text:
Is Pursuing a Part-Time STEM Master's While Doing a Social Science PhD a Good Idea for Industry Jobs?
I'm currently enrolled in a top social science PhD program in the US and recently passed my qualifying exam. My research primarily involves statistical methods and occasionally computational techniques (e.g., NLP, network analysis, but mostly at an applied and superficial level). Given the uncertain prospects of the academic job market, I'm considering how to best position myself for industry roles, such as data scientist, user researcher, or machine learning engineer, after graduation, as a back-up plan.
I'm contemplating enrolling in a part-time STEM master's program, like the OMSCS, to enhance my methodological skills and broaden my career options. However, I'm concerned about the time commitment and its potential negative impact on my research progress. Notably, previous PhD graduates from my department have secured similar industry roles without an additional degree.
So, my questions are:

Is pursuing a part-time STEM master's degree a worthwhile investment for securing industry jobs like data science, user research, or machine learning engineering (especially considering the time cost)?
For a social science PhD aiming to transition to industry, what are the most important factors or skills that employers value?

I'd appreciate any insights or advice from those who have navigated similar paths!

Regarding your second question, you might consider doing a postdoc at a company interesting to you.

@Aruralreader What is a industry postdoc? Either you make an internship prior to finish a PhD or you get a proper job in industry. Getting the first job is the hard part.

There are postdoctoral programs in industry, I can vouch for that. Have a look at companies with substantial R&D interests.

I've seen people get a MS in a relate field along the way to their PhD. Most commonly, I've seen people get MS in Statistics, which is a similar situation to yours.

Is Pursuing a Part-Time Social Science PhD While Doing a STEM Master's a Good Idea or Just a Waste of Time? If you think you can pass Calculus... and the 2~3 classes after that, then why aren't you going for a degree in engineering?

Can this decision wait until you understand your PhD workload? You don't want to end up all stressed and miserable, with no time left for yourself. If a master's  delays your PhD  by over a year, it's probably not worth it.
So you might even delay this decision till after your PhD.
There are  also options between pursuing a STEM MSc and doing nothing. For example, you could:

Direct your  PhD research towards  quantitative methods.
Apply social science tools to a high-tech industry of your choice.
Get involved in interdisciplinary research with STEM academics, perhaps as part of your PhD.
Take advantage of STEM courses at your university (e.g., informally).
Do a coding bootcamp, a Kaggle competition, a hackathone, a tech meetup, an online course or similar.
Develop a data-science app as a side project.

If such activities enhance your PhD, they can boost your employmet prospects more than chasing two unconnected degrees at the same time.

This student has already passed their qualifying exam. They know the workload. Why wait?

@AstorFlorida - do they really understand the workload? Taking classes is the easy part, particularly since that is what students have been doing for a long time already. Heading off into the unknown and figuring a bunch of new stuff out is not a trivial thing and is underestimated by, well, just about every PhD student I've ever known.

@AstorFlorida I guess the main tasks and the work loads vary over the years. If PhD progressions were easily predictable, there would have been few dropouts and eternal students.

Doing anything while doing a full time PhD is a bad idea. A PhD is just that: full time, and any time not spent on your PhD should be spent on your self/friends/family in order to preserve your mental health.
If you don't think a social sciences PhD is valuable for your long term career, you shouldn't do one. It's not worth it just for the sake of being called Dr.
If you do think it's valuable for your long term career, then you should treat it like a full time job and give it your full attention.

I disagree with the second paragraph. PHD degrees are not training for a job; they are not vocational degrees. See Why do students go for a PhD even when chances of getting academic jobs on its completion are slim?

@AstorFlorida The second paragraph does not say PhD degrees are training for a job or vocational degrees; it recommends only doing a PhD if it is valuable to a long term career. The answer you link to is a list of different ways a PhD might be valuable to a long term career. I do not see any disagreement here.

@AstorFlorida And some are worthless for long term careers, and some are beneficial. It depends on the PhD. But overall if you don't see yourself working a job that specifically requires a PhD... it is not helpful.

@Questor That's a very utilitarian view. With this thinking, maybe we should all go back to the only useful pursuit, which is subsistence farming.

@AstorFlorida It's utilitarian to a degree, but it's not a ridiculous thing to point out with the impact on your overall career that taking yourself out of the job market for the 4-6 years a PhD requires will inevitably have. That doesn't mean it's not worth it - I still got one that ended up only barely relevant to my current career - but that the long-term financial impact is worth factoring into the decision whether or not to pursue the degree. Questor didn't say "don't do it", after all, just that just having a PhD in something isn't helpful to your long-term career.

@AstorFlorida... If you don't see yourself doing something related to your PhD... than you wasted 5-6 years of life studying something that you will not use. That's wasted sweat, tears, time, and money.
As to your second point... How does not going after a degree you aren't going to use suddenly equate to substenance farming? Every step between substenance farming and today was done by people doing research in fields that they were going to use in their life.

@Questor “Its the not the Destination, It's the journey.”

@AstorFlorida and a journey nowhere doesn't help you.. PhDs cost an average of $100k. leaving the average PhD student in a debt of $128K 1/4th the cost of a house for a degree you aren't planning on using?

Sounds like a bad idea to me.... But I'm just someone who is pragmatic. And that graduated without student debt. with a degree that led me to a job pays well and is fulfilling. because I made smart, pragmatic decisions with an eye towards the destination.

A PhD is a full-time job. If you need additional skills for you PhD work like statistics or programming, you should learn them as part of your PhD. PhD students should be capable to find ways to learn required skills. They can attend courses, summer schools, read books, etc. They do not need a fixed curriculum as a bachelor's (STEM) student would need. In doubt, they should talk to their advisor.
I think you should not obtain a second degree. After your PhD you should highlight what you did (tasks) and learned (skills) while doing your PhD. Keep this in mind, you can steer your PhD topic to include topics that might be relevant for an industry job.

Alternatively to "enrolling in a part-time STEM master's program", you might instead just take some relevant STEM courses, whether or not (probably not) they're required courses for your social science program. Then, if you later decide you want/need a STEM MS degree, you can probably transfer those course credits to the STEM program. I had no problem transferring graduate course credits from two different colleges to a third, though in the same (physics) program. So I'd guess your similar-though-not-identical situation would also permit credit transfer. But you should of course check that out first.

I absolutely encourage you to do both. Here's what I see:
(a) You are finished with your qualifying exams, and are working on your dissertation.
(b) The coursework is related to your field of study and your dissertation.
That is, taking these courses will improve the quality of your dissertation. If you are learning the material anyways, might as well get the extra degree along the way.
Things to consider:
Will this cost money? During the last years of my phd, I had funding 20 extra credit hours. Maybe you get a 2-for-1 deal on your credit hours.
Is there a time limit on completing your phd? If so, the workload might be too high. If not, taking an extra year should be ok.

Good advice for some students— I knew a couple who became parents and completed an excellent PhD on time. But probably not for most

You can take advantage of the opportunity to grow your skills as a doctoral student/candidate without taking on an additional degree (along with the related work & headache). Align with relevant shareholders at your extant university, as there may be internships, assistantships, etc., available to you now. The connections you make now will serve you better than taking on the stress of another graduate program.

My apologies, but do you mean university "shareholders" or stakeholders?

I mean shareholders/stakeholders.


text:
Why don't professors seem to use learning strategies like spaced repetition and note-taking?
I've always been curious about the learning habits of professors and other academic experts. According to research, strategies like spaced repetition and active note-taking are among the most effective methods for retaining information and understanding complex topics. However, in my experience, I rarely see professors using these techniques.
For instance, many professors seem to learn new information without explicitly using spaced repetition systems or even taking detailed notes. They often appear to rely on their deep understanding and expertise in the field to retain and recall information.
So I wanted to ask:

Do professors use these strategies in a way that isn't visible to students?
How do professors deal with the potential forgetting of information over time without using spaced repetition?
What is the learning strategy that professors use

There is no "learning strategy that professors use" in the same way there isn't a "productivity hack that top managers use", independently of what various books or blogs are trying to peddle to you.

Why do you assume professors don't take notes?

Reading with the goal of solving a research problem is pretty effective (proportional to how directly the reading helps solves that problem).

I suggest you should specify the exact situations you are referring to. E.g., a professor who is taking a new course for professional development or a professor who is participating in a meeting etc. Otherwise, the question sounds ambiguous to me, because it is not a common situation to see a professor learning something new out there in the wild.

Is this question asking why professors don't use spaced repetition and active note-taking for their learning or why they don't use spaced repetition and active note-taking for the work they assign their students?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_pyramid

There is one learning strategy that is used by "advanced learners" (such as professors) which is also relevant. "Doing it your own way". Whether it is by re-doing a calculation in your own notation or writing your own program or repeating an experiment. Once you have enough "stored information", it is useful to fit things you are learning with what you already know and DIYOW is a good way to "place" new knowledge in your personal store.

These people are experienced and probably developed their own way of doing things which you not necessarily imitate.

"However, in my experience, I rarely see professors using these techniques." I'm really curious what you mean by that. Both my fellow postdocs and the professors I work with "learn" in private, if there were someone in my office while I tried to grok something on my own I would probably kick them right out. What relevance does it have what you see these people doing?

During the process of, say writing a paper, you have to understand the material and related works to a great degree and describe them in written words throughout the course of weeks, which involves actively thinking about the topic all day long. That is far far more repetitions than a student typically does for any test.

These aren't the only advanced learning techniques. If I read a paper then try to use their methods in my own research, that cements it in my mind like nothing else. Likewise, if I have to turn around teach it, the content will be with me until I'm senile (which is also a form of spaced repetition). If you've taught, you know the sad secret that the person learning the most in the class is the teacher.

Anecdotal evidence has it that professors are not the best learners ;-).

Professors, by the point in their career that you are interacting with them as a student, don't need to spend their days memorizing information. Most people who are at that level in academia are interested in generating new knowledge. Most likely, they already have a wealth of information at their fingertips as a result of years of schooling and then work/research in their field. You usually don't forget the things you use every day (and if you do, were they really that important to begin with?).
When someone at that stage wants to learn something new, it is usually coming from academic literature. The point is not to memorize but to understand what another scientist has done, usually to advance one's own research. Active note taking is helpful here - I take notes when I read papers I feel are particularly important - but it isn't always necessary. Besides, you can always pull up that paper again if you need to clarify something. The goal is not memorization or even long-term retention.
Spaced repetition and active note taking are excellent ways to memorize information. Hopefully you also gain a good understanding in the process, but the focus of these strategies (at least in practice) is really retention of discrete facts. This is very useful for students. As a student, you are expected to remember a set amount of pre-ordained info for a test. On top of that, your fund of knowledge is still small, so it is helpful to commit things to memory. Once you are out of school, the amount of information that you legitimately need to memorize, let alone regurgitate on command, is effectively 0. Obviously we can imagine situations where spaced repetition could still be useful (learning a new language for example), but I have to imagine that in day-to-day life, absolutely noone is going to do Anki flashcards for fun.
The point I'm trying to make is that you are thinking about this from the perspective of a student. You are in the artificial confines of the university system. Spaced repetition is a very useful tool for learning large volumes of information in a reliable and relatively quick way (and theoretically maintaining it over time). But it really isn't super beneficial for someone who is not constrained by that system i.e., does not have tests to take. Plus, spaced repetition is boring an can quickly become overwhelming. You should not expect to do that (at least consciously) for the rest of your life.

I think overall memorization is probably utilized too often by students, as well, and students who rely too much on memorization techniques struggle specifically when they get to research levels in academia if they haven't learned other ways to learn and process information.

What I have found particularly useful (outside academics, granted) is the ability to remember where I found a connection or piece of information. It often seems I have good recall of details, when in fact I just often know where to find them (or search my personal wiki for notes that lead me to them, which amounts to the same thing).

@BryanKrause: That's what I used to think, but having interacted with more students, I think by and large they are actually optimizing for themselves.  The other ways we have to learn and process information may be more effective, but they are also more cognitively demanding, and many students simply lack sufficient working memory (or quick enough non-sequential retrieval from short term non-working memory) for our strategies to work for them.  Memorization is the best they can do.

I agree with @AlexanderWoo's comment, and I think that some/many students (consciously or not) place a limit on the amount of effort and mental commitment to some of the things they study. Apparently memorization is (subliminally?) interpreted as a minimizing/optimizing strategy? :)

@AlexanderWoo I'm not sure it's that it's less effort (I always find that sort of thing more effort), but that we learn information by using it for really purposes.  However much we try,  that just isn't the same for students - they are not avidly using information and concepts professionally on a day to day basis.

I think the other answers are a bit to quick to dismiss requirements for learning throughout an academic career. I am always learning new things, whether this is learning about new advances in my field, learning how to use new techniques (for example, the syntax of a new domain specific package), or even the details of a whole new fields or sub field that has become newly relevant to my research. While a lot of this is understanding and conceptual learning, rather than factual memorisation, there are still facts to learn, such as the syntax above, or for example,  the list of genes affected by some newly discovered process. Also understanding of concepts benefits from repetition.
So why don't you see professors using formal learning techniques? Well, in fact, many of them ARE implicitly using these techniques.  Firstly plenty of professors take notes in seminars, at conferences and when they read papers. Few ever look at these notes again, but the very act of making them helps with processing.
Secondly, spaced repetition. I would guess that the learning technique of spaced repetition was initially conceptualised to imitate the way a professional gains and uses knowledge. If I look something up and just use it once, then it is unlikely I will retain it. But no matter. If it was something I only needed once, then it seems it was expedient not to memorise it.  On the other hand, if I find myself repeatedly using the same piece of information, every time I look it up is a instance of spaced repetition. Those things that are frequently useful will eventually find their way into my brain. Similarly if I keep seeing seminars talking about the same list of genes involved in a process, next time I see that gene name, I'm far more likely to connect it to that process than if I'd only seen one seminar.

"Few ever look at these notes again, but the very making them helps with processing." yep, when learning to program it is much better to type things for yourself than cut and paste for exactly that reason.

@DikranMarsupial - The act of writing notes is indeed a very powerful tool. Multiple studies show using pen and paper is better than the alternatives. When I was in school there were no other alternatives, but I rapidly figured out that, for me, reviewing what I had written didn't help me study later at all.

Yes, I suppose you can say that taking notes is a learning strategy or technique. But I don't think you can say the same of repeatedly needing the same piece of information or repeatedly encountering the same list of genes. These are just things that happen.

@toby544 my point is not that these are learning techniques,  but that these learning techniques are simulations of such "things that happen" in situations  where they don't.

Yes, I'd second @IanSudbery's comment that these "learning strategies" are rather caricatured/formalized versions of what people actually do... for novices who do not have a visceral sense of the more sophisticated process.

These sound like methods for students who need to understand and remember things for exams.
Professors don't need to take exams, and they are much more practiced at identifying and remembering the things that are useful to them when they watch a presentation or read a publication. They also know their own ways of understanding and remembering things much better than students do, so they have their own methods that they use when necessary.
Answers to your bullets:

No.
They just write them down. No special technique is necessary. They are not studying for exams.
None, or they each have their own ways.

This is actually a pretty interesting question!
Taking myself as an example, I feel like generally I just read deeply (or listen) and make sure I understand something the first time, and it generally sticks.
I feel like I probably do have a somewhat better memory than the average person in the general population; e.g., usually have a sense-memory for what the page looked like where I saw a certain piece of information.
I realized around the end of my master's degree that I was actually better off in a lecture session not taking notes, and instead to just focus on actively listening to the lecturer. (These were all classes where we had a textbook I could use as added support outside of class.) When that dawned on me, I was kind of kicking myself for all the tremendous effort I'd previously put in to trying to maintain lecture notes.
And (as a math person) I've actually come to disagree with the popular opinion that you need to do lots of practice to get math. It was my partner who first said something like, "you either understand the principle or you don't, doing a bunch of repeated practice doesn't make a big difference". It took me a while to embrace that, but I do think it's my truth. The point of mathematics are the big-picture relationships, and if you can just fully grok those statements, the exercises are kind of tangential and beside the point.
All this adds extra impetus to being very skeptical of the advice that comes from education researchers, as in general they're pretty much the opposite of my own experience. Is the general student just very different from myself and other professors (even at the same stage of development)? Seems likely. Arguably it also reflects the social evolution to try and (pretend?) get a very large percent of the population through advanced education, and so need an increased system of hand-holding to get that to happen (compare current textbooks to those a century ago).

You don't need lots of practice to get math.  You need lots of practice to learn to do a particular kind of math problem without having gotten the math.

You might also need lots of practice to be able to solve those particular kinds of maths problems fast enough for exam conditions. I expect that student ability being measured by exam performance accounts for the biggest differences between education researchers and your own experience.

"They often appear to rely on their deep understanding and expertise in the field to retain and recall information."
I think this is exactly it (and it is a matter of selection bias, it is difficult to get to be a prof without a deep understanding of your subject area).
Remembering unconnected facts is really hard.  However if the new fact is related to things you already know and understand then they are much easier to remember as they become part of your internal cognitive model of the subject.  The difference between knowledge and understanding is (IMHO) largely about forming connections between related things that you know.  It takes time to build understanding, so students tend to need special techniques to remember things long enough to join them together with something else.  If your brain is already full of connected things, there is usually something immediately available to hang the new fact on.
However, the opposite may also be true.  If your brain is already full of connected knowledge forming a well established cognitive model, then it can be very difficult to insert a new fact (c.f. reception for special relativity, Kuhn's idea of commensurability) that is fundamentally inconsistent with that model.  This may make students (or early career researchers) better equipped to deal with paradigm shifts.

Think of the following analogy:
When you speak a language, you do not spend time repeating vocabulary or practicing writing sentences. You speak and write, as you go.
Of course, literature-level writers may spend a lot of time refining their words, but that's a different matter.
The level of a prof on their topic can be compared to the level of a native speaker of a language. And sometimes to a writer that needs to fine-tune (sometimes obsessively) how they use the language. But they do not need to rehearse vocabulary and grammar.

First, I don't think you can have the slightest idea what learning techniques professors use. OK, if you are particularly close to a professor you might ask them about it, but professors learn outside of your sight, either sitting in their offices, or at home, or other places. Maybe some do use these methods, but you can't tell.
Second, different people learn differently. By the time a person is a professor, they have figured out how they learn. After all, they've had 12 years of elementary school, four of college, then usually several years of grad school and then more in their careers. (Numbers will vary slightly by country). And professors are people who are really good at this type of learning (they make stink at other forms!  John von Neumann was a terrible driver.)
Third, spaced repetition is good for learning facts and simple routines. Professors don't do much of this kind of learning, at least, not in their professional lives. (I use spaced repetition via Chessable to try to improve my chess game).
Fourth, I'd be willing to bet that many professors do take notes. But the nature of those notes varies by individual (I was always on the low end) and by what they are learning. Are you doing research for an article or book? LOTS of notes. Are you sitting in a seminar with other experts? Probably very few notes.

"First, I don't think you can have the slightest idea what learning techniques professors use."
Yes, that's probably why they came onto the Academia Stack Exchange and asked "What is the learning strategy professors use?"

@WhatTheDuck Well, OP does say "many professors seem to learn new information without explicitly using spaced repetition systems or even taking detailed notes" which implies they think they have an idea.

@Azor Ahai I don't know that that necessarily implies that they think they have an idea, merely that they don't see professors using systems that OP is familiar with - they're using the notetaking as a reference point for what they ARE familiar with. So then they asked what systems professors are using. I think the first paragraph of this answer is unnecessarily snarky and borderline rude for no reason - OP came here to learn something, they don't need to be denigrated for it.

@WhatTheDuck Frankly I think both the OQ and Peter's answer come across as a little snarky; the OQ toward professors.

@WhatTheDuck I disagree with the premise of this comment. This question clearly lacked any research done before asking and is far too vague for any conclusive answer. Are we just going to encourage users to not put any effort unto themselves to answer their questions, even though we KNOW the answer is obvious because it cannot be answered concretely?

@AzorAhai-him- I personally don't find any snark whatsoever in the OP's question. It reads as someone who just genuinely doesn't understand how their professors appear to know so much.

@Shidouuu ...Okay? What research should OP have done? I googled "how do professors learn things" to see what OP might have found, and the results aren't helpful. I really don't get this attitude where, because the answer is obvious to you, OP should be denigrated for asking the question.

@WhatTheDuck How about asking the professors that are teaching them, or any professors at all? "'Hello professor X, I am curious about how professors learn, and it as occured to me that few if any use spaced repetition. Why is this, and why don't you?' 'Oh, I don't use spaced repetition because my field requires to understand xyz...,' 'I do use spaced repetition! Just not for the clases I teach.'" This would give OP a far better response than just asking SE a general question. The type of answer is obvious because obviously not all professors learn the same way.

@Shidouuu ...So OP shouldn't ask this question on a website (whose user base includes a bunch of professors that actually respond to questions) and should instead try cold-emailing a bunch of professors at their institution, who, as we all know, are famously responsive and happy to read and then answer long-form emails from students.  in case that was not apparent.
What exactly do you think this website is for, if you think questions like this have no place here?

To answer your question first:

Do professors use these strategies in a way that isn't visible to
students? -

YES, When I'm assigned to teach a new class I start with reading the text book and taking notes (in the form of PowerPoint slides).  As I teach I make adjustments in real time and from one class to the next and from semester to semester.

How do professors deal with the potential forgetting of
information over time without using spaced repetition?

For me it's the willingness to accept looking stupid in front of people that may expect me to remember. For example, I took it upon myself to remember my students names and used repetition (daily role call) to remember them, in about 4 weeks I would remember almost all 100 or so my students (this was precovid). Of course when the next semester started I would soon forget my past students to make space for my new students. Actually, it was more like 5 years, where I would bump into students and not know who they were.

What is the learning strategy that professors use?

I would say it's the same as with everyone. For new material, repetition and note taking. I don't know the proper terms used to describe addition to an existing knowledge base other than saying there are terms like confirmation bias, recency effects, and small sample bias.

To add context, my dissertation was based on an alternative explanation to a paper I read that claimed experts performing a task with computer software were no different than novices. My alternative explanation was that was not surprising in that I would expect anyone thrown into a new situation (using a computer software to do a task) to perform like a novice. For the most part my disseration was devising a way to test my alternative explanation.
In summary, professors are falling back on tried strategies (repetition and note taking) when put into new situations. But not everything a professor does falls into that situation.

Yes, as a professor, I constantly take notes on what I'm reading about. I even try to impart good note-taking skills to my students by telling them about my note-taking techniques. It seems like the OP just hasn't met every professor out there yet.

Everyone has different innate abilities that result in differences in learning styles. In my own experience, I learn more effectively by repeated use of skills. Once I have practiced something sufficiently I am able to produce effectively and build new skills. This was explained to me well into my career, past the erosion of my "golden boy" image during the descent to the premature end of a promising career. If I had known how to learn as a teenager, there would have been much broader horizons open to me. My son is currently riding his  own personal abilities far more successfully than I did.

People - not just professors - who have a deep understanding of a field can often learn things much more easily than someone new to the subject. They can relate the new concept(s) to things they already know, and fill in details with a little thought.
They don't have to learn huge lists of facts, because they already know them, or can deduce them quickly and easily. That's easier and more satisfying than recalling memorised information. Just beware of people who think they have such expertise for everything.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
My supervisor ghosted me
I am a STEM master's student in a University in Europe. I am going to graduate next month and I need to settle the date of my defence and other bureaucratic matters with my second advisor. He had no role in my master's thesis project but has to be part of the committee on the day of my thesis defence.
The problem is: I have been trying to contact him for almost three weeks with no success. He ghosted me.
The question is: Should I try to contact the head of the department and report his behaviour (in order to get him answering)? Or should I forget about that and look for a different second advisor?
You should consider that: he has not answered any of my emails in the last weeks. The emails were 2-3 lines long. The academic staff working with him suggested me to call him on the phone in some particular days/hours in which he was there. I did it and he did not answer. I cannot go in person to the university since the access is restricted due to the Covid pandemic (and anyway the professor goes there rarely in this period as far as I have been told).
Also, I have been told that this professor behaved similarly with many other students, but usually they managed to "spontaneously" come across him at university (there was no pandemic at the time). Therefore, I am not really sure if contacting the head of department would ever change anything. On the other hand, looking for a different advisor might be as challenging as contacting this guy, since we are close to my graduation date and there are not many professors at my university who work in the field of my master's thesis.

I think you should contact administration, but don't frame it as 'reporting his behavior'. Say, at my institution the 'student section' is very supportive to students, and they try to resolve issues on their behalf (contact the person themselves or even help to transfer to another supervisor). Just tell them you have a problem and ask for an advice and/or help.

I agree with @rg_software. Don't go around telling people that you think this person is behaving badly, even if they have prior form. It's entirely possible that they're sick, or on leave, or any number of other possible explanations. Simply go 'up the chain' with the straightforward facts: you need to schedule your defence; you have tried XYZ to contact this person; you've had no success; can they please help you make progress with the defence?

I will try to do as you suggest, as I also think that the facts should be reported in a neutral way. However, @avid , the professor is objectively behaving unprofessionally. I contacted his personal secretary and I am sure he is not sick, on leave, etc... If he is too busy to care about a single email, then he should have said no when I asked him to be my advisor, as other professors have done with me in the past. I think that it is unacceptable to cut any form of communication in this period in which there is no way to see each other face-to-face.

What does your first advisor say?

@henning--reinstateMonica My first advisor works at a different university (and different city) from the one I am enrolled in. He does not know the second advisor and I have not told him about the situation yet. Just for comparison, my first advisor is super. He is always very very available for any questions or remarks.

Does this answer your question? Is ignoring emails acceptable in academia?

If the professor has a personal administrative assistant, try contacting them and even try scheduling the defense or other meetings through them. I have known professors who rarely respond, but their personal administrative assistants are very responsive and can schedule meetings or otherwise remind them of student deadlines.
If not, try contacting the general administrative staff of the department. The professor might be more likely to listen or pay attention to an email from someone they are familiar with.
Either way, don't be accusatory and try to report bad behavior. Simply say that you are trying to get in contact with this professor and have been unable to reach them through email or phone, that you need to schedule a defense, and ask for their help. They will probably forward your email to the professor; keep contacting the administrative staff every few days if you don't get a response from the professor.

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


text:
Should my master's thesis be related to my future PhD research?
I'm doing a master's degree in theoretical physics in Europe. After the end of the master, I want to pursue research in the area A. In fact, I've already come in contact with a professor that works in the area A in a different country.
The problem is, I'm struggling to find an advisor for a possible master thesis about the field A. I contacted roughly 6-7 professors at my university already and they either: 1) are too busy and don't want to start a new project, or 2) are not interested in what I want to do because they only accept projects strictly related to their recent research interests, or 3) don't answer my emails (after 2 weeks of waiting).
I'm considering to accept a master thesis in a different area B due to these reasons.
How would it be seen from the point of view of a prospective PhD advisor?

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/72289/49043

is field a the same as area a?

Can you ask your prospective PhD advisor? Surely it is not impossible to change areas between masters and PhD, but for some topics some earlier experience may be very helpful. So it depends.
As a supervisor, I'd not normally expect a PhD student to have worked in the same area before, although I had two PhD students who had done this, and it was actually a good thing; and in one case I wish a student would have learnt more about the area of their topic before the actual start, but you can do that even if your thesis is in a different field. Most students who "switched" had successful projects as well, so I wouldn't expect this to be a big problem, but there is still a possibility that a supervisor prefers a student with more experience in the same area, if available.

This depends a lot on how the degree is structured in your field and in your place of study. If you are required to obtain an advisor to take you on in order to start, then it is their answer to this question that is the only important one. Different people will judge differently.
However, if the admissions process is more general, as it is in most fields in the US, then there is little need to continue in the same field as long as you are willing to take the courses necessary to get you up to speed in the new field.
But, from your question, it sounds like you are in the first situation, unless you want to move. If that is the situation, then you need to find an advisor who is convinced that you have the necessary background. That might require that your doctoral field is closely related to your masters work, though it isn't necessarily the case.


text:
U.S. abbreviation in APA style
APA says that "U.S." should be typed out with periods if the abbreviation is being used as an adjective. If you are using this "common" abbreviation, do you need an earlier parenthetical explanation of the abbreviation?
In other words, if the progression of the text is:
"He lives in the United States ... He is a member of the U.S. Navy."
should it be:
"He lives in the United States (U.S.) ... He is a member of the U.S. Navy."
?

You can use abbreviations like U.S., IQ, DNA, cm, laser, etc. that have entries in standard dictionaries without defining them first. Here's a couple of APA blog posts expanding on this:

An Abbreviations FAQ
How Do You Spell IQ? Abbreviations as Words in APA Style

I suggest erring on the side of caution if you think the abbreviation might be misunderstood though. However, with the case of U.S. that shouldn't be a problem.


text:
Red flag - long interviewing process
In December I applied for a post doctoral position. After 4 months I had my job interview and now one month later they are ready to make a decision.
Is a long interviewing process a red flag? I am concerned that this shows that the department has a bad organizational structure and decisions are slow to be made.

Welcome to the academic world ... if you are coming from industry, the pace is different...

It's probably entirely the fault of one person, the professor. And will be as fast or slow as that individual gets their act together. Now if it really were left in the hands of the department/college/administration, then you'll see what slow really means.

I once had an interview 15 months after applying for it. To me 4 months sounds fast.

That is pretty normal. That does not mean it is good, but it is not worse than your average university. Two things play a role here:
First, universities are just large organizations with all the bureaucracy and inefficiency that comes with that.
Second, universities are often self organizing, that is, the professors take a large part of the management duties. That is a good thing, in the sense that decisions are made by people who know what they are talking about. But it also means that a large part of those tasks are performed by people who are not primarily managers and have competing priorities (research, teaching).

It could indicate that you were not the first candidate for the role following the interview. However, the first candidate (and second and (n-1)st) dropped out because of reasons, and the offer now comes to you. Just read the offer and decide whether you want take it or leave it, based on the face value. The delays you experienced are normal for academia and are not a red flag.


text:
Is it possible that the editor is still looking for other reveiwers while one reviewer has submitted the reviewer report?
I submitted my manuscript in April 2024, and it was sent out for review 10 days later. As this is an Elsevier journal, I can track the progress of the peer review. More than two review invitations were sent, but only one reviewer accepted the invitation to review in May. Now, at the end of June, that reviewer has submitted their report.
Is it possible that the editor is still looking for other reviewers while one reviewer has already submitted their review report? Does this mean that I will have to wait longer to receive the editorial decision?
Can anyone kindly share their experiences on this? Thank you!

This is addressed in What does the typical workflow of a journal look like? How should I interpret a particular submission status?: "The editor selects a number of potential referees to review the manuscript. Should a referee decline to review or not perform the review in a certain time (as given by the editor or journal), the editor usually has to select a new referee. The main exception to this is if the other referees already provided sufficient reviews at this point."

Yes
There's no reason why it's impossible. For example, the first reviewer could simply have been very fast, possibly because they just happened to be free when the invitation arrived. Alternatively, the journal has a hard requirement of two reviews per paper, and since there's only one review so far they are still looking for a second reviewer.

Does this mean that I will have to wait longer to receive the editorial decision?

If your journal has a hard requirement of two reviews per paper, then the answer to this is "yes". If it doesn't have such a requirement, there's no way to predict - the first review might be comprehensive enough that the editor is comfortable with making a decision; equally, it might be poor enough that the editor is not comfortable with making a decision.

Thanks for your sharing. I will keep waiting for it. Hopefully there is good news for it.

Yes, it is certainly possible that the editor is seeking another reviewer (or reviewers). If the received review is equivocal in any way the editor may not be ready to make a decision.
You can ask the editor about progress outside the tracking system if you have an email address. In many fields, April - June is a pretty short time period for a decision.

Thanks for your sharing. I checked the journal website. The mean editorial review time is about 4 months. So I will keep waiting for this...

I am an Associate Editor at the International Journal of Forecasting, and yes, this can absolutely happen. Unfortunately, potential reviewers are sometimes not very good about even replying whether they will even do the review.
So it could absolutely be the case that your AE has asked three people, one answered and even already sent in the review, but the two others never bothered to accept or decline the request. After some time, the AE asked two more people. One accepted but has not yet sent anything in. The other one again never reacted, so the AE is still looking for one reviewer. And if the accepted-but-not-yet-reviewed reviewer is really late, then the AE might already be on the lookout for a replacement for them.
So yes, this situation can unfortunately happen, and there is very little the author can do here... and not much more the AE can do.

Thanks for your sharing. So I think the only thing I can do now is to wait...


text:
Is it madatory to obtain an ethical clearance from my affiliated institute for an interview that is to be presented in a conference?
I'm a research scholar and I'll be presenting a paper related to publishing industry. I'm yet to interview concerned participants. I have obtained consent from them through a consent form. But I haven't obtained an ethical clearance from my affiliated institute.

You need to say more. What is the field? Who are the "participants"? Are the subjects of a study? You might need to say where this is taking place. Please edit the post.

For your sake, it would be good to ask your local IRB and submit an official request if they say you should.

The manner of publication is not relevant. Where did your consent form come from? Did someone approve it?

This question would be improved by editing to providing additional details, especially the jurisdiction, given that it asks if something is mandatory rather than ethical or professionally prudent.

https://irb.tcnj.edu/international/ has a high level overview of human subject requirements across the world. The chance of the OP being in a jurisdiction that did not have such requirements is slim at best.

At a typical US institution you would be expected to either A) get IRB agreement that you do not need IRB approval (typically through an expedited review process) or B) get IRB approval. There is no scenario where you can decide on your own. Researchers have a conflict of interest between 1) all the professional benefits they get from performing/publishing research plus administrative burdens of applying for approval and 2) the protection of research participants. That makes them the wrong people to make decisions on their own about what does and does not need review.
Wherever you are it will depend on local laws and institutional regulations (as well as requirements by the conference). If unsure, ask. There is someone at your institution who has the job of knowing these things.

To resolve the apparent self-contradiction of option A, this often is the difference between "expedited review" and "full board review".  Perhaps rephrase to "A) get expedited IRB confirmation that you do not need IRB review or B) get IRB review"

@BenVoigt The self-contradiction was somewhat intentional in that the main point is "you must consult the IRB" but I have revised to be more clear.


text:
Math preparedness for an Econ PhD
I am currently getting my masters in Public Policy and considering getting a PhD in the near future. I'm looking for advice on whether to pursue a PhD in public policy or economics. I've heard that public policy phds are not as well received as econ phds on the job market. My fear with applying to the econ phd program is that I have not taken the advanced course work in linear algebra, matrix theory, real analysis and the other standard econ prerequisites. I will say though that a majority of my courses in my masters program have been quantitatively focused, having passed the equivalent of calc I and II, but my concern is that they are not in depth enough to make me a competitive candidate for admission.
Would something like coursera or MIT open courseware math courses in these subjects be sufficient? or should I take something for credit at a local college?
Appreciate the advice!

You should do a PhD in a subject you really care about, not one which you think might enhance your career prospects.

@astronat Are you serious? Doing a PhD is a significant investment of time and foregone wages. Not being forward thinking about this investment would be totally illogical.

@astronat Furthermore, these degrees are VERY closely related. There is enough overlap that you could have the same committee and dissertation and be accepted for either degree.

You can take courses for credit at a local college, or online (e.g. state university).  You can even audit.  You might be able to find linear algebra at a two-year college but be careful, sometimes they prune the topics covered.  To decide where to take what, consider cost, schedule, distance, etc.  Also check the syllabus carefully and figure out whether the instructor will be a good fit.  Basically, choose the format based on what you think would be best for you.

Also, if Harris is your pub policy school, you should be able to get great advice from the faculty there. Specifically, many did their degrees in Econ departments so they have a clear picture of both sides of your question.

This type of preparation would be required for both an economics PhD and an econ-focused Public Policy PhD (one with a substantial number of courses in Econ department or co-listed). You would probably get admitted to a Public Policy PhD without real analysis, but you would then struggle in the courses if they were taken in the Econ department. Another area you would want to focus on is proof-writing.
I would suggest taking these courses at a 4-year institution if at all possible. You want the grades you receive to be reliable signals of your learning. The goal is to give the admissions committee confidence that you will succeed in the coursework. Many Econ and some Public Policy programs will force you to leave at the end of year one without satisfactory performance on qualifying exams.
You are correct that you can do similar work in both degree programs. In an Econ department, using the most flashy new methods is weighted more heavily, while in the Public Policy department, useful questions and answers are more heavily weighted. But if you find a dissertation topic with the right combination of questions and methods it would likely be acceptable in either degree program.
You are also correct that the Economics degree is more valued on the job market and will earn you a higher salary for the same position. I have a Public Policy friend who was told that he would have received a $10K higher starting salary if his degree had the word Economics in the name.

Thanks for the input! In regards to signaling math skills for econ PhDs, do you have a suggestion for sequence of math courses? Also, I don't have any official Calc I and Calc II on my transcript, just the fact that I did my current masters' program equivalent of those classes, but it certainly wasn't as formal as a college class, should I retake those classes?

I would not be as concerned with the sequence. Just be wary of prerequisites. Also, if you passed higher level courses I would not not be very worried about formally seeing Calc I and II.

+1 for the practical answer. To @Harris2018, please read this question on Math SE. Pick one of the two books, start reading it. If you can finish half of it and do many of the exercises, you're okay. You don't have to take Calc I and II. But, if you have real trouble reading it, then follow the advice in the first paragraph, I would suggest taking these courses at a 4-year institution if at all possible


text:
Citing yourself on slides when your lastname consists of multiple words
When citing a paper that you coauthored on a slide it is common to abbreviate your name to just the first letter of your last name, or your initials. So John Doe would become D or JD.
My last name consists of multiple words like 'van der Broek'. Should I then abbreviate it to 'vdB' or just 'B'?

Is it common? Really? Which field? I've never seen this practice in mine.

@MassimoOrtolano Yes, it's common at least in my field (applied maths).

@MassimoOrtolano And theoretical computer science.

My Master's supervisor's surname was almost exactly what you use as your example. He uses the abbreviation CvdB (C for his first name, vdB for the surname).

It's an informal convention, so I think the answer is as much a matter of personal style as anything else.  I would most expect "vdB", but if someone used "B", I wouldn't be confused by that.

As  a person with the Dutch last name of VanderWoude (which has also been spelled as "Vanderwoude"), and who coincidentally moved near and interacted with a large Dutch community, I've learned that many Dutch last names start with "van der " followed by a capital letter.  If I saw "B", I would wonder, "What?!?  Is "van der" being treated like a middle name tha tmay just get dropped?  But "vdB" would be understood, as would "v" (if the full name was shown earlier), especially if it comes right after the first name (or, probably more preferable for consistency, just the first initial)

@TOOGAM: I think the fact that the convention that only the speaker's name gets abbreviated covers for a lot of otherwise potential ambiguity - if I see a single letter abbreviation for a name, I'm going to assume it's the speaker's name. If I saw just "B", I'd have the same thoughts as you, but I don't think it would take long, or be too distracting, to figure out that the "van der" part was being dropped.


text:
Citations in interview transcript
I'm editing an interview transcript. One of the speakers mentions a concept popularized in an academic paper. Would I add the citation within the interview transcript?

Ask your editor?

I've only worked with transcripts in a legal context, so I'm not writing an answer, but to me, "transcript" means a faithful written rendition of what was actually said.  Can you write some material to be included before or after the interview transcript itself?  Or as someone suggested, add footnotes?  Endnotes?

I recommend against adding an in-text citation, but you could use a footnote if you think it's important. But it may not be. For example, if you were interviewing someone about current theories on some topic, and the person referred to 8 different theorists in one paragraph, it would disrupt the reading of the text to add all those citations. An interview is what it is---less formal spoken language unburdened by the necessity of validating statements with citations. You can add bracketed changes to a transcript when something is really unclear, but you shouldn't amplify someone's speech because you think it's missing something. Take it as it is and do any amplifying in the following text.

Personally   i   would  an in  text  citation,  but  that's me.  i  despise  footnotes. I  do  end-notes in  addition  to   references.  but that  is  me   and    i  found  putting  footnote into Microsoft  word  extremely  frustrating.  but  that  20  YEARS   ago.   I  wrote   half  my master's  thesis  LONGHAND   while  i  was  snowbound   for  three  days.  Classes  were  cancelled.  Then I had  to  transcribe   that
This  web page Gives   good   reasons  for  WHY  and  how  to   reference  interview  transcripts  for  dissertations:
https://weloty.com/how-to-transcribe-an-interview-for-dissertation-part-1/


text:
Whats the different in coursework and research?
I heard there are coursework and research for taking Master but are there any different?
Isn't both of them are about making research papers?

Masters degrees in what country?

In Malaysia, although I don't think there are any different.

Hope this answer is helpful to you.

With a course there is a teacher that teaches you specific topics. You may need that to write a research paper, and the teacher may test your knowledge by letting you do or simulate a research project, but that is secondary. In a course there is a teacher that guides your learning process, and the learning goal is typically more limited.
A research project is more open ended, there is typically a faculty member that coaches you through the process, but now you are the primary actor.


text:
Do people still have to write thesis after finishing their master/phd?
I know that the thesis is needed when doing their master.
But do people still need to write a thesis when doing research as a past-time?
What if they just want to publish an article but not thesis?

I am not really sure what you are asking about. Theses are only written as part of the requirements of a degree (essentially by definition), so why would one write one in other situations?

So thesis is not actually required for other situations?

Why would it be? Who would require it?

Thesis is only required to earn an academic degree. If you already have a degree, or are doing research without one, you would not produce a paper, not a(nother) thesis. Many grad students "double dip", using the same work for both a thesis (to get the master's or PhD) and an article.

No, people don't have to write theses after the Masters/PhD. The thesis is a formal requirement for those degrees, but after that, it's just not necessary anymore.
Actual research papers, though ... those are effectively "compulsory".

The are "compulsory" only if you want a career in academia. Otherwise not at all.

...except for habilitation theses, which are post-doctoral theses required for certain academic positions in several (mostly European) countries.

I am not sure in which academic system the other answerer works, but yes, theses are actually required after the PhD sometimes. A categorical answer like this makes little sense and would probably benefit from a broadened point of view. For example, the habilitation, which one obtains after the PhD, requires a thesis in many countries (Germany, France...).
However they are not required to publish articles. Even students who have never written a thesis can publish articles, if their research is good enough.


text:
How much experience is required to apply to be on the editorial board of a journal
Background: I am a pretty early career academic (a couple years out of post-doc) and am junior faculty at a research intensive school. My CV is not bad, but is also not overly impressive. I'm a quantitative researcher in a science field and have around 20 publications, many of them in good journals but most of them not as first author, and a small amount of success in acquiring funding (have 1 small NIH grant as PI). I can say with confidence that I do NOT have a "national reputation" at this point.
Like many people in my career stage, I am on the mailing list of many journals I've submitted to, etc., and have some experience as a reviewer. One slightly-above-average journal has made an open call for statistical editors and has solicited applications. This interests me but I've always imagined editors as the super-experienced researchers who have had long illustrious careers, which I most certainly have not.
My question: when open calls are made for editorial positions, what is the general requirement for those who apply? Would an early-career researcher who has the proper expertise, but not necessarily the name recognition/reputation, be considered? I.e. the issue is not about "how much experience do you need to perform the duties of an editor"--it's about what kind of credentials do you need to have your application taken seriously. To be clear, these are volunteer positions.

Ask more senior colleagues about that particular journal. Ask the people behind the journal. Check that it is serious, that you aren't being sucked into some scam. And lastly, just apply. Worst they can do is to reject your application.

If they solicit applications, then they should say what they are looking for in their ad (in my opinion).

@Kimball Things are not that easy. The usual requirement says something like: "PhD in the field and publishing activity in the topic of the journal." Now, what is activity? Maybe 2 articles from the last 5 years? Maybe 50 articles in the whole career? Who knows...

@yo' I'm not saying they do, I'm saying they should.  They should write in the ad what they feel is important.  If they want "an established researcher in the field," they should say so.  In the requirement you gave, it doesn't sound like that.  Though in my field, I think all the good journals just invite specific established researchers to be experts rather than put out ads.

I believe this will depend partly on the field, and heavily on the journal. Is this a prestigious journal? Is it an area specific journal? In my own field, however, you can often email the editor (for smaller journals specific to your own specific area) if you've published a few articles with that journal, and they ask you regularly (say, 3-4 times a year) to review an article for them. In those cases, they will sometimes be happy to add you to the editorial board if you ask. Obviously, more prestigious journals will have steeper requirements, but if you're an early career academic, you should probably start off with a smaller, area specific, journal.
In this specific case, it can't hurt to apply. But if it's a prestigious journal in your field, I wouldn't keep your hopes up. If it's a smaller journal in your field, ask yourself if you want them to send you every paper with odd-ball stats that you need to review. Is it worth it in that case? It's helpful to everyone to be on an editorial board, so be sure to ask yourself why they have to put out an open call to find a board member. It may be because it's a smaller journal and there are no experts in the field, or it may be something else. You'd be the best judge of that question.

Can you specify what field you're in, for context?

Experimental Psychology

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


text:
bioRxiv - Are previous versions still available to read after revisions?
When a revision of a manuscript is submitted to bioRxiv, is the previous version still available to be viewed? If so, is it possible to hide some of the previous versions?

When a revision of a manuscript is submitted to bioRxiv, is the previous version still available to be viewed?

Yes. For example, this is the first version of this manuscript.

If so, is it possible to hide some of the previous versions?

I cannot find any option for one of my own manuscript that has versions (but is also somewhat old), don’t remember seeing one, and do not see this option documented. Mind that previous versions are not very prominently displayed in my opinion.
Deleting previous versions would be contrary to the mission/philosophy of BioRxiv to provide a lasting archive of preprints. From the FAQ:

Can I remove a manuscript that has been posted on bioRxiv?
No. Manuscripts posted on bioRxiv receive DOI's and thus are citable and part of the scientific record. […] Consequently, bioRxiv’s policy is that papers cannot be removed. Authors may withdraw their article if they no longer stand by their findings/conclusions or discover fundamental errors in the article. […] In extremely rare cases, papers have been removed because of legal or safety reasons.

In short, deleting manuscripts is only possible under extraordinary circumstances.
While deleting is not the same as hiding, it seems unlikely that BioRxiv would create an option for the latter, as there is no reason to expect that this would be a popular or relevant feature.


text:
The electrical engineering journal editor decided on a "major revision." Do I still have hope?
I submitted a simulation-based research paper to the Springer journal 'Electrical Engineering' three months ago. Today, I received a response inviting me to revise my paper. To maintain the continuity of the peer review process, they recommend returning the manuscript within 14 days.
While four reviewers initially agreed to assess my paper, only one has submitted a report. Consequently, the editor's decision was based on the feedback from this single reviewer.
Some of his comments:

Although the manuscript has a case study, but there is no experimental results included.
Too many simulation results presented in the manuscript. Almost five full pages of the manuscript are dedicated to sim-results, which is too much.
The contribution of the work in not clear.
The paper organization should be revised

Unfortunately, I don't think this question is a good fit for this community. No one here can use their crystal ball to predict what one editor at one journal in one specific field will do for your one paper that none of us have read. (Side note: please don't include your paper here.) Instead, use your time to speak with your advisor or a trusted colleague in the field who can read your paper and the specific comments to provide customized advice.

I know, only the editor can decide, but I posted here to maybe find someone who has published in this journal before and who went through the same thing, meaning, receiving feedback from only one reviewer. Thanks for passing by.

We're looking for more generalizable questions here, not reviews of each individual editor for each journal. Major revisions means you aren't rejected so the editor must see some potential path otherwise they're wasting their time by not rejecting. If you think you can address their concerns, do it. If not, you can ask if what you can do is acceptable.

There is some hope, but the revisions asked for are very extensive and the time is short. But "major revision" isn't rejection.
Start with the organization of the paper and make sure you can specify a worthwhile contribution and make that clear. Then work on the rest. I don't know how strict the 14 day limit is, but if you have the time you could try. The first bullet seems the hardest to meet in a short time, but if you can solidify the rest you might have a chance.
But expect that the next version will also need revision. You need to do enough so that the editor thinks it worthwhile to continue.

Thank you so much, I really appreciate your answer.

@Gomasha To repeat a comment I made elsewhere (please do not be offended)  ... If an answer is helpful to you, the best way to show that your appreciation it is to "up-vote" it. It's true that the author of the answer won't know that it is you specifically, who up-voted but nonetheless, they will probably appreciate the upvote more than you kind note of thanks. It's just the way that Stack Exchange works!

You ask, "Do I still have hope?". It's a question frequently asked, in all sorts of different guises, on this forum. The real issue, I think, is what are you really looking for?

Additional information from this forum (SE Academia) that will allow you better to  assess whether it is worth your while to revise your manuscript as suggested by the editor in order to improve your ultimate chances of acceptance by that particular journal?
Additional data from this forum (SE Academia) to allow you better to assess whether it is worth your while to revise your manuscript as suggested by the editor in order to improve your ultimate chances of acceptance by an alternative "good" journal?
Reassurance?

On point 1, you already have the only information available. Depending on what the base-rate for acceptance vs. rejection for Electrical Engineering is, my guess is that you have effectively been told that your chances of final acceptance are now better than base-rate, since the base-rate includes all the rejections ... and yours wasn't rejected outright. Amusingly, the only circumstances under which that assessment is incorrect would be if the base-rate for immediate acceptance exceeded 50%; needless to say, except with a predatory journal, that is most unlikely.
On point 2, you again have the only information available, but you might consider revising your paper in line with the suggestions of the editor but then perhaps submitting it to a journal where the bar for publication is a bit lower.
On point 3, you will discover, from a fairly cursory examination of the available journals, that even (and this should most definitely NOT be taken as a comment on your paper about which no one but you has any real knowledge) the most complete junk can find a home in a journal somewhere.
But there is no Delphic Oracle at SE Academia. The best you can do is assess the editor's comments, revise your paper to the extent that you think those comments have merit, and then resubmit either to the same journal or to another. ... and good luck!

Thank you so much, i really appreciate your answer.

Your paper is not rejected, so the answer is 'yes you still have a chance'; but as you can see from the review comments you have serious work to do if you want to get accepted.
There's nothing unusual about getting review comments from only one reviewer. As you saw, not every reviewer who agrees to review will actually submit a review, and I'm sure you'd rather receive a decision now than have the editor invite more reviewers and wait another three months.

Thank you so much, I really appreciate your answer.


text:
Probability of Acceptance After Two Minor Revisions
I submitted an article to a Springer journal on November 25, 2023. I received a major revision in March with comments from Reviewer 1 only. In the second round, I received a minor revision with comments from both Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2, which I addressed thoroughly. Now, in the third round, I have received another minor revision with comments from Reviewer 3. I submitted the revised version with a point-by-point response yesterday.Given this situation, do I have a high probability of receiving an acceptance decision?

This is very tough to say. Might vary a fair bit in terms of journal, subfield, the individual referees, and other factors.

Isn’t the probability of acceptance with minor revisions generally very close to 100%? At least that’s how it is in mathematics. It means the journal already basically approves of your paper and just wants you to correct a few small things. There isn’t much that can go wrong at that point. But I can’t speak to what happens in other disciplines

We've got a rejection after a minor revision. Turned out this was due to sloppy work by one of the reviewers that thought having found an error on the second round and the decision was successfully appealed. However, if they indeed had found an error, it might still have ended with a rejection.

You might be interested in the second part of my answer here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/191281/is-there-any-other-chance-for-looking-to-the-paper-after-rejection With two minor revisions, the probability of acceptance goes up (but it's still not 100%).

Nobody can know, not any of us and not you. Generally, minor revisions lead to accepted papers, but not always. All you can do is do the requested revisions the best you can, and hope that it satisfies the editor and the reviewers. Beyond that, things are not under your control and the right thing to do is use your mental energy for the next paper you're working on.


text:
Figure and Table Arrangement in Proof Correction for Accepted Article
I received the proof of my accepted article in the Electrical Engineering journal (one of Springer’s journals) yesterday, and they requested that I send the corrected proof within two days.
I am currently preparing the annotated PDF proof. However, I have a question regarding the arrangement of figures and tables. In the proof I received, they are not placed in the locations I specified in my last submission. Additionally, some of the tables are not formatted as I originally designed them.
Could you please advise on how I should annotate or correct these issues in the proof?

Reach out to the editorial staff handling proofs, explain exactly what you want (and politely enquire if that is doable for that journal, they may have some strict formatting conventions they are asked for follow for whatever reason), and firmly but politely request that you wish to see the proofs again before signing off on them. The two day thing is a polite suggestion, you can take longer if needed (that is done to manage workflow and to keep the submission to acceptance to publication times for the journal low). Your focus is that your work should be represented as you intend.

@R1NaNo, that should probably be an answer.


text:
Should we give page numbers to each pages of the research paper?
I had finished writing a research paper for a conference. Should I give page numbers to each of the pages.
This question look so dumb. But,
I am asking this because, whenever we download any research paper from the internet, we usually see the page numbers which are provided by Journals or Conference proceedings.
So is author need to provide page numbers at the bottom of the page? Or they will reserved this place for page numbering by them?

Do you not have any kind of supervisor, superior or senior colleague to turn to for just these kind of questions? And it doesn't matter if you put page numbers or not.

Is this in a field like CS where you submit entire papers to a conference, or a field where you are just submitting an abstract?

If your paper is divided into sufficiently short (1-2 page) sections and subsections, then (sub)section numbers would almost universally replace the need for page numbers. Based on your user name, math papers frequently refer only to theorem and equation numbers, rather than the pages on which theorems and equations appear on.

There are two issues. The version submitted to the conference might, at a later stage, be reformatted for publication in proceedings or journals. But both versions should have page numbers.
Page numbers even in a "for review" version help reviewers with any comments back to you and generally ease the work flow. Those page numbers aren't for formal citation since this is pre-publication.
I also think that any published paper longer than a couple of pages should have page numbers to aid readers in making citations to specific parts of your paper.
My experience is that conferences usually want PDF submissions and most people prepare these from a document created by some document editor in which page numbers are easy to add. You may be asked for an edited version later that requires some sort of formatting either with or without page numbers. Follow those directions, of course.
For international submissions, note that page numbering might need to change for final copy. Pagination in 8.5 x 11 won't likely be the same as A4, for example.

I would worry, actually, about conferences that want editable documents for review purposes. If they are, in fact, edited by others, they might change your intent. Journals may need editable documents to allow copy editing and formatting for consistency, but there, the ones doing changes are professionals at that task and, hopefully, get your signify on any changes.

Sir, In their brochure they mentioned that, some best papers after reviewing are published in Journals.

If you are asking this question, that suggests that you are using a document without a style file, or a style file of your own. But you should be using the style file that is appropriate for the conference, and that style file will either include page numbers or it will not -- in either case, you should leave it as is, as the people who created the style file have made the decision for you (along with all of the other things such as which font, font size, etc., to use for section headings and figure captions).

No they didn't provide any style file. Except some formatting instructions. These instructions exclude page numbers too.

Then you just do what seems like the right thing. Since every journal and every book you will have ever seen has page numbers, using page numbers yourself should be the pretty obvious thing to do.

Yes, please include page numbers in your papers. I’ve never seen a research paper that didn’t have page numbers, and if I saw one I would get quite annoyed and disoriented. Page numbers are simply useful.
In the preprint phase, page numbers should start at 1. When your paper is published in a journal or conference proceedings, the publisher will adjust the page numbers to suit the location of your paper in the journal or proceedings volume. That’s not something you need to worry about right now.

In combination with the comment that states that a style file is not provided, this is the right answer. Imagine if the paper was printed and then dropped - you'd want page numbers then! But I'd add: please include page numbers using a method that makes them easy for any future typesetter to change/remove (that is, don't add them manually! Know how to use your editing tool so you don't have to do this).

Sir, Yes I see. Your answer is short and beautiful and straight to the point. But unfortunately I can't accept it as a answers, as we can't change accepted answer. Still I had upvoted your answer. Thank you.

@GeneralMathematics As the OP, you are the only person who can accept a different answer.


text:
Do you reveal purpose of questionnaire to respondents?
I recently received an invitation to answer a questionnaire from a student in the social sciences. The results will be used as part of the research for a Master's thesis.
The invitation describes the subject of the research, and then describes in detail that the current thinking is that social phenomenon A is caused by social phenomenon B, but that the student wonders whether social phenomenon C is an additional cause.
It seems to me that I have just been told what answers the student is hoping to get. Isn't that too much information? I understand that you explain to the respondents that the questionnaire will be used for scientific research (for ethical reasons) and what the general subject of the questionnaire is (so that they can decide whether they want to take part), but if you tell them much more about the aim of the study, then surely this risks influencing their answer?
Respondents may consider the assumption made by the student, jump to a conclusion about its correctness, and then choose their answers to bring across this opinion. Respondents who are helpful by nature, may simply answer what they think the student wants to hear.
Would I be correct in thinking that it is unwise to give this much information about the purpose of a questionnaire, and the results may be biased because of this? Or is this common practice, and are there ways to remove this bias from the results?

In the US at least, an Institutional Review Board is in charge of human research and researchers need to justify to them their informed consent process. If they want to use deception or be unclear about the purposes of research they must justify it. Generally the less sensitive the information and less invasive the methodology the less requirement there is to disclose, and on the other side high potential for bias is an argument for being vague or even deceptive.
The researchers you encountered will have to be open about what their participants knew when they participated and that will affect how their readers interpret the study. This person is a masters student, they're probably new at this, maybe they just designed a bad survey and no one helped them do better. For example maybe there was a form that said "describe the research for your participants" and they added all this detail when the form preparer expected them to write "This study is about social phenomena."
It's possible you're part of an experiment and the instructions are part of a manipulation and the test is to see how different instructions influence the answers - basically to answer with data exactly the bias question you are posting here.
It's possible that after participating in the study you will be informed more openly about the actual purposes of the research if it was made unclear or deceiving.

I suspect that a lack of experience and of guidance by a supervisor may indeed be the major factors here. There are other aspects of the invitation which seem somewhat unprofessional.


text:
What is the real maximum score of subject math GRE scores currently?
I know that every subject GRE test has the maximum score 990 and the maximum percentile 99. However, upon looking some data on the ETS website, I found that the math subject GRE score starts from 920. Also, I heard that somebody got score 930 and percentile 99. What is the truth? What is the maximum math subject GRE score?

I'm not a mathematician and not involved with this test; all I know is what I read on the internet. If anyone can confirm that they've seen someone get a perfect score in the last few years, that'd be great.
The maximum score is (almost certainly) 990. I assume you were looking at this, which shows that any scores 920 and above are in the 99th percentile; that is, only 1% of test takers score 920 or above. This does not (necessarily) imply that scores above 920 are impossible.
From the GRE website:

Every Subject Test yields a total score on a 200 to 990 score scale, in 10-point increments. Note that each of the individual test scales occupies only a portion of the 200 to 990 score range.

The second sentence is a little vague, and in principle could imply that the top few scores are "not used." What we know for sure is that since 200-990 in 10-point increments is 80 possible scores, and there are only 66 questions, there will be at least 14 values that are not used. Since they said the scale is from 200 to 990, it would make little sense to "not use" the top few scores...but it's possible.
One wrinkle: there is also this practice test in which a 66/66 only gets you a 910. But, I don't think we can necessarily extrapolate from that; it may just be that the practice test is easier than the current test.

That means it is possible to get higher than 920? The score can be higher?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRE_Mathematics_Test  Here it says the maximum score reported is 920 currently. So this Wikipedia is wrong?

Edited my answer. I think the Wikipedia page is misinterpreting the document linked in my second paragraph -- that document does NOT imply that scores above 920 are impossible (I've seen perfect scores on ETS tests in which the 99 percentile was in the 600s). That said, I can't find any definitive proof that the 990 score is possible for the math subject test.

According to below, from 2014 up to June 2017 the top score was a 940.
https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table2.pdf
However, this year the test must have been rescaled.
I have gotten a 970 (99%) on the Sept 2018 test today.
As I left one question blank by mistake, I believe that
now the top score of 990 may be obtainable.


text:
Should I prefer a grad-school recommendation from a PhD holder who doesn't know me well, or an MS holder who does?
I work at a start-up as a research intern, and I'm looking to get a recommendation letter from somebody within the company for my graduate application. I'm primarily looking at one of two people:
Person A: He has a PhD from a top-5 university, well recognized in the industry space he's in, and is also the CTO at the company I work at. I do know him semi-well and thinks I'm talented, but I've talked to him very rarely as he wasn't my manager.
Person B: He has an M.S. from a top-20 university, pretty recent graduate, and is a researcher at this company. I know him pretty well, as he's my manager and we have very frequent meetings; he would be able to discuss my research potential in heavy detail.
I'm at a loss as to who I should ask for this letter. I'm really, really leaning towards Person A since he's an alumni of the university I have as my top choice, but Person B would know me much better.

Are you applying for a PhD or Masters?

As of right now, I'm mostly looking at PhD programs.

Have you asked either or both yet? If not I don't think you have anything to lose by asking A first

Person A. Person B, as a recent graduate, is not really in a position to assess your caliber as a researcher -- he is still settling into his own career. He cannot compare you to dozens of others he has known at this stage of your career. Further, he is hardly in a position to judge your suitability for a PhD program, not having one himself. There is a fairly firm unwritten rule that grad school LoRs have to come from faculty, not grad students or post-docs -- I imagine person B is the industry equivalent of a post-doc.
You may want to ask Person A if they would appreciate notes or a draft letter from Person B. This is one way to get more specifics into your letter. Another way is to write your own notes and provide them, just to "remind him" about the things you've been involved in. Alternatively, if your school accepts extra letters, you can ask both.

I would agree with this answer, if I received a letter of recomendation from with A or B I think A would hold more weight.


text:
Additional schooling and salary at private/public high school
I have been told that private high schools would likely hire this candidate,

MSc/PhD in physics (but no teaching certificate or degree, just TA duties in undergrad and grad school),

and that public schools would likely hire this candidate,

BS/MSc in physics with teaching certificate/degree on top of TA duties

Is this oversimplification legitimate? Can a PhD get a job at a private high school without teaching certificate? Is the same possible at a public?
If a teaching certificate is indeed a prerequisite for both, what type of programs award these degrees/teaching certificates and are they quite expensive?
How does the salary (say in ... New England) compare between these two people? More specifically, how great is the increase in salary for a candidate with a PhD over an MSc at a private school, and similarly for a public school. What benefits (on-campus housing for private versus unions for public, etc) do each have?

Somewhat relevant: Why do some professors with PhDs leave their professorships to teach high school? AND How does the workload of a high-school mathematics teacher compare to a university-level instructor?. Regarding salaries, this is MUCH more variable by region, school, etc. than by education. For what it's worth, my recollection is that for public U.S. high schools a Masters (doesn't matter whether in your subject or something like "Curriculum & Instruction") (continued)

is roughly equivalent to 1 to 2 years experience on the school district's pay chart and a Ph.D. is roughly equivalent to 3 to 4 years experience on the school district's pay chart. Given what you've written, maybe start here.

Brilliant resources, thank you!

Yes, it is an oversimplification overall. First, state laws vary about who can teach, and some laws apply to private schools as well. You may need certification or not to be hired, but in some places you will need to seek it afterwards. Most schools need to be certified by the state themselves, so the rules need to be followed.
Whether having been a TA or not may make little difference. What secondary school teachers do and what TAs do can be very different.
Nearly everywhere teachers need to do some kind of continuing education (to maintain certification). That might be in field, or it might be pedagogy, but it is usually a requirement. Having an advanced degree might alter the equation, but probably not erase the requirement.
Public schools aren't all unionized. Private schools don't all provide housing and few provide housing for everyone.
You probably don't need a doctorate anywhere in the US to be hired, but, some top secondary private schools value them.
Salary by region is probably a poor metric. If salaries are low, it is also likely that local living expenses are low as well. Some places excepted, of course, such as anywhere near the California Bay Area. But even New England isn't uniform. Boston is pretty expensive.
As for salary for an individual, the doctorate probably plays a relatively small part. The institution is looking for people who will serve their students well. Having a doctorate adds a bit of prestige to a school, but not necessarily an improvement in service to the students. They will look at the whole picture, as would any employer. Experience and letters of recommendation might weigh more than the degree.
But it is the complete picture and a judgement that you will fit in well that is more important than the degree.
After you are hired, your advance in salary depends little on the degrees you came in with. And most schools are constrained financially, both public and private.

In principle in public schools you need to be certified.  In  practice the shortage of STEM teachers means that you can sometimes get hired without this, but then in the first year you must complete the requirements for certification. This is the model that programs like Teach for America or NYC Teaching Fellows use.
To earn a teaching certificate you need to do research on your state to find the approved programs. Generally this will be some form of Master's degree (MAT, MA, MEd).  Many state colleges offer these programs and they will usually have the lowest tuition as well as good placement records because they work with nearby school districts. If you are currently a doctoral student you should look to see if your university has a school of education.  If you are in STEM and agree to teach in a high need school you are potentially eligible for various scholarships.
Private schools are very variable in what they require, and they have a lot of autonomy.   However you need to be a good teacher even if you lack formal training.

There are a few public schools in the U.S. that do not require teaching certification. Most are among those listed here, although most of the schools in that list do require teaching certification. I think there are around 12 or 13 that don't, including ASMS (Alabama), ASMSA (Arkansas), IMSA (Illinois), Indiana Academy, LSMSA (Louisiana), MSSM (Maine), MSMS (Mississippi), NCSSM (North Carolina), OSSM (Oklahoma), GSSM (South Carolina), TAMS (Texas). I taught 3 years at LSMSA, with a Ph.D. and without certification.

@DaveLRenfro those look to all be "Academies of Math and Science", where the students are of high enough academic caliber that there's a much greater need for subject matter expertise than pedagogy and reading the textbook the night beforehand...

@DaveLRenfro  Do you want to edit that into the answer?


text:
When is asking for an update on PhD admission status appropriate (given international flight prices)
I am a US student who has applied to physics PhD programs while aboard on a Fulbright Scholarship in the Netherlands.
Based on the dates of open houses last year, I will be heading back to the US for the week of March 14-21 to attend graduate open houses.
Physics PhD programs allot roughly 500 dollars per admitted student for travel expenses for them to attend the open house. This was totally sufficient last year when I attended open houses as I was in the US.
Hypothetically, if I get into Brandeis on February 20th, buying a plane ticket to Boston from Amsterdam 3 weeks in advance would be doable — roughly $350.
However, hypothetically even if I got into USC later today, a plane ticket to Los Angeles would still mean money out of my pocket.
If I submitted my applications to December 15th deadline programs around December 5th-10th, is reaching out for an update around February 1st too pushy?

One option would be to buy a cheap ticket to/from some arbitrary location in the US right now, and then assume that you will buy additional domestic flights later to connect the dots of whichever universities you want to visit.

If I was in your position I would wait until the official offers land on your desk. Then check flights immediately and email the 'expensive location' back asking whether they'd reimburse $X given that this is the cheapest flight you could find. And that you'd love to visit but don't have the financial means to do so otherwise.

The general rule for you is that you can ask. It would be good to explain in any request that you need to arrange international travel and that finances are an issue.
But the general rule for the university is that they may be very constrained in what they can tell you. There may be rules or agreements about deadlines and about giving out information early, even if it is available. So, you may not get much of an answer and it would be very unlikely to get an early decision.
Graduate open houses are useful, but perhaps not necessary in every case. Make reasonable plans but stay flexible and expect that things can change. Money out of pocket probably isn't your most important consideration.


text:
TAing for two young hotshot postdocs (possible "in" for future research)? or TAing a lab with more student engagement?
Incoming theoretical physics PhD student in the US.
I hope to get into academia after my PhD.
When listing TA preferences, would it behoove my career goal more to list as my top preference a course that is being taught by to young "up and coming" hotshot postdocs in my fields? Or (as a theorist whose job prospects may increase by having some lab experience) would TAing a lab which enables more engagement with students be a better choice?
The course TA could potentially just be a grading job, which doesn't help my career objectives, whereas the lab experience and more experience with students would.
Thoughts?

Normally a TA job is assisting in teaching - grading and leading smaller review sections of a large course. It doesn't involve research at all. An RA, on the other hand, assists in research. TA job is good for future academics as it gives a bit of a hint of teaching that nearly everyone does as part of the career, but it isn't research related.

Oh I know, sorry let me elaborate. Just the contact "in" that comes with communicating about the course with those postdocs could lead to research.

And unfortunately, at this university, TA jobs are entirely grading or lab (unless you work something out personally with a professor who is open to your leading small recitations).

Maybe. Tentative. Doubtful. There are probably more direct and productive ways to get an "in". I suspect that a TA job is there to free the post doc from the scut work they don't want to do so they can focus on their own stuff. A professor's job is to assist you, but a post doc is mostly there for their own career needs.

You are likely right! Thank you for the perspective! :)

I'd argue that the choice should be TAing the class with the topic that is most closely aligned with your interests.

What @mlk said. Also, if you want to build rapport with one of the lecturers, e.g. for getting a reference letter from them, it's probably best to go with them, just so they know you better. (But then do it really well!)

None of the information you have provided will help you decide what to TA.

As far as things worth considering with regard to TA assignments, these are like o(epsilon^4).