put almost all comments in the second space. (I wrote "almost" because the web site software often requires you to put something in the first space, but it can't detect that your something is worthless.) In such a case, the editor could make a decision but couldn't forward anything useful to the author. (Of course, the editor could also look for a new referee.)

That's a nice description, but it's not an answer to the OP's question: is it normal not to get a review, and implicitly, what is the possible reason for not getting a review.

@Dilworth - I would imagine that a comment about the paper being effectively gibberish/plagiarised/valueless would be something you'd share with the editor but not the author. I'm not saying that's what's happened here, but those are examples

As editor and reviewer I value the second (undisclosed) box very much. Your comments to authors can be tough, but should focus on possible improvements (or fatal flaws) of the manuscript. In the closed section the reviewer can give a more straightforward explanation/recommendation summary why a paper should be given the chance for improvements or whether it should be rejected. This is valuable to the editor. It may be that these are the reports the that the editor does not want to share (but it would be strange to report this to the author)

As far as I'm aware of, this is highly not normal. Peer review in journals normally means that you get to see the review as an author. Any other decision may show some lack of trust between the editor and the author. For example,

the editor thinks the author is a "crank";

or does not deserve a serious treatment;

or that the specific paper submitted was clearly below the acceptance threshold of that journal so that a serious review was not even conducted (in this case there is a "review" containing one or two paragraphs, stating the paper is clearly below the bar). This case is called "desk reject".

There may be a distinction between a "referee report" and a review. Authors typically see reviewer comments on their manuscript; they may not see referee comments that the editor uses to make a decision, such as a decision to accept or reject the manuscript. As mentioned in the Q&A that OP linked to, this may happen when reviewers are asked not to review a paper but to decide whether they think it is worth reviewing.

Correct. But the OP claims that there "is a referee report". So as I've mentioned now in my answer, there may be a one-two paragraphs stating that the paper is below the bar. This is however not really a referee report.

It's not clear what the editor is calling a "referee report".

Cases where the report could identify the reviewer might also qualify here?

@GeoffreyBrent, I don't think so. In this case the Editor can simply amend the review or ask the reviewer to amend it.

@Dilworth Where possible, sure, but sometimes it's not simple to obfuscate the reviewer's identity without also obfuscating the issue they've raised. Especially an issue in niche fields where the pool of potential reviewers may be very small, and well known to the author - from there, knowledge like "only one of those people is knowledgeable enough about $SUBTOPIC to raise this objection" can be enough for identification.

@GeoffreyBrent it gets more interesting if it's so specific that the knowledge that a referee not being able to share details already gives information on who the referee might be :) (see this video for a humorous example)

Peer review in journals means that you get to see the review as an author This is surely not the case. You get a decision, not necessarily a review (e.g. if the manuscript is desk rejected).

@Allure but a desk-rejected manuscript hasn't been peer-reviewed.

@Allure, correct. That's what I said. To clarify I added the word "normally" now, thanks.

@EspeciallyLime it has, it's just that the reviewer is the editor.

This is definitely not normal. It implies something went wrong. One possible explanation is that the reviewer wrote something highly confidential and the editor isn't sharing it. Alternatively, the reviewer wrote something really bad (e.g. rude/abusive/sexist/irrelevant) and the editor isn't sharing it.
Still, when that happens (I've seen it as an editor), the more common thing to do is to just not tell the authors of the existence of the confidential review, which avoids the authors asking questions like this one.

It is probably not normal (in my field anyway) not to see any form of the referee's report at all. These days, ( again in my field), a referee usually submits two sets of comments, one for the editor alone, and one which will/may be made available to the author. If the referee is told that part of his/her comments will not be made available to the author without consent, then it is proper that those comments should be withheld from the author if that consent is not given.


text:
How to deal with attacks focusing on minor points and subjective points in an academic debate/paper writing?
I wrote a paper that invalids a previous result. The referee heavily attacks "minor points" such as typos, misuse of jargons, overall "hard to read", and some story-telling or speculation could be off. The referee avoids direct commenting on the main result.
My question is, in an academic debate, how to deal with people rejecting or attacking a paper not for its major contribution but for "minor" things?
Or, should I convince myself that those "minor things" are not actually minor?

"Hard to read" can be a major point, especially if it prevents understanding of the main result.

How to deal with that: by improving the presentation of your paper. These are only minor things to you, because you already understand your results. To somebody trying to validate your claims not being able to properly follow the paper is a major problem.

As a reviewer, I had some papers that were ok content-wise, but so badly structured and written that I hard time understanding what the authors were trying to say. So no, this is not a minor issue.

What was the referee's overall accept/reject recommendation (including major/minor revisions, etc)?  Likewise, what was the editor's accept/reject decision?

@NateEldredge Rejection and rejection

It is unclear from your question what the context is for a referee to be offering comments on your paper.  You refer to it as an "academic debate" but refereeing of a paper for peer review is not a debate --- it is a process where referees seek to identify problems in a paper that ought to be fixed before publication occurs.  If this is the context then I would recommend that you be thankful that you have referees who are doing a through job of reviewing your papers and pointing out shortcomings.
In cases where a paper is hard to read or understand, the reviewers will sometimes want this aspect of the paper fixed before proceeding to a substantive review of the ideas in the paper.  That can occur when there are problems with the writing that obscure the main idea in the paper or distract from the main idea to such an extent that the referee does not wish to review that aspect of the paper at the present time.  From your description it sounds like these issues are a barrier to publication and are possibly even a barrier to substantive review of your main argument, so I would not consider them to be minor issues (based on your description).  Even if you were to conclude that the points raised are "minor", where does your evaluative labelling of the referee comments get you?

I refer it as "academic debate" because the referee is clearly supporting the old result which I try to invalids. They also write to state that the old result is flawless. Not sure if my wording is accurate.

@dodo It's generally a reasonable position that the generally accepted/"old" result has precedence. If you want to argue for something new, it's up to you to make the most clear, flawless case. It doesn't sound like you've done anything approaching that, and until you do, you should consider your presentation highly flawed rather than considering anyone else in debate with you. You haven't done the full required work yet.

Right now - fix those issues.
You can disagree with reviewers and offer counter-arguments at any time during the review process. There can be an irreconcilable difference of opinion, usually concerning stylistic choices; ultimately, it would be up to the editor and authors to resolve. But outright disagreeing from the very beginning is almost never a good idea.
You see, reviewers are not your enemies nor the obstacles standing between you and another line in your CV. They are fellow researchers who spend their unpaid time trying to help you improve the article and offering the perspective you do not have. They are among what is statistically likely to be very few people who will ever read this work, and they are generally more representative of the potential reader than you, the authors. If you fail to convince them, what makes you believe this paper of yours would be good at convincing anyone at all? And also, if the reviewer agreed with your main idea, would you be any more inclined to address these "minor" issues?
Try your best to understand the criticism and improve the manuscript. If you believe there is a conflict of interest or genuine stubbornness, claims along the lines of "the old result is flawless, the paper is wrong" are generally dismissible if the reviewer can not be bothered to elaborate on their stance. Of course, you should respond in a civil way, explaining that you have provided arguments A, B, and C, neither of which was challenged in any way.


text:
Shall I collaborate/email with a peer who've been taking contribution from others' working paper without properly citing?
There is a peer researcher working closely to my main topic. I recently got some results built upon his latest papers.
However, I knew that he paraphrased a (small) section of someone else's work into his own paper. He did cite the other paper, but he did not cite it at the right place, making that plagiarized section look original. So I am a bit doubtful of his moral level.
I've checked a few related question here and people seem to agree that it is better to discuss with the previous authors. In this instance, I don't really know what to do. Shall I still email him my results, or not?

Details on his plagiarism. He cites a source in his introduction. But in one of his result sections (not the main result), he took results from the other paper as his own. The result, method, and proofs are all the same. He did not cite the source in the result section or in his proof.

What do you want to achieve by sending him the results?

@Sursula-they- Because my work is built upon his paper, so it might be polite to do so? The contribution is just a little more than a technical comment of his paper.

Without knowing details, it is impossible to judge. Plagiarism is the use of someone else's intellectual work without attribution. If someone paraphrases a sentence of the related work section of another paper and cites this paper in a general way, this is possibly not plagiarism. If someone paraphrases a non-obvious argument without citing the source that is arguably plagiarism. As always, details matter.  Let's say I am using a paper that makes the argument that matrix A is singular. If matrix A is represented in a way that makes it clear that row 3 is the sum of rows 0 and 1, then my failing to cite the paper is not plagiarism, since the singularity is obvious to any trained mathematician. If however the singularity follows from a difficult calculation of the determinant, then the singularity of the matrix is not obvious and I should cite this paper.
The criteria for student work and academic work should differ, because the notion of obviousness differs.
I would advise you to first look at the case. Was it really plagiarism? Was it an oversight / error? Or does it seem to an unbiased observer that the paraphrasing is indeed claiming someone else's intellectual work?
Second, is the sanction for this paraphrasing really that the person should be shunned for ever and ever? As far as I can tell, you do not want to publish your results with this author, you just want to have a discussion with the author. It might serve both of you well. If you are afraid to work with a rascal that indeed is in the habit of using other people's work for their own purposes, then you might want to be prudent, but apparently, your contribution is not publishable anyway so that you do not risk a lot.
Since there is an edit to the original question: Yes, it seems to me like pretty clear-cut plagiarism.  You should be careful.

I am open to collaborate with that author. I am just in doubt of his moral level. Good points. So here is what I am going to do: 1) get some third parties to verify if it is actually plagarism. 2) don't be afraid.

Then you should go and inquire about the author.


text:
What is the meaning when the editor says a paper is "provocative"?
Here is a letter of rejection sent by Quarter Journal of Economics, to a big name professor. This letter is publicly available online.

Many thanks for your interesting and provocative paper. I have received a referee report on your piece, and I have read it myself. There are certainly many smart things in the piece, but ultimately, I think it is more appropriate for a more specialized journal. Your points are often well-taken, but really didn't convince me, or the referee, to question the standard interpretation of the data. I could imagine a paper on similarity relations which convincingly made the case for this approach being acceptable to us, but this side of the current paper is not really worked out.
Ultimately, this seems like a critique of the current approach which is right in many ways, but criticisms and extensions of existing research are best sent to more specialized outlets.

The editor says the submitted paper is "provocative", a word that seems "provocative" and "intentionally insulting" by itself. The dictionary definition of "provocative" is:

Causing annoyance, anger, or another strong reaction, especially deliberately.

Did I misinterpret that meaning?
Google says,

provocative    /prəˈvɒkətɪv/
adjective

causing anger or another strong reaction, especially deliberately.

"a provocative article"

Similar:
annoying irritating exasperating infuriating provoking maddening
goading vexing galling affronting insulting offensive inflaming
rousing arousing agitational inflammatory incendiary controversial
aggravating in-your-face

intended or intending to arouse sexual desire or interest.

"a provocative sidelong glance"

Similar:
sexy sexually arousing sexually exciting alluring seductive tempting
suggestive inviting tantalizing titillating indecent pornographic
indelicate immodest shameless erotic sensuous slinky passionate sexual
piquant racy juicy risqué raunchy steamy coquettish amorous
flirtatious come-hither kinky tarty

I checked "provocative" in other dictionaries. Some include another meaning like "thought-provoking", but some do not. So I am looking for the true definition of "provocative". Here, does "provocative" mean "though-provoking" by "causing anger"?

Perhaps you could link to where this letter is shared online for more. Also please spell QJE for those of us who don't follow the economics literature.

Please do not write answers in the comments. This conversation has been moved to chat.

Maybe the editor is not english mother-tongue, so the wording is almost correct, but he meant "thought-provoking".

I do not think "provocative" in this context is 'provocative' ;).
I read the rejection letter to mean: You are attacking the current consensus, and this causes me (the editor and the putative reader) to think. But you did not convince me in your approach, so, I am not willing to give you a platform. The paper has merits and should be published, but elsewhere.
Provocative in this circumstances means something like "rocking the boat". As strong claims demand strong evidence, a rejection for this type of paper is more likely. The editor seems to think that the validation is too thin. Some rocking the boat is necessary for progress, but its value should be determined by specialists, who will be able to reassess what the general public in the field is not apt to do.
I do not know the case nor the field, nor the type of journal, but this is not a bad rejection letter. It gives a clear path forward: Make your case to the specialists first or support strong claims with strong evidence.

I just checked "provocative" in other dictionaries. Some include a secondary meaning like "thought-provoking", but some do not. So I am not sure about the true meaning of "provocative". So "provocative" means "though-provoking" by "causing anger"?

If you are having doubts regarding the interpretations here, you should drop a question at the English Language and Usage SE. FWIW, Webster's dictionary, an authoritative source, defines it this way: tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate. As you can see, the connotation of the term, in isolation, is ambiguous; the context is the determining factor. The overall tenor of the message you posted is positive. Morevoer, in the first sentence, the editor implicitly equates "provocative" with "interesting". Based on these things, I think it is safe to reach the conclusion @tschwartz has reached.

@dodo more broadly, it means "eliciting a reaction/response".

@Ender Just did!

@dodo Merriam webster has the following definition: "serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate". The word doesn't have a negative connotation (of anger or anything else) in this context.

In this context I think it means "provoking controversy".

@dodo There isn't a thing like "true meaning" in linguistics; meaning is negotiated between speakers, and dictionaries always record this negotiated status quo imperfectly. tschwarz's answer is spot on, this is clearly the meaning based on context (i.e. people seldom express gratitude for bad papers, and in such formal situation sarcasm is unlikely).

@dodo what are you trying to achieve? Do you want to understand what was written? Well this answer explains it very well. Do you want to construe a case that the editor insulted you? Why would you want to do that? Or does the answer provoke you to work harder and write more convincingly? Then go ahead.

@dodo Even if what you found in a dictionary were the "true meaning" (which I'd disagree with), that still doesn't mean it is what was meant. Perhaps the editor is not a native speaker. Perhaps they are, but often use provocative slightly different than the oxford dictionary defines it. I think this answer has the best guess at the intended meaning I would be able to come up with.

Note that Einstein's Special Relativity paper (1905) was also provocative at the time.

No, the editor is not implying that the article angered them. In academia, provocative is usually used with a positive connotation (as in: thought-provoking, something that any academic article strives to be). Read the context of the email carefully - the editor found your article to be "interesting and provocative".
Unfortunately, the editor goes on to say that "criticism of existing approaches are best sent to more specialised outlets". This is a bit dubious by itself, but should probably be understood in combination with "really didn't convince me, or the reviewer" - as in, the editor felt that your paper made some good arguments, but not sufficiently convincing to warrant acceptance at this (presumably fairly widely read?) general journal.

Agreed completely with the first paragraph; that's a rather common usage of 'provocative.' Regarding the second paragraph, perhaps the thought was that a more specialized journal would be more likely to have reviewers more qualified in the particular subject area and, thus, more qualified to review the paper for the substance of its content vs. just for more general aspects (correct use of statistics, seemingly-reasonable experiment design, sound arguments, etc.) that the more general journal's reviewers from outside the subject matter area could evaluate.

As @tschwartz points out, the term "provocative" in this context is not meant to be taken negatively. The editor finds the arguments in the paper to be thought-provoking, intriguing, meritorious, interesting etc. but not substantive enough to warrant publication in a journal with a general scope since they only point out some flaws in existing methods without proposing a different framework. In general, it would be surprising to me to hear of an editor using the term in to express disapproval of a paper in a discussion with the author.

Why is it surprising? Is it surprising good or surprising bad?

I personally think it would be odd to use the term "provocative" in an academic context in a negative way unless there is something really brazen going on (e.g. a paper written to deliberately antagonize a rival group from another school of thought). This does not seem to be the case here. The editor is complimenting the author of this paper in this message and kindly informing them of the unsuitability of their work for the journal.

I agree with you that using negative word is rare. I think "provocative" still means "thought-provoking by causing strong emotion", which can be positive or negative. I am guessing that the editor wants to say that the paper is "too bold" and "cause anger" but he cannot directly say that because it will make him like an "ass-hole". So he resorts to a rhetoric expression which has double meaning: if someone else says "hey you are so mean", he can say that he is just complimenting.

I really doubt this is the case unless the editor himself has deep emotional ties with the ideas being brought into question by the author, but, again, this is exceedingly unlikely. He comes across as being impartial and even suggests possible ways to improve the work. In general, it is best to assume good intentions especially when there is little apparent evidence of malice.

Well, the evidence is that the editor rejected the paper. From my experience, if the editor is super positive, then he will give a conditional acceptance; if he is highly positive, then he will give a chance of revision; if he is slightly positive, he will reject but encourage the author to revise and submit again. If he is positive, but the journal does not really fit, he will actively arrange a transfer. If he is slightly positive, but the journal does not fit, he will suggest some other journals to submit the paper.

Even if the editor is slightly negative, he will usually reject but encourage the author to submit future pieces. Only if he is negative about the work, he will reject without encouraging resubmit or recommending alternative journals. Well, in our case, if the editor is 100% positive, why would he use a word with somewhat ambiguous meaning?

@dodo The editor isn't 100% positive. They think your ideas potentially could have merit, but don't think you've proven them conclusively. They also think that you're not going to be able to resolve that in a back-and-forth with the current set of reviewers for this particular journal. I take the use of "provocative" as a subtle reminder that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. There's ambiguity because your claims are still unproven.

@dodo: Because humans are not robots and connotations are not written in stone. The editor clearly believes that the word is at worst neutral, or they would not have written it in a sentence beginning with "many thanks." You could argue that the editor is somehow being sarcastic or ironic, but that does not fit the overall tone of the letter whatsoever.

Taking the totality of their comments, the editor would like to communicate that the paper isn't interesting/impactful enough for this journal.

Many thanks for your interesting and provocative paper

This is standard "praise before you criticize" politeness. As others have said, "provocative" is a positive in this academic context, especially paired with "interesting". You could rewrite this sentence "your paper is interesting and made me think". However, this is just standard praise. It's meant to prepare to let someone down lightly. Do not worry more about the use of this word "provocative", it has nothing to do with why the paper has been rejected.

There are certainly many smart things in the piece, but ultimately, I think it is more appropriate for a more specialized journal.

More standard praise ("many smart things"), followed by the let-down "more appropriate for a more specialized journal"; this means "your paper isn't important/remarkable/impactful enough for this journal".

Your points are often well-taken, but really didn't convince me, or the referee, to question the standard interpretation of the data.

It sounds like the paper is critiquing the standard interpretations/analysis procedures in other papers. The editor feels that while those critiques have merit, they wouldn't impact the conclusions of the standard procedure enough to be paradigm-shifting. I don't think it's that more is needed to convince the editor that the critiques are correct, but rather that they aren't convinced the critiques are impactful. One might consider the aphorism "all models are wrong, but some are useful": it may be that the paper successfully shows that someone else's model is wrong in some way, but if it hasn't shown that their model isn't useful or that the alternative approach is more useful, then it just isn't that impactful.

I could imagine a paper on similarity relations which convincingly made the case for this approach being acceptable to us

Same as above: the editor is saying that if the paper made a better case for the proposed approach being convincingly better, that paper might be acceptable. As a mere critique of existing work, it isn't.

Ultimately, this seems like a critique of the current approach which is right in many ways, but criticisms and extensions of existing research are best sent to more specialized outlets.

Translation: send this to a specialized journal concerned with the specifics of the methodology in this area. The paper is not being rejected because it's wrong, but because it isn't sufficiently interesting. It's not appropriate to send detailed nit-picky critiques to a journal the principally publishes work that advances the field substantially.

There are enough good answers here already explaining that the word "provocative" is not negative in this context and, if anything, is positive. To those answers I would just like to add that this editor's use of the word "provocative" is in line with the dictionary definition you quote (emphasis mine):

Causing annoyance, anger, or another strong reaction, especially deliberately.

When a paper argues against the status quo of a research field, it is likely to cause strong reactions - not particularly annoyance or anger, but intrigue and intense debate. The paper puts more at stake than a typical paper does, it may imply that a lot of previous research done by other people is flawed in some way, and that may provoke those other researchers to defend the value of their work.
Note that while causing annoyance or anger would be negative, causing a "strong reaction" in general need not be. So to directly answer your question, you have misinterpreted the definition of "provocative" by (it seems) assuming that "another strong reaction" means "another strong negative reaction". It doesn't have to, and here it doesn't.


text:
What lessons did you learn while doing your PhD?
What lessons did you learn while doing your PhD? What advice would you give somebody just starting off with their PhD that could save them time and grief?
I have collected some of the lessons I learned along the way. Feel free to add your own lessons learned, and link your thesis to give people an idea of just how different a thesis can be in different subjects and parts of the world.

This is far too subjective and broad. It isn't a good fit for the Q&A format.

Perhaps it is too broad, but looking at the related questions there are quite a few subjective questions where people look for advice.

@MJeffreys This is a subjective question indeed, but according to the page you pointed to, some (constructive) subjective questions are allowed, including those that "invite sharing experiences over opinions". I think this is a very good example of such a question.

@lighthousekeeper This falls into the category of "make a big list" questions that are not generally a good fit for the format of this site. The problem is that there is no "answer" per se, but an open-ended and expanding collection.

@jakebeal This seems to apply to all questions that primarily invite the sharing of experiences. According to the page MJeffryes pointed to, such questions are allowed.

@lighthousekeeper On the same page, you may find the statement: "Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much."  Insofar as I can see, this appears to be a book-length question --- in fact, a large fraction of the answers on this site could be construed as "lessons learned while doing a PhD"!

@jakebeal Indeed, "too broad" might be the better argument for closing. I still voted for reopen, since pehrs' answer shows that one does not have to write a book to give a valuable and actionable answer.

@lighthousekeeper Please note that the closing reason is, in fact, "too broad."

My background: I completed an engineering degree, and worked for a few years before I started a PhD in Telecommunication Systems in Sweden. I wrote my thesis on the subject of performance measurements in complex networks. The thesis is an extremely unwieldy thing, trying to sum up experiences from three different projects.
My lessons learned
Planing your work:

Try to keep your office hours. I started off working from 7 am to around
11 pm most days, eating all three meals on campus. This was not good
for my productivity (so much time wasted!), relationships (with
friends, family or SO), or mental health. Things got a lot better
when I started working "normal" office hours, only working evenings
when close to deadlines.
Have a 5 year plan (how are you going to get your PhD done?), a 5 month plan (What's the current research objective?), a 5 week plan (How are you moving towards the objective?) and a 5 day plan (What's the plan for the week?). These should be in writing. They help you structure your work, and makes it a lot easier to say no to things that did not help you towards your PhD.
Keep track of the learning objectives in your PhD program, and the requirements for your PhD. If you are writing an article thesis you need to have a publication when you are halfway in. If you are writing a monograph, you should have started writing about halfway.
Many universities will happily use PhD students as cheap teachers on full time. Be careful to monitor how much time you spend as a TA.

Coursework:

If you have coursework requirements make sure that you have them fulfilled with time to spare. It's not fun to wrap up the PhD and then return to take additional courses to get your degree (I have a friend who had to do this, being a few points off, just because a mandatory course that wasn't offered that last year...)
Three subjects are useful for almost every PhD: Scientific methods, Scientific Writing and Statistics. Take courses in these three subjects as early as possible.
Avoid undergraduate courses, they are often a waste of time.
Specialised courses in your field of study are often fun and inspiring, but try not to overspecialise too early.
There are a lot of summer schools offered, which is a great if you want to meet new people and learn from some very good teachers at other universities.

Publishing:

Learn to structure your writing. Use CARS or some other model!
Rejections happen, and waste a lot of time. Aim low with early papers, learn the skills of the trade, and save your opus for later.
Don't start your PhD with a methodology paper aimed for high profile publications (I had my first paper rejected 5 times, which was not very fun).
Publishing in small, national, conferences and publications is a good way to meet people, share ideas and get inspiration how to move forward. You can usually reuse much of the ideas in international publications.
In most cases you will need internationally recognised journal or conference publications. About half way you should start aiming for these.
If your advisor wants you to publish in Nature/Science/Cell/Proceedings of the IEEE etc, FYL.
If you are working with companies or other external entities, make sure you know what you can actually publish. It hurts to do a lot of work, and then later learn that it is all under an NDA and you can't publish it.

Sanity:

Advisors rarely have as much time as you want. Make sure you have some co-advisors which can help you when your primary advisor can't help you. Make sure you credit your co-advisors. I got one that saved my PhD.
Work-life balance is important. Make sure you go home, take care of yourself, sleep properly. 8 hours of productive work is much better than 16 hours of lacking productivity
The feeling of "wasting time" is very common when doing a PhD. If you find yourself at 10 pm, still at work, reading PhD Comics... Just give up and go home. We all do it.
In the end, a PhD is a Marathon, not a sprint. Slow, methodical work without giving up will get you there eventually.
Homeland support is important. Nurture it. Pets, family, friends... Anything that forces you to focus on what's really important in life (and that is not the PhD, even if it feels like that)
PhD comics helped me deal with some of the trauma.

very good answer! +1


text:
I'm applying for a Master's program - can I include manually calculated GPA
I'm applying for a Master's program and I would like to indicate that my GPA in the last two years of college has improved greatly and that my major GPA is high. However, my official transcript does not report major GPA or the GPA in my last two years. I want to manually calculate these two GPAs using the scale and key provided by my university and I will make a note saying that these numbers are not on my official transcript. Is that acceptable? I don't want the admissions committees to think that I'm trying to mislead intentionally, neither do I want to be viewed negatively for providing information that is not verifiable. Of course, I will include the GPA on my official transcript.

I think the most important thing is to list the specific courses that are most relevant to the master's program you are applying for.  You could show a table listing the name of the course, a brief description if the course title isn't self-explanatory, and the grade received.  If the grades in this table are all (or almost all) very strong, that will make more of an impact than some hand-calculated average.


text:
How to cite a specific living document in a GitHub repository?
I want to cite the Ethereum Project's white paper. It was the document that announced the project and outlined its philosophies, properties, etc. However, in 2014 they moved the paper to GitHub and treat it as a living document. For example, although the paper was initially released in 2013, as of today it has 84 revisions on GitHub with the most recent being two hours ago. They do not make a PDF available that I have found, nor have I been able to locate a DOI.
I'm going to assume that I would need to cite a specific version of the document, but I'm not sure if there is a preferred way to do that.
Note this question is similar to, but distinct from, this question which addresses how to cite an entire repository that one owns. I'm asking how to cite a specific document within a repository owned by someone else.

Wouldn't citing the repository be enough the internal documents?

@andorian That is correct, but I wasn't sure if there was another accepted best practice different from that.

For GitHub specifically, I would cite the hash of the current revision.

Please go ahead a create a DOI for the specific release yourself and use it to cite the work.
Also, you could fork your own copy of the wiki and keep it updated from time to time from the main branch.
Versioning DOI: You can also get a DOI automatically issued for every release of the 'Living Document' by Zenoda. Details are here.
Here is a guide: https://help.github.com/articles/referencing-and-citing-content/

As the document is a Wiki page, getting a Zenodo DOI may be harder. Additionally, only project maintainers can create DOIs for the repository, and only for explicitly marked releases. An alternative would be to use a commit-specific URL (e.g. this URL for the current commit at the time of writing - get it by looking at the revision history and clicking the commit ID on the latest commit).


text:
How many minutes per day do most professors spend reading and replying to emails?
I know that the time greatly varies from professor to professor, but what are some good 25th percentile to 75th percentile estimates? And does the time spent reading/replying to emails generally increase when the professor is teaching a class?
What are some other factors that influence the number of emails a professor receives?

Just out of sheer curiosity: why are you interested in such statistics?

Just trying to understand the mental burden that I might put on professors when I ask them questions via email and when I might sometimes expect long responses. :) Even though the profs have so little time and so many emails to respond to.

Admit it, you just want to verify http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1047

I think there is no single answer, it depends on too many factors. Vote to close as non constructive.

Looking at emails: too many. Actually reading emails: not enough.

Some professors are lazy, they seldom check emails from students

I'm not sure what the exact percentiles are, but I'd estimate that most faculty members who handle their own emails (more on this below) probably spend on the order of an hour a day or more dealing with emails.
I think that emails don't necessarily increase when one is teaching as opposed to other times of the year—unless there are no TA's for the course. In that case, since the professor is the only contact point, emails will rise, although this depends on the course enrollment.
Other determining factors are more or less obvious: the more active and senior a professor is, the more emails they will get:

Professors with larger research groups will have more email traffic associated with group management.
Professors in larger departments will have more email originating at the department and committee level.
As professors move up the ladder, they are asked to participate in more reviews and external programs, which increases the burden still further.

On the other hand, one advantage that many senior faculty have is that they may have dedicated administrative assistants, whose responsibilities can include filtering out the unimportant messages for them.

Very good points. I've often witnessed something peculiar though: a lot of times, the more famous professors are more likely to reply to my emails. Not all of them seem to have personal assistants - although maybe they simply find it easier to respond to emails since they know more?

"they simply find it easier to respond to emails since they know more?" Try not to say something like this in front of "less famous" professors.

In 2015, a paper was published which gives some numbers based on a survey among academics: "Employees’ perceptions of email communication, volume and management strategies in an Australian university" https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1019121.
The paper reports that academics on the Associate Professor/Professor level say that on average they get 84.3 emails per workday (Table 3, D/E column).
The paper displays a few comments about the time it takes to handle email (not specified whether this is professors):

"Most days I work heavily on email, and start my ‘real’ work at 5pm when the email traffic slows down"
"Work email takes up over two hours per day ..."
"... it takes me half a day just to read and respond to them before I can commence my work".

It greatly varies, my adviser replies at lightning speed, if I ask any questions. He never replies if I ask for an appointment though,LOL. If I ask a question, that he already knows, then within next 2 - 5 mins, If I ask some question, that need some thought, a day MAX. But I took courses with people who ignore stupid questions and move on, even though, that is introductory course. Not saying its wrong, kinda grey area though.


text:
When is it a good idea to let an academic department (or a professor) know that I have Asperger's (or ADD)?
With Asperger's, the trick is always when to explain it (in a non-awkward situation). I'd like to avoid mentioning it if possible, but it has gotten to the point that I only mention it after committing a major social faux pas, in which case it might be seen as an excuse.
With ADD, this is an issue that happens when people explain things to me. I often don't parse things very well when they're communicated to me verbally since I do have attention lapses. That's the major issue, anyways.
With that said, I do (indirectly) imply that I have both diagnoses on my personal website.

This is a difficult situation. If you believe that you will be placed in situations where a someone in question will need to know that you have Asperger's, lest he or she misread your actions in that situation, then you should inform him or her before it becomes a problem. As you said, informing them afterwards can make it seem like an excuse.
However, if your diagnosis affects your "job" performance (academic or research or otherwise), then you should let them know as soon as possible. If there is the possibility to make appropriate accommodations for your condition(s), then you should have this entered into your official records, so that it's available in case it becomes necessary.

From personal experience, I would say not to tell unless your impairment is extreme enough to have required accommodations all throughout your schooling. I personally had always struggled at some things more than others and excelled in area that no one else could fathom and was considered a little 'quirky'. Because of some advice that I received, I did notify the university, as I had just been diagnosed with ADHD (at the age of 50) and just prior to turning in my final thesis, was told that I didn't belong in grad school. Unfortunately I was too humiliated to stand up for myself at the time and when I could, the statute of limitations (one year for discrimination) was over. There is still quite a stigma attached to both diagnoses unfortunately. The stigma won't be resolved with the secrecy but it depends on what your top priority is; challenging the stigma or graduating. Unfortunately, this was my reality and it tends to be rather ingrained in most of higher academia at this point, truth be told.

Wow... What field/university are you in? My impression is that some groups are more tolerant than other groups. Personally I found that atmospheric science at UWashington is very sympathetic, but this was not the experience I got in other departments.

Many universities have offices dedicated to help people which might have learning and other kinds of difficulties, the office in University of Toronto is called "Accessibility Services". Their job is helping people who have such difficulties. I suggest that you check if your university has such an office and register with them.
Generally it is better to discuss this with them and let them inform the departments and instructors as needed. They can also provide advice to you and to the instructor and tell the instructor about the kind of special considerations they need to provide for you while keeping your personal information confidential as much as possible.
It also has the benefit that you don't need to explain it more than once, the office will do it for you.
It is also helpful for instructors. An instructor might not be knowledgeable about your difficulties and how he or she can help you. The office can tell your instructors what they have to do exactly to help you in their courses.

If you were a student in my class, I would recommend that you tell me as soon as possible.  That way we could brainstorm effective workarounds for you before you possibly fall behind.  I've had a number of students with some type of learning disability (I realize this isn't the same thing, but my response is similar).  If you can get cleared with the university for extra time to take exams, I'm happy to provide that.  For one student who had trouble concentrating on quizzes during class, I let her take them outside of class (beforehand).  Many people will be happy to work with you, but they won't be able to unless you tell them about your condition and how they can help.

Depending what country you are in, they are often required to make accommodations by law, but that is only if they know about them.
That said, if it is 'just' social interactions that are the issue affecting you, then it is worth examining exactly what you hope to gain out of telling people, because it is more of a gray area in terms of your rights as far as I understand it, anyway.For example:
If you are always being expected to work in a group and you feel worried about this and want to work on your own, it might be worth it. However, if it is just a bit of understanding you want for when you say inappropriate things then you might also be disappointed by how ignorant educated people can actually be about these sorts of things... It depends on you though, some people are more bothered by what people think than others are!


text:
How do you join programme committees for conferences?
For most conferences in my field it seems to be invitation-only, i.e. somebody has to suggest you/remember you. Are there any conferences that have open calls for applications to the programme committee?

It's rare. I know of one conference though (in theoretical computer science) where the steering committee actively maintains a list of "qualified but has never served", and strongly encourages PC chairs to look over that list when selecting names. Your best strategy might be to approach the steering committee and suggest that they do something like this, so as not to sound like you're shilling for yourself :)

That would be SOCG.  I'm surprised that all conferences don't do this.

Actually I was thinking of SODA, but I wasn't aware that SoCG also does it.

I think there is a reason why few conferences have a transparent way to choose PC members, using an open list: it's hard to judge whether reviewers are reliable. In CS, I have heard that people tend to "know" which people seem qualified but would not do good reviewers (e.g., fail to hand in the reviews on time). But there is no public list (or no transparent way to exclude such people from public lists), it's just shared privately between people in the field. I don't know whether this is a good system, but this may be part of the justification why the "public list" approach is not very common.

Talk to members of the current organizing committee? It's tough work, and scientists are always busy, so they'll usually be receptive to having someone else to split the work with, and there's always a chance that somebody is too busy to help with next year's committee, and they're looking for a replacement.


text:
How do you make corrections to a published paper?
What's the best way to make corrections to a published paper? Should I amend the original paper and mention in a footnote (or similar) what was changed and why or prepare a completely separate document and put that on my website/append it to the original paper?
I'm not so much worried about how to get it to the publishers that handle the paper, but rather about how to go about it. I would especially like to hear from people who have done something like that or know someone who did.

Note this paper which lays the issues out more fully, and makes an interesting related proposal, to always link to a site which lets authors publish corrections themselves via something like GitHub or OSF: Amending the literature through version control | Biology Letters

It depends on what the error is.

If the error is the publisher's fault—for instance, if they failed to make a correction you specified in the proofs—then they have an obligation to correct the error. In that case, an email to the editors alerting them of the problem, along with some documentation of the original list of corrections, usually suffices to get the problem fixed. (This will usually be accompanied by a "publisher's note" alerting the reader to the correction, although the original article will usually be updated to provide the correct information.)
If the error is something discovered after publication, then the best way to fix this is to prepare a short comment detailing the error, the correction, and its implications on your work. The resulting item is then submitted to the journal as a "comment" (or, in some cases, an "erratum," if the journal offers that as a submission option). In this sense, it is like any other comment on a paper.

Will the publisher usually link these documents, i.e. will the errata be easy to find/access from the original articles website?

This will of course depend on each publisher, but they're getting better at this sort of thing. For example, here is a recent example of a paper that's had an erratum (really a "correction") issued. You can see that there is a link to the correction right off of the "search results" page, rather than having to click through to the article. Again, not all journals behave this way, but it's definitely improving.

What's the best way to make corrections to a published paper?

Although it isn't clear what the "best way" is, I am fairly certain that it is not the standard approaches that are currently used (e.g. as described in aesmail's answer).
PLOS enables authors and readers to post notes, comments, and corrections on published articles. Corrections can be either minor or major corrections, and are reviewed by PLOS staff.
I think that this is a step in the right direction, and by lowering the bar for publishing a correction will hopefully promote better science.

I would agree that in an ideal world, your suggestions would be better. However, in the current publishing environment, it's generally not possible.

Journals oftentimes make their procedures regarding varying types of corrections available on their website (e.g., Nature). I would speak with the journal and see what their preferred methodology is. This way, you can have the correction listed alongside the original publication, which would maximize the visibility of the correction. Almost no one reading your paper will check your personal website to see if corrections have been posted there.


text:
Is it a good practice to choose my undergraduate research topic on my own? Can I get enough help?
(This question is one of three correlated questions: How should I do it? (second part), What are the downsides? (third part).This is the first part)
I am an undergraduate student (in Computer Engineering) and I will be starting undergraduate research for my thesis. I have talked with many professors about possible projects and all the projects they proposed to me seemed interesting enough.
During summer, though, I read a paper and I was very interested and excited about it, but this paper was not for the projects that were proposed to me, but in a different area. I would like to do research in this area but I have some questions, because none of my professor is doing research in this particular field.
So, my questions are:

Should I try to do a project in that area, even though my professors
aren’t doing research in that particular topic (some do research in a close field) or choose one of the projects that were proposed to me?
Will any professor be able to help/guide me through the project,
even if he is not doing research in this topic exactly? (I will ask
them if they are capable of helping me, but I want to know, how much
can someone help me if he is in the same field but I am doing
something different than his projects)

P.S. I want to understand whether it will be beneficial to do a project that I want to do because of some paper(s) that I read or it will be better to do a project that was proposed to me. Also, I would like to go for a Ph.D. after I graduate.

So somewhere I've made a moderators life harder, because I thought your three correlated questions were just one question. I think they probably could be, just incidentally. I'm going to answer accordingly, because when it comes down to it, How To Do It, Will I Have Help and What Are the Downsides aren't just correlated - they're interwoven.
My bias: I did my own projects. As both an undergraduate and a graduate student. This worked out quite well for me, but is not without it's pitfalls.

First, yes, your professor should be able to support you in your research interests - the odds of what your interested in being so far afield from their expertise, when you're an undergrad, is fairly unlikely.
That being said, there are two elements of support they won't have: infrastructure and funding. It's helpful, if you're working on a project, for there to be grad students and postdocs working on similar things. Code you can use. Helpful little suggestions like "Have you read Smith's most recent paper in Journal of Important Things?" That kind of ambient helpfulness isn't going to be there. Similarly, even if you're working for free, its way easier to justify conference travel, a piece of software, or an open access publishing fee if it helps an existing research project.

As I said, this worked out quite well for me - I got good publications out of it, and I got to work on my own stuff. But its a harder road, for graduate school may take longer, and you lack the security of working on an established project. Beyond that, if it doesn't work out well, you don't have an entire lab's worth of effort, papers that might be salvagable, etc.

Any comments, mysterious downvoter?

I answer from my own experience, I wrote my own MA thesis (and published it) on a subject which interested me but which was outside the scope of my supervisor's research, and which my supervisor thought was a dead end.
Depending on your institution, you usually need to have some form of a supervisor. If this is the case for you (it was for me) then you will need to find a researcher who is doing something close enough that they are prepared to take you under their wing. In my case, I was already working as an RA in a lab that was close enough, and my professor agreed to supervise me even though he though I would not get the results I expected. He gave me as much support as he could (including essential financial support!), and a lot of psychological support, but he gave me less academic support than he would have had I been researching something fully within his field.
Doing it without a supervisor at all is tough - a supervisor can mentor you, help you keep deadlines, and usually give you some methodological and theoretical support even if it is not exactly within his field. In my case my research was empirical, and so I needed the facilities that my professor could provide in order to run my experiment. However, I designed, built, ran and analysed my own thesis, because it was my idea, and I understood it better than my supervisor did. If I had questions I could turn to my professor or other researchers, but the work was fully my own. I am proud of that, even though it was tough.
It was a similar story when i tried to publish - much of my paper was based on a field with which my professor was not acquainted, and so he was less able to help me with preparing the manuscript. It took a long time and two rounds of revisions, but finally I got my manuscript accepted for publication in a major journal. It feels good, even very good. I am proud of myself, and my supervisor is proud of me, and I don't regret it for a second.
That being said, my PhD is being done on a question that is much closer to my supervisor's heart. I'm not sure if I'd want that level of independence for my PhD!