text:
Is publishing as an undergraduate a thing that really happens?
Sometimes, there are questions on here about undergraduate students publishing research (see here, here, and here). The answers don't seem particularly surprised that this is happening or try to dissuade the asker, they treat it like a normal question.
In my entire life, I've never heard of undergraduates publishing results apart from a handful of examples from famous science prodigies.
Furthermore, my experience of undergraduate was not conducive at all to publishing. I graduated from a mediocre UK university, and there was no original research done at all. Undergraduate is for getting you up to speed on the foundations of a field, preparing you for postgraduate where you study one sub-field, then a PhD where you push the boundaries of a sub-sub-field.
The questions linked above give advice like, "Discuss it with your supervisor". But as far as I'm aware undergraduates don't have supervisors.
Is this really as common as it would seem from questions on here? Is it a regional thing? Something that happens only at top universities?

Its a fair question, though, and as the other posts note it publishing as an undergraduate is still not the 'norm', but happens enough to be notable without being unheard of. If it doesn't address what you were wanting to know please do feel free to ask another question that gets at what the existing Q&As don't address!

There's also a culture difference. Undergraduate research is much less common in the UK than in the US.

Most undergraduates do not publish, but it's quite normal for undergraduates who get involved in research to end up publishing.
Reasons why few undergraduates publish include:

They aren't interested in research, or are more interested in all the myriad other awesome things you can spend your time on as a newly (semi)independent adult in college.
They are interested in research, but don't manage to find a good mentor (typically a professor) to work with.  Nearly all undergraduate institutions have professors doing research, but some institutions or departments within an institution have a lot more going on than others.
They get connected to a research project, but their work isn't publishable.  Undergraduates are typically unreliable (see first point), and so often are given high-risk or boring work (a friend of mine got a "research" job one summer crushing rocks into fine powder with a mortar and pestle).
They do publishable research, but it doesn't come out until they are no longer an undergraduate.  Even the fastest project rarely takes less than six months from start to publication, and many take multiple years. If a student starts researching in their junior or senior year, even a great project may not result in publications during undergraduate.

That said, none of these are particularly insurmountable obstacles, and with the right combination of interest, a good environment, and a bit of luck, it's quite reasonable to have work published as an undergraduate.
Some undergraduates even become quite well-published, simply by virtue of having the right combination of skill, luck, and circumstances.  For example, this week a colleague of mine mentioned to me that one of his undergraduate students now had approximately a dozen journal publications. Until they said it, I hadn't realized this student's numbers had accumulated quite so much, but it didn't surprise me, since this student is a good contributor to a complex many-person project that publishes frequently.
In short: undergraduate publication is statistically infrequent, but entirely normal.

It varies from field to field. But some fields this isn't uncommon at all. STEM and social sciences fields are generally easier to publish than in humanities, in part due to it being less subjective about what is worth publishing. It is easier to publish in fields which don't require a lot of experimental equipment(unless one is a member of some very big collaboration- some of the big papers out of the LHC have undergrads on the author lists for example), and so math is one of the fields where it is most common. In various areas of math, some areas are easier for non-experts to understand than other. For example, graph theory and number theory have more low-hanging fruit that doesn't require technical background, while for example algebraic topology has more trouble.
At a pure level of anecdote, my first published paper was actually in high school; this is rare but not at all unheard of, and I wasn't particularly brilliant. I got lucky and found some low-hanging fruit that hadn't been noticed.

Of course they do.  It does happen to undergrads who find research internships or in programs where they can do an undergraduate thesis for instance.  It’s not that rare in some fields, but quite so in other fields.
One does need a bit of luck though, as not all project will have reached or can even reach a stage where an undergraduate may contribute enough to warrant co-authorship.

It's not that hard in some of the experimental sciences, especially if not first author.  Assuming you have some relation to a lab group and have a grad student or postdoc running a project and you run a few of his samples.  Not really that hard to get included.  Yeah...even then it is time away from your real classes or the brewpub.  But far from impossible.
Edit:  saw your comment on the school.  Yeah, if it is not a research university, that will of course make it hard to do what I just said.  But if you are at Cal or Georgia Tech or the like, not a problem.  Especially if you use some savvy to figure out which group to work with, what sorts of things to get involved with.  Not cutting edge super math, not building apparatus, not waiting for a Space Shuttle to run your sample.  But a group that publishes a lot.

I suspect what you're thinking of as "undergraduate" isn't what others are thinking of when they say they do research as undergraduates. For example, suppose a student goes directly into a 4-year undergraduate program topped off by a one-year long research project (known as an "Honours project" in some places). The results of this can certainly be publishable. Other possibilities could be, a summer research project, or a direct-to-Masters program like the MPhys. In all these cases, the undergraduate will indeed have a supervisor.
Of course undergraduates, being relatively inexperienced, are not likely to get revolutionary results, but they can still achieve publishable results, and that can lead to publications. It's possible, and I'd say quite common for the best undergraduates to have published something before graduate school.


text:
Strategizing Post-Undergraduate Career Path for Aspiring Physics Doctoral Student
I'm a senior undergraduate physics student who hoped to attend graduate school starting next fall, but who was unfortunately not admitted to any in this admissions cycle. I remain very interested in pursuing a doctoral degree in the future, as I truly love conducting research and would like the opportunity not only to pursue such work professionally but also to learn to be better at doing so. Applying to these programs, however, is not only time consuming but also incredibly expensive, and I would thereby like to do whatever I can in the meantime to make my case for admission stronger.
I've asked around for advice, and I've received a lot of conflicting information. There's quite a bit of advice available out there for those with specific "weak spots" (e.g. those who haven't had research experience, access to advanced classes, or who struggled academically), however to my knowledge there are no glaring issues with my experience or academic performance. The most common pieces of advice I've been given and seen around can be classed as one of the following:

Pursue a software development/quantitative research/finance/etc. job in industry:  I've been told variously that pursuing e.g. an entry-level coding job would be looked upon positively, negatively, or neutrally by doctoral programs. Moreover, I've applied for 100 or so such jobs over the last year and (where feedback was given) I have been told that, even though I have substantial coding and data science experience, I am outcompeted by computer science/data science/economics/etc. majors who specialize in these fields. I expect that it could take some time before I am able to find such a position.
Pursue a post-baccalaureate research position: Many of my STEM major friends in other fields have been recommended (typically year-long) post-baccalaureate research positions. There seem to be quite a few available in e..g biology and chemistry, however I'm struggling to find any in physics. Moreover, many research/research assistantship positions and REU programs require that one be a student or admitted to a graduate program (presumably due to some funding-related restrictions), and all of the PIs that I have reached out to have been reluctant (or unable) to take on a recent graduate who will not be pursuing a graduate degree in the near future.
Pursue a "bridge" program: Some schools offer a "bridge" program, aimed at students interested in pursuing a doctoral degree who would need more research experience or education to do so. I've asked around about a few such programs, and have more or less been told that I do not make a compelling case for admission as I have several years worth of research experience and performed well academically on paper. I applied to two, and was rejected by both.

I'm not quite sure where to go from here. While I know that the forum cannot offer highly-individualized career advice, I'd like to ask generally: What can a prospective physics doctoral student such as myself do with their life in the 1-5 years after college that will most favorably impact their case for admission, where there is no obvious issue with their experience/academic performance?
There are obviously a number of other factors that I need to take into account (e.g. just getting food on the table), however I'd like to do what I can to pursue a path that will help me in achieving my long-term career goals.

Academic research jobs in physics after the PhD are far more rare than PhD positions themselves. It's likely that, if you applied broadly, some of the schools you applied to will have zero successful applicants go on to one of these jobs.

@BryanKrause Thanks for the advice. While I know that academic research positions (particularly in physics) are incredibly rare, it remains something that I am willing to undergo the 5-6+ years of a PhD program in pursuit of. I feel that I would harbor a lot of regret later in life if I didn't at least give it a solid try.

Okay. You said you like research - what research experience do you have? And did you apply to the "top N" schools or did you apply more broadly?

@BryanKrause I've been working with an experimental high-energy group since the year prior to entering college. I've done things such as: building & testing instrumentation, developing (mathematically) and implementing (in code) a novel algorithm for reconstructing the energy & direction of observed events, writing Monte Carlo reconstruction and detector simulations, conducting source searches (collecting data, processing it, contributing to development of source reconstruction tools), running theoretical calculations (by hand and on HPC resources), & writing data acquisition system software.

@BryanKrause I applied to the "top 5" schools, and 15 others more broadly (the majority (~11) chosen because these schools have faculty conducting research in or adjacent to the subfield of high-energy experiment that I have been working in, and would like to continue working in).

What country do you want to study in ?

@Buffy I'd ideally like to remain in the United States.

What do the people you've been working with think of your application? Have you had a trusted professor look over your application materials including essays etc? Are your grades okay? Is your undergraduate institution reputable? Who wrote your red letters? On face it sounds like you have a pretty good resume so if you applied broadly there seems likely to be something missing.

@BryanKrause I feel as though my grades are okay (not perfect, however I have a 3.6 overall GPA, and a 3.8 in physics/math). I'm at a small (but reputable) LAC that lacks a grad program, however I have pursued "grad-level" topics (e.g. QFT) via independent study. My rec. letters came from the PI of my research group (who is at another nearby uni. with a highly-regarded physics program), my academic advisor in the physics dep., and a math prof. I have taken several classes with. The former two reviewed my essays and spoke favorably of them, and my PI expressed his surprise at my rejections.

So you applied to 20 schools and didn't get into any of them? That seems very strange given your qualifications. Any idea what went wrong?

I once suffered a setback because a letter writer (foreign born) said something in a LoR that was misinterpreted. He meant it to be extremely supportive but it was read just the opposite. While you can't ask to see your letters, you might be able to have someone else (department head) review them.

I agree with cag51 and your PI, your profile sounds good. Are you an author on any publications?

@cag51 I'm not quite sure what went wrong (I've chalked it up to competition & bad luck). I've run my CV & essays (which are, I think, pretty standard: discussing my research experience, explaining that I wish to pursue a PhD so that I can continue such work, and briefly mentioning why I'm applying to that particular institution) by my PI & advisor and received positive feedback. I've done well in my classes, and I can't fathom that any of my recommenders (all of whom I have great working relationships with) would have intentionally said anything that might be perceived negatively.

@BryanKrause I am not an author on any publications, but am currently co-authoring a paper on some work I've done over the last 1 1/2 years (which I mentioned in my CV). Software that I've written is currently being used by a couple of grad students at an affiliated institution, & (should they publish) I expect to be listed as a co-author. I've also made some substantial contributions to some open-source Monte Carlo packages that have seen relatively wide use within our particular niche of the subfield, and I've presented at research symposia. Is having authorship particularly important?

@BryanKrause Or, I should ask, is not having authorship looked upon particularly negatively?

I don't know your field well, but a big change in mine from when I applied to now is the expectation of publications. It's not so much that it should be a requirement or the absence is looked at poorly, it's that such a high percentage of applicants have something published that it is kind of an easy way to separate applications that are otherwise difficult to differentiate. Remember they're not admitting people who are merely qualified, they're admitting the top N applications vs peers. Some friends of mine had failed application seasons followed by success after their papers were published.

You might also include some statistics on the software you've contributed to and make sure that's clear on your CV.

Actually you sound like a good candidate for admission to some R1 university in the US. But the higher ranked the institution is, the tougher the competition, and in some cases the smaller then entering cohort.
In the next cycle, I suggest making a broader search, covering universities down to at least the 50th ranked, maybe a bit more. You don't need to limit yourself there, but include some. Note that if you are rejected by some place then you are more likely to also be rejected by very similar places. State universities tend to have larger entry cohorts than some others, also.
In the interim, make sure you keep contact with those professors who now support you. If you lose contact they will start to forget your merits.
If you don't need an income, such as with family support, see if you can take on some informal research project with the aim of writing a paper. Even a survey paper for some sub field will give you some practice, though it might not be publishable. It is harder if you need income, since there aren't many jobs that you are qualified for. My daughter, in a different field and for different reasons, got a job in an academic library to fill some time, earn some money, and keep her "academia adjacent" for a year or so while she made decisions. She is now a professor.
But, keep active if possible, keep close to supporters, cast a wide net.
Good luck.

Of your three suggestions, the first doesn't seem very good in terms of your current goals. The others are better, but it might be hard (late) to get connected to one of them. You won't get much research experience in a year, but you could get a better idea of what research is really like. If you are near a major university and can take advanced courses as a non-matriculated student it might let you learn a few things.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Ex-advisor wants to publish my work in a journal I don't like
My ex-PhD-advisor submitted my paper to the journal I explicitly stated I don't want to submit to. I believe the ex-advisor is busy with other things and doesn't want to bother with submissions, so they are taking a very easy path to publish my work, while not replying to my inquries. If I contact the editor and state that I did not approve this submission, will I be able to prevent it from being published?

You don't want to submit to because...?

@CaptainEmacs Because I believe it deserves much more credit. My peers believe the same. The journal the ex-advisor has chosen is third tier.

Do you have indication that your paper is stronger than the tier your supervisor suggests? I am not talking about peers, but of people of substantial experience in the field? Inexperienced scientists are notoriously bad at estimating the value of their own work, both in terms of under- as well as overestimation. It would be good to have corroboration from another side.

And why did they submit it? Why not you?

To be more explicit about what Captain Emacs is asking: You call this "my work", "my paper", and "my work" again.  This sounds like you consider yourself the main author, which would mean that you're the one who would actually submit to a journal in most fields.  Or is this just a paper that you contributed to, without actually being the main author?  Either way, your input should be considered.  But if you're "lower down" on the author list, the other authors would generally be less inclined to abide by your wishes.

Plus what hope do you have of publishing it elsewhere if it's joint work with your ex-advisor?

Is there something wrong with submitting to multiple journals?

@Mike there are advisors that prefer to submit their students papers themselves.

@Mike In many groups or fields, PhD students are not routinely corresponding authors on their papers, even though they do all the work and most of the writing. That's not a matter of not giving the student the credit they deserve. It's just that many students leave the field or academia after they graduate, which could make it impossible to contact them ten years later when somebody has questions about the paper. And many journals require the corresponding author to actually do all the clicking in the submission form.

@Xen2050 It's very inappropriate to submit simultaneously to multiple journals. This is a serious infraction because of how it wastes peer reviewer time. Sequentially after rejection is no problem at all (though it makes sense to consider any feedback received at each step, if any).

@RicardoCruz and TooTea Sure, that's why I said "most" fields rather than all.  The subtext here is that the OP seems to not be including all the context, and I'm trying to draw out more.  Even if the main author is not the one submitting, the main author's opinion should hold sway.  But if the OP is not the main author, that changes the balance.  More detail from the OP would help the answers be more relevant.

If I contact the editor and state that I did not approve this submission, will I be able to prevent it from being published?

A dispute among the authors is a major red flag and will immediately lead to the article not being published.
What this does to your relationship with your ex-advisor is a different question.

It is only my opinion, but the "different question" is probably more important.

Since you are the author of the work, you presently hold the copyright/IP in the work.  The journal will require your permission to publish the work and this would require you to sign a publication agreement.  No journal wants to go to the trouble of reviewing a paper if an author is not going to agree to publication at the end of the process.  So yes, if you contact the editor and advise that this is an unauthorised submission (and that you do not agree to publish), they will withdraw the paper.

Since you are the author of the work, you presently hold the copyright/IP in the work. This depends entirely on the circumstances. If the paper was written in the past while OP was still a graduate student, then there's a good chance the University owns the copyright/IP. Normally, universities don't care and defer to the researchers when it comes to publishing and transferring the copyright to publishers. With that said, the rest is true; publishers expect consent from all authors involved. So OP certainly can stop it

The problem is what happens next. Even if OP does own the copyright to the manuscript, there's a chance the university still owns the data. In that case, OP would still need permission from the university/former advisor to publish elsewhere, which might not be easy if the former advisor is angry at OP's actions

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


text:
Can Google Scholar capture citations without arXiv DOI
I had a paper uploaded to arXiv. Today I noticed there are two new papers citing my paper with the correct title and author names but both without my arXiv DOI. This is because they use @misc format exported from arXiv when citing it in .bib, so arXiv DOI won't be shown in compiled PDF. Currently, Google Scholar has not counted them towards my citation. I wonder whether Google Scholar can capture these citations in the end?
By the way, I have checked that other papers cited by them has correctly gained the citations. Also, Semantic Scholar is able to get correct citation count.

Google Scholar is not necessarily the best way to know someones citations exactly. Its not rare for it to not count, or even double count references (when the article is put in two different repositories with different formats). Don't worry too much about what Google Scholar says, its just approximate.


text:
Minor Narrative Discrepancy in Submitted Paper
I recently submitted a paper and realized there is a minor discrepancy in the narrative.
I ran additonal experiments that combine my method with other approaches, showing improvements can be made. The tables in my results section clearly show that a specific method performs significantly better only when integrated with my proposed strategy. However, the text does not explicitly state this and states that my method has better performance in all cases where I did not combine my method with the others. This means I have to change one sentence in my paper.
Given that the data is accurate and the improvement can be inferred from the tables, could this narrative oversight lead to an immediate rejection? The conference does not have a revision period, only a camera-ready submission.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Edit: I do not want to ask for a change, I want to estimate my chances.
The focus of the experiment was different, and the implied results are clearly stated. I made a comparison error, which led to an incorrect conclusion about the data in one instance. However, this does not affect my proposed method.

If you are the Program Committee chair, you need to assure fairness. That can be very difficult. Once, there was a confused student who submitted an auxiliary file instead of the pdf. What should be done then? Admitting the pdf into the review process seems unfair to every one else. It is not that uncommon to be exposed to lies and minor frauds, as people can be desperate to publish and do not manage their time well. Not admitting the pdf file seems to be a harsh punishment for an understandable error. There is no good solution to the conundrum, but I in this situation decided that a clear policy without the PC making exceptions is preferable. After all, there are other conferences.
You are trying to put the PC into the same situation if you ask for the paper to be revised, only in this case, the fault is clearly your's and there were no accidents. So, asking to change the sentence is a no-go in my opinion.
Hoping that reviewers will catch the significance of an implied result is a bit forlorn. First, reviewing for a conference is done under time pressure. Reviewers just like authors do not tend to have good time management, meaning that they often do not have sufficient time to review. In my experience, I sometimes change my review after two or three days of thinking about it. In addition, reviews on your paper could be emergency reviews, where the PC recognizes that a submission is not likely to receive enough or good enough reviews. Sometimes, the PC will then try to do the review, sometimes it is time to see who the true friends of the conference are. But these reviews will by necessity be rushed. Sometimes, if there is a PC meeting, the committee decides that someone else needs to look at the paper and the person most familiar with the area volunteers and goes off to read the paper. Thus, unfortunately too often, reviewers do not or cannot give sufficient time to read a paper and might not be able to draw conclusions from your data if you have not explicitly drawn them yourself. Please remember that you, the author, are the person most familiar with the results and significance of your experiments.
So, unless you are very lucky, it is doubtful that reviewers will catch the significance of your data. Since the rules of the game are no-feedback, the mere fact that you did not see the significance of your data in the submitted version could be grounds to reject. It can be very difficult to publish a good idea twice, and a rejection can be overall better to the author.
Now, if this is a journal, things are a bit different, especially if you act quickly. Of course it reflects poorly on you if you have to ask to submit a better version of your paper, but you can admit to this and play the card of the "young, unexperienced, stupid, but rather likable newbie in the field who throws himself / herself at the mercy of the editor". In this case, if the editor decides that your work probably has merit, the editor will allow you to resubmit a better version and the only people harmed are the editorial stuff and maybe reviewers who already started reviewing.
There is another problem. When you submit to a conference, you are not supposed to change the paper substantially after acceptance. Even if it is only a single sentence, it sounds like there would be a significant change. Your's is probably a borderline case.
To summarize: You did not submit your very best paper, it is not likely that all your reviewers will recognize the significance of your results, but you might also be better off with a rejection. (And of course, it is quite possible that you and I overestimate the damage in your narrative. In this case, you will be fine.)

Thank you for your answer. No I do not want to ask for a change of the sentence. I only wanted to see if this can lead to a rejection which seems to be likely. The experiment in question is only additional material. The main results are cleary stated. In the particuIar case I failed to describe the outcome in one instance since I made a comparision error between the main results and the additional case. The difference is very little. The overall aim of the experiment was to show that my method increases performance of the others which was cleary demonstrated.


text:
University is killing my passion [for mathematics]
In high school, before having begun with a degree in mathematics, I derived pleasure from studying [mathematics]. At that time, I was naturally looking forward to university, since it meant no more subjects that I found uninteresting, such as languages, and instead complete focus on what interests me.
I am now a semester and a half into my degree, and find the passion I have once felt fading. I believe there are several reasons: I underestimated the difficulty and was ill prepared (from a 'study technique' perspective), resulting in having to catch up through only understanding things superficially (for example, skipping proofs). The situation has improved this semester, but nonetheless, I am having trouble gaining a deep understanding due to the workload being very heavy (too many courses, in my opinion), and therefore only having time to gain a broad but shallow understanding overall. I also simply find some courses to be incomprehensible and would much prefer studying the topic from a book, by myself. A major factor contributing to my sentiments is the lack of the freedom I had before, in choosing what I wanted to study and going at my pace, as well as picking the resource I liked the most. I should note that despite feeling this way in the first semester as well, I passed with satisfactory grades (above-average even, perhaps).
One potential solution I am considering is choosing several books to self study the topics covered in the courses (and hence not going to the lectures). Most professors put their lecture notes online, so I would be able to see which theorems, etc. were presented. Despite this, there is still the risk of missing out. In any case, I plan to revisit and review everything during summer holidays.
Did anyone face similar feelings during their studies (not necessarily in mathematics)? What did you do?
Edit: I am located in Central Europe. I should specify that I did not like high school math (lack of rigor). What I liked was the free time (compared to now) that I had, which provided me with the opportunity to study more advanced math on my own.

Have you discussed this with any of your professors?

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

Yours is a surprisingly common experience, so do not think there's something wrong with you.
I submit that what you are in fact disliking is not mathematics itself, but the academic structure that a higher mathematics program imposes on students.
Everything you've described suggests that if you had the option to explore at your own pace and choose the topics you want to study, that you would be far more motivated.  So it's not that you are losing your love for mathematics, or disliking particular aspects of mathematics, but rather, you are unhappy with the way it is presented, which perhaps feels rushed, unmotivating, arcane, and fraught with pressure.
My advice to you is that you don't have to become a research mathematician in order to enjoy mathematics.  For most students, it takes a certain willingness to tolerate or endure the academic structure of a degree program, irrespective of the area of study.  Few, if any, pursuits in life are completely free of struggle, disappointment, or failure.  Few allow total flexibility without consequences or sacrifices.  As such, pay attention to your tolerance level for discomfort.  I'm not saying you should accept your lot and struggle, but I'm also not saying you should do whatever you want, because disappointment is to be found with both routes.  The best way to proceed is to avail yourself of as many resources as you can:  professors, instructors, and/or research advisors; university counselors; friends and classmates; family.  Take stock of yourself.  Ask others what they think and if they might be able to help, because maybe they can provide you with tools that you might not have been aware of.
Success often involves knowing when to persist and when to change paths, and forgiving yourself when you don't know.

As someone who did a mathematics degree and can see myself in your comment, I hope I can provide some advice. I felt much like you did for the first two years of my degree: skipping proofs in a vain attempt to "keep up", relying upon old methods of study that simply did not serve higher mathematic study properly, pushing myself altogether too hard in the wrong ways and burning out. It is not a recipe for understanding, let alone mastery.
Here are the hard truths you must understand:

Mathematics is proofs. That is all it is. If you do not take the time to understand proofs, you will not understand mathematics. Skipping proofs in maths is like skipping chapters in literature. Mathematics is also a very "buildable" subject, if you miss blocks at the bottom, you will not be able to learn higher order concepts without going back.

You may currently not be at a stage of learning that's sufficient to cover everything on your courses. I wasn't. It's not that it's not understandable to you (I believe strongly in the maxim that "If someone understood it, it is understandable"); rather, you simply do not have enough time to cover all the material in the necessary depth for an exam.

So, what can you do?
Firstly: Stop skipping proofs. Your lecturers will be showing you every proof for a reason, and many of your answers will be adapted forms of proofs you have seen. You are assessed on two things: your ability to reproduce proofs you have seen (which you can't do if you skip them) and your ability to adapt proofs to new contexts (which you, repeat after me, can't do if you skip them).
Secondly: If you really don't have the mental capacity to cover everything before the exam/sheet is due, you need to learn to strategise. I took an approach of "Just learn as much as possible". Many of my courses (in my third and fourth years, once I wised up) I studied about 2/3 to 3/4 of before the exam, very few I had a good understanding of 100% of. I would create Personal Learning Checklists using the course spec and the lecture notes, and I would go beginning to end trying to understand as much as possible.
I hope this helps, but please: Don't skip proofs!

Thank you for the honest advice. I am very well aware of the importance of proofs, which is why it bothers me so much having skipped some. I plan on rereading all the ones I skipped during summer holidays.
I am curious, how many courses did you have/is it typical to have in your educational system per semester?

@RNX2D2X I am currently studying math part time which means my time is extra restricted and on top of that some material provided by my university is simply to hard to fully comprehend for undergrads. This is by design and I think its a good thing because it prepares students for "real math", i.e. reading papers. The first step is to realize that only a tiny fraction of students have an easy time fully grasping the material in the short time they are given so you are not a bad student, the material is just sufficiently rigorous.

@RNX2D2X, depends on the year at my university. first year was definitely the heaviest with 11 full courses and a couple half courses over the year (a full course being 16 lectures over 8 weeks). Second and third year were 8 full courses (there were some double courses that counted for two credits). Fourth year was also 8, but two of those credits were dissertation, so it was 6 examined full courses.

I think that "Mathematics is proofs. That is all it is." is an overstatement. I say this as someone who finished undergraduate studies very proficient in reproducing proofs but almost completely unable to calculate examples.

@LazzaroCampeotti If you came out of undergraduate studies good at proofs but bad at calculated examples, surely that implies that being good at proofs is important for undergraduate mathematics study and calculated examples... aren't? Anyway, at all points of my undergraduate degree calculated examples were practical applications of proofs.

Mathematics is proofs.  That is all it is. - While some people may agree with this, I would say proofs are just one part of mathematics.  See https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1296255/11323 for some discussion.

I agree with the statement "Mathematics is proofs" in the scope of first few years of math courses, but carefully skipping proofs is also a skill every mathematician has to learn, in my opinion. There are theorems with extremely difficult proofs that run hundreds of pages, and there are theorems with pages upon pages of straightforward, but extremely annoying proofs. Understanding a theorem and being able to reproduce the proof are correlated, but in some cases only a little. Just don't want to OP to burn out even further memorizing every single proof he encounters.

@SergeyGuminov you don't have to memorize every proof. I don't think it is even possible. Understanding it is often enough. Skipping a proof because it is too long is risky, but sometimes understandable (after all time is a limited resource). Skipping a proof because it is annoying is a straightforward bad advice. Life is annoying. If you keep avoiding annoying things you will end up like OP. You can't do maths, or anything valuable in the long term without discipline, without facing boring and annoying things.

@freakish Have you ever read mathematical research papers? Because I can confidently say that it is not only common to skip reading annoying straightforward computational proofs, it's common for authors to even skip writing them.

@SergeyGuminov yes, I do read research papers. On computer science mostly. And I don't skip "annoying" proofs. Unless I'm actually not interested in the theorem. On the contrary, I would skip an implementation, but not the proof. You could argue that on the research level it has some value (not enough time to follow everything), but at educational level this is purely bad practice.

The number of upvotes for a post claiming that "mathematics is only proofs" is disturbing.

"There is more to mathematics than just rigor and proofs" https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-mathematics-than-rigour-and-proofs/

@StanleyYaoXiao I think the number of upvotes is in part related to the accepted question, which reads like OP isn't wrong, its someone else that is wrong. While OPs question leaves open the possibility they only felt they understood the maths they self-studied and are actually suffering because they had an illusion of competence which university courses are revealing. "mathematics is only proofs" is a useful lie for someone at this stage, which will be corrected later. However, mathematics requires understanding how to do proofs (to correct your intuition).

@StanleyYaoXiao Terry Tao is not suggesting that maths ceases to be proofs at any point, just that the ultra rigorous foundations cease to be as important the higher you go. This is obvious to anyone who has struggled through first year analysis and then took all those results for granted later on. I'm not sure how people got "you have to prove everything every time and don't use intuition" from "maths is just proofs", because even where you rely more on refined intuition and less on rigour: you're still just doing proofs.

First, I agree with everything @Victoria-walker said, but I just want to add one more thing to consider.
Sometimes, what we think a subject is about at the high school level isn't what the subject is actually about when you get to the university level.
I suggest taking a step back and identifying what it was about your high school math courses that you most enjoyed, as well as what you enjoyed the least.
For example, if you enjoyed charting and graphing, analyzing data, and making inferences from it, but you hated proofs, then you would likely be happier in what we might call a "math-adjacent" discipline, such as data analytics or statistics, rather than pure mathematics.

I disliked high school math (no rigor). What I enjoyed was the free time I had, in which I could study university level math as I saw fit.

@RNX2D2X But what were you studying at that point that you're calling "university level math"?

Good question; some set theory, proof writing, and introductory real analysis.

Note: This answer was written from a U.S. college perspective, and the OP later clarified that they're in Europe with a predefined all-major courseload sequence. Nevertheless I'll leave it for those in a possibly different context.

[In high school], I was naturally looking forward to university, since
it meant no more subjects that I found uninteresting... [Now in
university] I am having trouble gaining a deep understanding due to
the workload being very heavy (too many courses, in my opinion)...

Is it possibly the case that, in your antipathy for liberal-arts subjects, you have registered for a full load of nothing but pure math courses?
If so, that's likely too many highly technical courses at once (and it's probably not what the recommended sequence for your program suggests). For my own math & computing students in the first two years (at a community college, admittedly) I usually recommend only 2 out of 5 courses in a semester to be critical-path courses in the major; maybe 3 at the most.
The first two years of an undergraduate degree are not generally supposed to be hyper-focused. Normally they're intended as a transition to a specialty, where you get an overview of many other subjects from working research professionals in the various fields. In my own case (as a math & philosophy major), I was delighted to be able to survey as many different subjects as I had time for.
If you're finding that the current load isn't working for you, then consider if you can and should reduce the number of technical courses you're taking at once.

I should have specified that I am from Europe. For the first two years, the program is pre-specified. As an example, our first semester consisted of Analysis 1, Linear Algebra 1, Group Theory (included proof writing), Computer Science, and Mechanics.

I don't think this answer works in Central Europe.  We don't have much choice in courses and it is unusual or even impossible to choose courses that don't fit in the core topic of the major (I did a course in graph theory while studying applied physics, and this was questioned; non-scientific courses would not be recognised).

I do think it works, at least in Germany. Yes, there are courses that you are required to take in the first few semesters, but you could still choose one or two of those and just do them one year later. Actually, that was very normal at my university because the workload was too high otherwise.

@Trunk: In the U.S., usually about half of the first two years of college credits are required to be outside the major, called "core curriculum" or "general education". You can see discussions of that for elite colleges like Harvard and Columbia.

In my experience in central europe, the first two years of university are very generic. For instance, students who will major in physics, maths, or computer science, are all mixed together in year 1; then they have to focus mostly on two of these three majors in year 2; and only in year 3 they have to focus on one major.

While, yes, "math is proofs" is partially correct, it is indeed also about phenomena, and our narrative(s) about them.
And, yes, the compulsion to formalize/administratize education leads to many dubious situations... where interesting subjects turn into formalized gauntlets to be run ... and for realistic success we have to figure out how to cope with this.
Not liking, or feeling oppressed by, much of the high-school or lower-division undergrad math in the U.S., is actually a positive in any test for mathematical sense, in my opinion.
For that matter, in my observation, "proofs" are introduced at a point where the facts in dispute are physically obvious (!), and, thus, the seeming demand for "proofs" is obviously perverse... so, seeing it as perverse is sane. Accepting it is, I think, at best a willingness to take on some crazy game, because it might be an adventure.
I do think there are many ways to feel sympathetic/interested in mathematics. The pretended pure/applied distinction is pretty dumb, but lots of people self-identify by one of those two labels, so they'll not be gone any time soon.
While you are young, you should study what you want, and not worry (yet) about what other people will think. For one thing, much of the internet-"information" is significantly flawed... AND, more seriously, your own understanding of the meaning(s) of what is said is seriously limited.
So, really, follow_your_interests, and don't try to second-guess yourself. Try to avoid squandering energy on worrying about "how to succeed". In the current U.S., you have plenty of room to try things that do not really succeed, and, then, try again, ...

@Trunk, yes, partly that: don't "force yourself" to study... Forced study is like "forced feeding"...

I absolutely loved math in high school. I did all the math competitions, took multivariable calculus and  differential equations from a local college since I'd finished all the math courses my high school offered.
Then I got to college and took a course called "Math from a mathematicians perspective." It was all about proofs, and I thought it was the most useless thing in the world. I dropped my math major and switched to engineering.
While I don't really regret my choice, as I ended up loving engineering, I have come to love proofs and think that if I'd stuck with the program I would have been fine after understanding the beauty and usefulness of proofs. For me, my love of math came from being able to discover new and useful things and really get an intuitive understanding of how things fit together. Proofs just seemed like some rules you could follow if you didn't really understand something to still end up with the right answer.
Well, now I've come to understand that being able to be sure of your answer even without an intuition about it is extremely powerful. It can even help shape and improve your intuition, allowing you to really understand concepts that might formerly have been beyond your capabilities.
In terms of what you can do about struggling with following lectures an understanding everything fast enough, there's a few things I'd suggest. First as others have recommended, you need to find a resource that helps you get proofs and hopefully get a really good grasp on them over the summer.
Second, you already mentioned that it seems like the course load is too heavy. It might be worth it to see if you can lighten it, maybe plan to take an extra semester or two. If you can build a solid base of these new topics now, it'll really help with your speed of understanding things later. If it's solid enough you might be able to catch up.
Lastly, I'd try to evaluate what study techniques really help you get it the quickest. I know the way I learn best is by trying to explain the topic to somebody else, it helps me break it down into simple digestible chunks and helps me identify the areas that I don't really know that well because I can't explain them. That might not be your jam, but it's worth trying out some different things to see what might help.

You say that your experience is killing your passion for mathematics, but the fact that you long for the time to study mathematics on your own makes me suspect that something else is happening instead. Some theories that you can ponder:

Maybe your university experience is killing your passion for school (which is different from killing your passion for learning).
Maybe the legitimately higher workload, expectations, and stress of university are dampening your feelings of enjoyment in general (rather than specifically for mathematics).
Maybe you, like so many strong students, were able to coast a fair bit in high school and enjoy the win-win experience of academic success without having to try too hard or structure your time too consciously. Like most students, you're not experiencing that in university (you yourself mention a lack of study technique for example). Maybe part of your high-school passion was in fact an enjoyment of the ease and freedom of learning (and if so, it's perfectly natural to not be experiencing that in the current situation). But if so, it doesn't necessarily mean that your enjoyment of mathematics itself is any less—it's just that it's no longer augmented by the satisfying feeling of stress-free progress.

No matter what, definitely keep experimenting with ways to optimize your learning and your subjective appreciation of your chosen subjects!

I also simply find some courses to be incomprehensible and would much prefer studying the topic from a book, by myself.
To me, this is possibly the most important part of your story.
For whatever reason, in academic settings on both sides of the Atlantic the belief has settled in that the best way to learn math is by listening to lectures.  This is true at both the university level, and at the elementary and secondary level - you learn math by listening to a teacher or professor and watching them write on a board.  Other subjects, like history, you might learn by reading a book - but math you learn by listening.
But in my experience, lectures are a terrible way to learn math, because the best lecturer will not be as precise or as clear as a textbook covering the same topic.  And math has to be learned precisely, or it will either be incredibly difficult to learn, or won't be learned at all.  I found math much easier to learn once I decided to essentially ignore the teacher or professor and learn directly from the associated text.  Instead of "listen to me in class, and then open your book and do the problems on page 19" I decided to read pages 1-18 and then do the problems on page 19.  Once I did that, concepts that seemed difficult or obscure became almost easy.
Text is a vastly better educational tool than speech.  Find books that will teach you what you aren't learning in class, and work independently from those texts.

This approach got me through an undergraduate program in math very successfully, but then pretty much crashed and burned in a graduate program. I was in kind of bad shape not having the tools to get help from professors and other grad students at that point. And the texts were arguably not as carefully written (with key insights "hidden" in parts of the problem sets, etc.)

Keep in mind that for some classes there is no "associated text" available, or the text does not cover all the relevant material. This was the case for over 90% of  math classes that I took.

For whatever reason, in academic settings on both sides of the Atlantic the belief has settled in that the best way to learn math is by listening to lectures. --- For what it's worth, my recollection is that once reaching upper undergraduate level and definitely graduate level (U.S. perspective), lectures tended to be an overview of what you needed to carefully go back over on your own and/or with classmates (class notes, the textbook, related books from the library or elsewhere, etc.), with various guidance, tips, judgements, etc. thrown in, and maybe some missing steps in a text's proof.

Wish I could accept multiple answers.

This is natural and can happen to anyone. It also happened to me in my undergraduate courses. And even after that, when my major was geometry and I was studying logic something like a minor at the same time.
I think if one loves maths, one can fight the difficult situation and change the situation to some extent. Also, pay attention to one point, you have to go through the defined path of the system to get the documents and grades, While trying to improve the situation at the same time. (If you think that this compulsion to endure educational systems is a part of your mathematical path, the difficulty will be easier for you)
What do I mean by improving conditions? It is to follow the topics you are interested in. Choose the sources, textbooks and papers you like and immerse yourself in them. Search for lectures and seminars related to your favorite topics and participate in them. Study the papers and think about their concepts for hours or even days. You can send an email and ask the authors your questions. In short, study maths and enjoy.

There are subjectt student and professor combinations that make it just a better option to self-study
I am not in mathematics but computer science but there is a reason why reasonable universities to not require attendance for non-seminar courses.
Because nobody cares how you learn (and as opposed to high school you're likely old enough to learn by yourself).
So - if you have the discipline - absolutely do stay home and self study. Mathematics is especially well suited for this because - as opposed to soft sciences for example - there is far less ambiguity so it matters less "from whom" you learn.
I'd recommend going to all classes in the opening week to check out if there is a professor-class combination which style you like (and to keep somewhat in touch with uni life and to socialize) and stick to visiting one or two of the better ones, but don't force yourself to sit in classes where you know you'd be more efficient while self-teaching from books.
There is a reason why most professors present recommended literature in their opening lecture. It is to encourage self-study.

I plan on doing exactly this the next semester.

I had a somewhat similar experience, though almost inverted. I started at university planning to study computer science, found it was not what I wanted and ended up switching to pure/theoretical mathematics, after passing through a stint in philosophy and another stint in physics.
Everyone is different, and my experiences were in the USA, I'm not sure how different your country is. But I would suggest there were a couple of things that worked for me and might work for you:
Be open to exploring other topics. I wound up in pure mathematics as an undergrad, but I formally changed my major three times as an undergrad before graduating with pure mathematics. I then started a masters in theoretical math and wound up transferring to law school. You do need to eventually pick something to focus on, but at least in the USA the first year or two of university are often viewed as being for exploration of topics with specialization coming later.
Consider seeking tutoring or even remedial classes if needed Many subjects build on prior knowledge and coming into some subjects without the right background knowledge can be hard. While this applies in varying degrees to most subjects, it probably applies more to math than most other subjects. A tutor or even remedial classes can be very helpful if you feel you are behind. If those aren't available, then study groups can be very helpful. I wouldn't have passed Abstract Algebra without my study group.
Remember that it is hard for (almost) everyone. College is not meant to be easy. It is not at all uncommon to find the transition difficult. This applies to all subjects, though I would submit it may be more true in math and math intensive fields like physics than most fields. Don't be discouraged by the fact that adjustment may be necessary or that it feels much harder than high school. (Almost) everyone goes through that to varying degrees.

University math is not for everybody -- to make an analogy, as much as I enjoy cooking, I would rather progress as a home cook at my own pace than enroll in cooking school and start getting tested on French technique. One path is naturally self-motivating, the other, you have to generate your own motivation (other than "it'll all be worth it after four years!") lest you burn out. Both are valid options depending on what you want from your life and how fast you want it.
But given that you've chosen the latter path, maybe the following may help:

Behind all the proofs and exercises and tests, the professors are trying to teach you something profound about mathematics, but this doesn't always work so well. For example, group theory arose out of a long history of  motivated and interesting problems, so by starting with modern group theory we are teaching it "backwards", giving undergrads all the machinery without any of the motivation. What may make it more interesting is by taking a more curious approach to it, asking questions of the text and theory, actively seeking intuition behind concepts. A Terry Tao article on this
However, this isn't always advisable with your limited time and substantial course load. Many times you'll have to make do with "understanding things superficially" and memorizing things, and do what you can to pass the class, and the intuition and understanding will follow as you develop mathematical maturity. You should not feel guilty or discouraged about this. For example, linear algebra didn't really "click" for me until two years after I took it, although I did well in the class. By remembering more from the class two years prior, even superficially, I had more to draw from and understand down the line.

Lastly, I would recommend How to Study as a Mathematics Major by Lara Alcock to add to your reading list...

"For example, linear algebra didn't really "click" for me until two years after I took it, although I did well in the class."
Very reassuring.

Yep! To get on my soapbox a little bit: and as a general principle very few things (since high school) have made perfect sense and step-by-step clarity to me, not like working through your set theory and analysis books might suggest. Sure, there are the rare times when the teaching style/material/background knowledge align (or when it's too easy) such that the learning feels lucid and predictable. But I strongly believe long-term success comes from learning to deal with confusion and uncertainty and forging ahead anyways. Arguably, you are learning more in these states...

This is my story, except I studied physics and I was more frustrated and disappointed. The only thing the kept me going was my insane amount of passion and love for Physics. I had issue with the pedagogical methods, altogether.
What you need right now is a little bit more patience. After two or maybe three year, you'll see things will start to change.

Sincerely, that's the most common story when you talk with students of any engineering and technology school. Unfortunately...
I was even a fierce competitor of those math/physics events back on school days, but as soon as I got into university, I practically developed a trauma of math for several reasons...
I also noticed that typical in-campus life made me kind of dislike being in front of a computer for long hours, since I worked/studied on it - and that's a serious thing for someone who left medical school for tech/eng for loving so much computers/technology.
It was a completely different experience when I started my postgrad fully online. I felt I was really getting useful information and learning the right way, on my own pace, without having to rush to write down my notes and follow up with a human teacher who didn't even care who was attending or understanding the classes at all.
Since you're in Europe, I recommend you looking for universities (specially German ones) that have an interactive & asynchronous online program and that matches your interests, and check if it's worth switching to it.
Step back and look at your situation from a wider angle.
Just think about all the bad professionals (including teachers) you have encountered on life... do you want to become one of them?
Forcing yourself to keep up with a bad situation just because others make you believe you have no choice.. it's just postponing the inevitable...
Do yourself a favor: take a deep breathe and think about the future you that's gonna make you proud of yourself and happier in your life.

I'll tell you my own tale.  Loved math in high school.  Did fantastically well, top of my class, great grades on AP tests, etc.  Everyone thought I'd end up as a professor.  Got to college for an engineering degree and skipped some of the early math classes due to my AP scores.  That was a huge mistake.  I got dropped into courses that I just never totally understood.  I spent the semester floundering, never really understanding the math, just memorizing how to apply it.  I got good grades, but I dreaded every test.  Then I got to the next semester, and my lack of foundation caused me to again flounder.  That continued throughout my education as math is pretty fundamental to an engineering education.  I took to the practical aspects of engineering, and finally graduated, but I look back thinking I likely should have been more theoretical except for what happened that first semester in math.  30 years later I still regret it.
I'd suggest talking to your professors ASAP.  I don't think this is unusual either.  Maybe taking a semester off where you can just go back and audit the early courses, and read on your own.  It may feel like giving up a year or a semester is an abject failure, but it's not.  Good luck...

This sounds similar to my experience studying Biochemistry and it mirrors most STEM fields, although mathematics is a special case.
When the material seems perplexing, baffling and frustrating, that is when most learning can happen. I would say don't give up. It is true the workload in university is a lot more than at school and it always rely of self study. It is so by design, you have to discover how to organise your time to achieve what you want to achieve there. Also mathematics is a subject that is painful until you reach the higher levels when you master particular techniques. Until you learn those techniques it seems difficult but once you learn them you open up a method for solving a new array of problems.
Finally, I don't think that many academic mathematicians make novel contributions to all fields of mathematics. You will in time specialise and focus on what seems interesting to you.

I suppose people enroll in universities for various reasons, but if one of them is the expectation that it would enable them to learn something they want to, then in the event that someone does not find universities productive or amenable to learning, a natural conclusion would be to focus on more effective learning strategies (for them).
Therefore, one suggestion would be exiting university, if you don’t find it useful.

My personal experience with university, is that you have a choice between learning a subject, and getting good grades, but you can't do both. If you want to learn, you study all the proofs, and try to carefully understand all the axioms and main theorems. If you want to get a good grade, you look up solved previous year tests and assignments, and memorize the way problems are solved. If you have an average university workload, you're unlikely to have time for both, and even if you did, the two would be fighting for space in your head as well.
Another thing that may just be my personal opinion, is the sense that math is "taught backwards". You first learn practical models like natural numbers, arithmetic operations, real numbers, etc, and then gradually generalize up to groups and fields. It initially seems to make sense to not start with concepts too abstract. But somewhere in between, you go through things like path integrals over complex functions, where it no longer makes any sense without having the concept of groups and fields to even understand why complex numbers need to exist.
As a specific example, I personally found topology, with just a handful of axioms/definitions, a lot easier to learn and understand than calculus. Building up from axioms also makes it easier to make (and interpret) formal proofs with a lot less handwaving, and potentially with no natural-language text at all. I feel like most of the so-called "introductory" academic courses horribly underestimate how much of modern math is built on top of Bertrand Russell et al's creation of formal logic.
If you're interested in keeping your love for mathematics, and keep expanding your knowledge in it, the only solution for it that I'm aware of, is to turn to non-academic resources. You can often get a much clearer view of mathematical topics, their implications, and relevant proof, from resources like Wikipedia, Wolfram MathWorld, or Brilliant.
If I had to point out a difference, is that such resources are designed to teach you, while academics are designed to grade/filter you. Academics can gain prestige (sense of exclusivity) and money (stay and pay for another year) by failing you. Learning resources do not. Even with paid resources, if you're not enjoying yourself, or feel like you're not learning anything new, you'd simply unsubscribe.


text:
How to cite a technical report for a double blind review process?
Some conferences follow the double-blind review process. As such, you cannot reveal your identity to the reviewers. Further, these conferences restrict the number of pages, say to at most 8 pages.
I am facing the following problem: I would like to submit a paper to some of these conferences but I have a paper that is 10-pages long; containing 2 pages of appendices (proofs). I am thinking to write a technical report and put these appendices in it. So now I have the paper to submit (8 pages) which of course cites the technical report (10 pages). How can I cite the technical report to not violate the double-blind review process?

The best thing for you to do is contact the individual venues and ask what their preferences are. Some venues allow you to submit auxiliary documentation and data, which would be a good way to handle this.

I hate to suggest it here, but in some ways your best option is to work to rewrite the paper within the page limits. It can be a difficult task to use fewer words without losing meaning, but it is part of the history of good writing to work at that. George Bernard Shaw famously said "I'm sorry this letter is so long, I didn't have time to make it shorter."
Mathematical proofs, if that is what it is, can often be shortened, especially if the techniques are standard and the audience is sophisticated.
But the prose in the other ten pages may be more amenable to reworking.
If you can do it the reviewers will be happier as will the rest of your audience.

That wasn't the case here though, @user49915. It was shortening by a couple of pages. On the other hand, reviewers expecting an 8 page paper aren't going to be all that happy when the "real" thing is 53 pages. Easy reject, I think. They would just suggest a more suitable venue.


text:
Is it a good idea to protest for a paper rejection?
Say that you submitted a journal paper and after some time you received a rejection. The comments of the reviewers were not that bad. Some of them are demanding minor revisions, some are demanding major revisions. The Editor however rejected the paper saying that the proposed model is unrealistic.
Is it a good idea to send an email and protest for such decision?

The best advice.  When your paper is rejected, submit it to a different journal.

Before you protest, you should decide what, if anything, you want to accomplish. If you improve the paper and resubmit it your protest won't have counted for much, and you need to improve it anyway because of the reviewer comments. But the editor has questioned the underlying model, so this may be the wrong venue for publishing this work.
I suggest you think about the editors comments, improve the paper with the reviewer comments in mind and either resubmit or submit elsewhere. The last option may be best.


text:
Change an equation during the proofing stage of an accepted paper
I am quite new in the world of the scientific publications, and I am worried about the following issue: I recently got an accepted paper in an IEEE journal. Now, the editors sent me the proof for the final pubblication and, by carrefully reading the paper, I noticed a minor typo in an equation: indeed, I put \min instead of \max in writing an optimization problem. However, the remaining derivations are correct.
The error does not affect the conclusion of the manuscript, and it has not been noticed by the reviewers. Can the error be fixed in the proofing stage or is it necessary another peer-review round?

Related: How to correct errors in proofs of an accepted paper

This kind of typo is usually absolutely fixable in the proof stage. Just point it out like any other typo.
Good on you to read your proofs carefully enough to find it!

Absolutely yes. Even if it was a larger mistake, by all means publications should be as correct as possible. Your "goal" is to make literature that is good and useful.
Of course, the paper should still be the one you submitted, your changes shouldn't affect the result you proposed, and any relevant change should be commented so the editors can double check them and get back to you if they have doubts.

I agree with "as correct as possible", but any substantial correction needs to be re-reviewed. A minor typo as OP's is fine, but it would be important to make clear that this is not a blank check to do major fixes at proofreading stage.

I underlined this a bit better, and also yes, this is why you notify the editor, so they can decide whether more review is necessary

With the change, upvoted, thanks.

As mentioned by others, just point it out in the proofs as any other typo. In this particular case, since it's in an equation I would add an explanatory comment in the proofs (or if that is not possible an e-mail to the production department AND the editor - not that it's very well possible that the editor is out of the loop at this moment, so take care to include both - explaining that your calculations used the right equation and that it really just is a typing error (if that's the case, of course).


text:
Undergraduates Mathematics Research Paper and Future Path
I am a third-year mathematics student at University in Malaysia, which is ranked between 350-400 in the QS World University Rankings. I plan to continue master study, but when I checked the requirement for master's programs, I found that some schools require research experience. In my understanding, this means that I need to publish a research paper. I was very confused. My CGPA is currently 3.15/4.0. I was not a genius, but I work very hard in my studies. However, when I see the research experience requirement, I feel like very nervous. I don't know how to start a research project or how to publish a research paper. I have asked my professors, and they told me that published a research paper when undergraduates study is not an easy job.
My questions are:

If my undergraduate university's QS ranking is not so high, does it mean I won't be able to get into a good university for a math master's degree?

How can I start to write a research paper?

I am currently working on my thesis, which is on fuzzy topological spaces. I really enjoy this topic. I asked my supervisor if I could use my thesis to publish a research paper, but he said my work is too easy and have a low chance to be published. Can anyone give me some advice?

Thanks everyone.

No, you do not need to publish a paper.

Could you specify whether you would like to get your Master degree also at a university in Malaysia or in another country?

@JochenGlueck Thanks for answering. I am planning to apply NUS (National University of Singapore). Since my university is near China and Australia, I also plan to apply university in both countries. Currently I didn't consider continue study at Malaysia. If in US or Europe, the tuition fee and living cost will be bit high for me so unless I can get a scholarship then I will go there.

I'm a PhD student in the UK so there may be cultural differences here. If you haven't already asked your supervisor about the research experience requirement and how people normally meet it then that should be your first step.
Research experience doesn't necessarily mean publishing a paper, and you certainly wouldn't be expected to be publishing independently at this stage. Ask your supervisor or another professor whose work you are interested in if they have a project you might be able to assist with to gain some research experience. For example, I am in Computer Science and we have undergraduates help with small pieces of programming in ongoing research projects. They will be more likely to accept if you can make it seem like an offer that will help them rather than additional work for them, and they will also be more likely to accept if they already know you to be reliable and easy to communicate with.
I suggest sending a polite email saying you're looking to gain some research experience, your particular strengths are x and y, you can commit up to z hours a week for the next however many weeks, and do they have any projects you may be able to assist with. I would only email one person and wait until they accept or reject, as if you email multiple people, two accept, and then you back out, this will be annoying to them. Give whoever you email a week or two to respond, and send at most one follow up email if you get no response. If you don't get a response after a couple of weeks I would consider that to be a rejection.

Thank you for your answer, it helps me a lot.


text:
Who has "decision-authority" about paper content: First author or the co-author with the higher academic rank?
When co-authoring a scientific paper, content-related disagreements often arise (e.g., which sections should be omitted due to space constraints). My question is: Who typically has the final "decision-making authority" in such cases—the first author (the one who has invested the most ideas, time and expertise) or the person with the higher academic rank (e.g., the PhD advisor)?
EDIT: Most voted answer so far "how they reach a compromise if there is no genuine agreement is up to the team" is self-evident and very general in a idealized setting. My question is if there is any "unwritten rule" or best practices in the real word ;-) It is also not about "formal" rules or "veto right" just about common academic practice.

It depends on the field. If you do independent research collaborating with your advisor, then you must reach a compromise. If you work in a field, as I do, where papers are products of the research group, and the head of the group is the advisor, then they ultimately have the say because they are responsible for their group's product.

No, there is no unwritten rule. People find their own way through these disagreements. In the background, though, there is this: if it comes to a showdown in a disagreement between a student and advisor, the advisor holds all the cards — the student needs the paper more than the advisor does.

@zx the most up voted answer is not an idealistic utopy but it's actually the almost-written academic standard, and the correct answer to your question. If any of the authors does not agree with the content of the paper, the paper should not be submitted. A single author can request that a paper is retracted. or that his name is removed from the contributors.

Other comments and answers seem to focus on academic practice so far, but from a legal point of view, it would depend on the jurisdiction and the circumstances (though I suspect that in most places, it would be illegal for any of the authors to publish the paper without agreement from the other). This would be more a question for https://law.stackexchange.com if you're interested in this angle.

You got the answer to the question you asked about "decision authority", and the answer you got is about the common academic practice: agreement among authors is the standard.
Everything else is about how that agreement is reached, and that is going to depend on the specific circumstances and the personalities involved. Advisors somewhat definitionally have more experience and so their students may defer to them; on the other hand, students may have more in-depth knowledge about the specific subject and are closer to the work so their advisor may defer to them. In either case, the best result is going to be one where the people disagreeing make their relative cases and some agreement can be reached. How stubborn each party might be should depend on the circumstances, as well: for example, is some omission unethical (for example, it misleads readers about how the work was conducted) or merely not strategically ideal (for example, less likely to be accepted by peer reviewers)?
If either party backs away prematurely and does not make their case to their coauthors because of some perceived "this is the unwritten rule", they're doing a disservice to those coauthors.
Similarly, any advisor who makes it impossible for their students to bring up these sorts of concerns and make their case is doing their students a disservice.

All authors have power of veto: if they can’t reach an agreement, the paper should not be submitted. How they reach a compromise if there is no genuine agreement is up to the team and in practise, depends on internal politics.

Even more, if you believe you can and should invoke some formal "ruling" to resolve a dispute with your academic supervisor you have much bigger fish to fry than whether to drop this or that other section from your manuscript.

Since unanimity is required, the answer to the question is "all of them". The consequence is that no unanimity means no paper.

@MaartenBuis True; although it costs a poor postdoc’s years of hardwork to get trashed just like that (just a personal experience) :)

Absolutely.  It's in no author's best interest to have a (legitimate) paper go unpublished

Of course officially it is all authors must agree. The question is, lets say it is you (the proverbial you) the PhD student or postdoc vs me the corresponding author faculty. Who loses at a stalemate? I have my PhD, and tenure, and many papers, and control over who gets paid off grants (if you are holding grant-related work hostage it is well within my rights to move the funding to someone else). That is not to say I would do this, nor have I had to, but it it something to keep in mind as you navigate an amicable outcome in publishing discussions (lets avoid disputes as that is negative).

@R1NaNo One of my students once insisted on getting his own way on a paper. It was his way or no paper, against a high ranking prof. In the end, he won. It helped that he won against one of my lab's collaborators (who, funnily enough we no longer collaborate with), rather than me, but still.

@R1NaNo I don't think it is about "winning" but about "convincing". In practice, the tenured full prof will generally "win" because they've got the experience what works and what doesn't. Their argument should generally carry more weight. It is, however, on them to explain the argument in a way that helps the others understand why their position is right.

This is not always true, particularly in large collaborations (e.g. LHC, anything with a spacecraft). In those cases, authors have the right not to have their name on a collaboration paper. This isn't always due to disputes: some members sign all the papers they are entitled to, some may only sign the papers they have direct participation or knowledge about.

@R1NaNo Who loses at a stalemate? Everybody loses, nobody wins, if there is a slatemate. Best case scenario, you publish a paper and ruin the relationships with all your collaborators.


text:
Citing specific R functions in publications?
I'm wondering how common (or uncommon) it is to cite R functions in publications. E.g. to write in a manuscript something like:

We used the 'X' function from the 'Y' package version 0.2.0 [@ref] to compute...

Where @ref points out to the actual package, not the function cited.
Most of the time, citing the package is enough, especially when also sharing the code to reproduce the analyses. In some cases, there might be functions that do things in a very specific way or multiple functions that do similar things but slightly differently though, and mentioning the exact function could make sense. I don't necessarily have a good example in mind but is it recommended to cite a specific function along with the package in this case? Do people advise against it? Is it something that you see being done in your field?
For the full context: I've many packages to cite in the project I'm working on so I made a tiny R package to automatize this process in Quarto and R Markdown. I initially implemented a way to cite any R object (e.g. function, data set, etc.) from a particular package. E.g. using fun(foo) cites the foo package when fun(foo::bar, type = "function") cites the bar function from the foo package. I'm planning on releasing the package soon and I'm now unsure if I should keep this functionality or not. When citing an R object, the package will check that the object actually exists in the corresponding package and add a preformatted string before the package citation, e.g. the 'X' function from or the 'Y' data set from. This is a cheap implementation but that could also easily be done manually so I'm trying to figure out how useful that would be in practice given that most objects used from a package are functions.

What field? Norms vary.

@Azor Ahai My field is Ecology. I've seen some rather rare mention of functions in the methods section, more often in theses than actual publications though. The field doesn't matter much since the package could be use by anyone. I'm rather trying to get an idea if citing functions is actually a thing.

The answer to your question "I'm wondering how common (or uncommon) it is to cite R functions in publications" is almost certainly field-dependent (everything is). Should everyone be? Probably, but I can't speak to fields besides my own.

Of course it's field-dependend but I'm mostly interested in what happens in your field rather than figuring out which field does it or not.

I'm not sure what the difference is between 'I'm interested in what happens in your field" vs. "figuring out which field does it or not"

I'm a fellow ecologist and do a lot of software dev, including working on/publishing R packages. It's definitely seen as acceptable in this field to include the names of functions in the manuscript, at least acceptable enough that I occasionally run across it. But I think it should be avoided in most cases. Here's my thoughts on it:

In the manuscript, you should cite the package and describe the analysis or data processing you're doing anyway. That description should already encompass whatever the functions are doing. Telling your readers what function you are using is just redundant and wastes your word count.
The complete code should ideally always be included in the SI. Writing function names in the main text is redundant with that.
It puts you in the position of now deciding what functions are important enough to include and what functions should be excluded.
The behavior of many functions can vary greatly depending on the specific inputs. Just providing a name might be meaningless without a lot more details.
The behavior of functions can change or become deprecated in the future. Citing the package version number does cover that, but not including the function name limits any effect it might have to just the SI.
Many people might be interested in the overall results and methodology of your paper but not use your particular programming language. Citing functions wastes their time/mental energy when reading. Sure, maybe not a lot if you cite one or two functions, but if you cite dozens of functions for a particularly complex analysis... Citing the packages is enough to tell someone if going to the SI will be useful for them.

The short version is that it's often redundant and has no real upside over just having the complete code in the SI.
When do I think it's a good idea to include them? There are a couple of situations I can think of off the top of my head:

Publishing a package. Here, the manuscript is about the package itself. Describing features and workflows could very well be aided by the inclusion of function names
Publishing a manuscript documenting or exploring some aspect of a package. For example, a popular package may have a bug in a function and someone might want to write a manuscript documenting the bug and how prior work has been impacted by it. Or maybe someone developed a new algorithm and wants to compare it to existing implementations.

The key point with these is that the function names aren't just being included; something about their specific functionality is important enough to write a manuscript about it.

Thanks for your detailed input. I agree with you and the more I think about it the more I feel like citing functions is unnecessary. You made some good points with publishing a package in a journal or book. My package wouldn't be useful in that case though, because I designed it to mention a particular function together with the package citation which would be redundant. I've just put the package online here if you're interested. I'll remove the functionality to cite a function/object from a package soon.

Based upon you this comments, "I've many packages to cite in the project I'm working on so I made a tiny R package to automatize this process in Quarto and R Markdown", you might be going into the details too much.
Instead of citing all functions, I do something like:

We fit a dose-response curve using the drm function from the drc package (Ritz et al. 2015) and plotted data with the ggplot2 package(Wickham 2009) using R version 4.4.1 (R Core Team 2024). A supplement contains key model outputs and all R package version details (Supplement 1).

Then, I use a Quarto documents to render a PDF with my figures and models and include a print(sessionInfo()) to document my exact work environment for reproducibility.

Even ggplot2 is probably overkill.

Yes, that's more or less what I do too. Just to make it clear, when I say citing functions, I don't mean citing all functions, just very specific ones like drm in your example. Is it something you see regularly?

@Azor Ahai In theory you should cite all the packages used to produce the results presented in a manuscript, this includes packages to make figures. It doesn't have to be in main text but at least in the appendix. If using multiple packages from the tidyverse, the developers recommend to cite tidyverse rather than each individual package though.

@AzorAhai-him- far enough. The supplement with the all the packages is key. I have a collaborator who once had to recreate his environment and discovered in hindsight there was only a 2-3 month period when all of packages worked together on CRAN!

@AzorAhai-him- I do think it's common that citing packages for plotting and table formatting, data cleaning, loading files, and other related utilities is often left out of citation, and honestly I don't do a great job myself of comprehensively citing outside of references in the code itself, but there's some argument to be made that citation is academic currency and the creators of those packages deserve some of that currency, too.

All reasonable perspectives; I operate on the principle that the scientific bits should be cited, but that tidying and plotting lies outside of that, in the same way we don't cite the databases our data is stored in pre-analysis (at least, I've never seen that). Do the developers of mutate need citations to get tenure? | Second, methods sections would be very bogged down in irrelevant info if every package is included.

@AzorAhai-him- Look at the author list for https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01686 for example - many are/were students and academics at various levels. Some may need citations for tenure, others may need citations for the job market. Hopefully in the departments they would be applying to their software package would be sufficiently well-known that it's not as important, but not all packages are equally famous.

I don't think the ggplot2 is overkill. When you get started with stuff like this and want to learn and reproduce, the more detail someone left for you the better...

@BioBrains While an admirable goal, I don't think every paper needs to be an introductory guide to the field. We stopped citing the idea of a linear regression a long time ago, for example.

When giving a reference for an R function or package, you should cite the package, and use the citation function to find how the package author wants you to cite it. For example
citation("mgcv")

This might just give the CRAN page, or it might give a journal article, or several things.
So your suggestion

We used the 'X' function from the 'Y' package version 0.2.0 [@ref] to compute...

is good, if ref points to the package information as specified in the output from citation.

I cannot answer for R specifically as I have little experience with the citation, but I'll provide an answer with a general point of view.
But generally, if you are using a particular function, formula, algorithm, results, .... from a particular paper, you include a reference to the paper, and then when you cite it you say "We used formula X [1] to do whatever".
So your suggestion of

We used the 'X' function from the 'Y' package version 0.2.0 [@ref] to compute...

is perfectly fine when used in the text. You still want to have the "normal" reference to the whole package. You do not want your reference to point only to the function.

Yep I think that makes sense although when using a formula or method from another paper I mostly see something like we calculated X as described in paper Y. Similar to just citing a package and then let the reader find out how it was done in more details. Yes the reference points out to the package not the function. I'll edit my post to make it more clear.

@arangaca Citing only the general paper is probably more up to lazyness (I read that somewhere in there but I can't be bothered to look up where exactly). I doubt any reader would be annoyed by a more precise reference unless it makes the text less readable.

The aim of a citation is to communicate exactly what was done, with the goal of reproducibility. This means providing the code, and ideally, a reference to the environment.
I'd cite any relevant package, to be fair to the authors, but
I'd go down to the function level in two cases:

A specific function is at the core of your analysis, and it is conceivable that there are bugs. Something that exports to csv or manipulates arrays doesn't need it; a non-trivial optimisation algorithm may.
When the choice of algorithm is important. Sorting an array doesn't (in most cases), because all algorithms will give the same result; but finding peaks does, because there are many non-equivalent ways of doing it.


text:
Cite in two different ways in same paper?
Can I cite in two different ways in the same paper? Is this considered appropiate?
Example.

It was first shown in Heston (1949) that the model is complete. An easier proof can be found in [5].

You should stick to one citation style in one document. But mentioning author names or publication dates in the text while using a numbered citation style is no problem:

It was first shown by Heston in 1949 that the model is complete [4]. An easier proof can be found in [5].

Note that text should still make sense if the references are removed. So, it would be better to say something like "...is complete [4]; an easier proof of this fact was later developed [5]."

No, you should be consistent.
One exception:  When using superscript in-text citation, when you use the citation as part of a sentence, it is no longer a superscript.
Example:  It was shown that the model is complete.1  An easier proof can be found in Ref. 2.

I've never seen it written this way.  Usually citations-as-text with this referencing system do include author names with the superscript.  See here for example: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/5/e010253.full "Hyndman et al^6 conducted a study..."

@Earlien Author names are very rare in physical sciences.

There is nothing in the OP's question to suggest this is about the physical sciences.  My comment is not limited to a specific field, but is a summary of the Vancouver style guide for this situation.

@Earlien All I'm saying is that your comment is limited to some range of fields which are not ones I usually work with.

My comment is limited to the scope of the question as posed by the OP, which is the Vancouver style. Whether that has limited usage across research fields or not is hardly relevant.

@Earlien The question says nothing about Vancouver.


text:
What to do if I can't find the book of this chapter I found so I can cite it?
So I've found a .pdf file that is apparently a chapter of a book and I can't see any information about the book whatsoever aside from its title and the number of the chapter. I've tried entering a sentence from the chapter on google books and found 0 resemblance from the results that came up. Here's is the file :
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/864/10/10_chapter%203.pdf
One thing is that I've found out that the file came from an Indian research database website but I've also tried searching for keywords from the file on the site and found nothing either. Considering the citation from the chapter, it's made around early 2000's. Are there any other ways to find the source of this chapter?

It is chapter 3 of the following thesis:
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/864
Title: Economics of solid waste management in Calicut corporation

This has provided the OP with the source, but is unlikely to be helpful to other readers when faced with a similar problem or to the OP should the problem arise again. Could you perhaps revise your answer to make if more broadly useful/applicable?


text:
Writing a thesis about a software project
I am currently writing a thesis that is meant to revolve around an experimental software implementation I am also working on. I usually think of theses as being scientific in some way, but there is limited experimentation I can do with my project. I know I can contribute are my observations on how this software was built and what its prowess are and what it limitations are, but I want to avoid it sounding like an infomercial. How should I approach writing a thesis like this?

Look at the marking criteria (and tailor your thesis to satisfy that criteria).

Start by talking to your supervisor about it. They ultimately need to approve it, so you need to know their criteria for what they'll accept.
But generally speaking, there are several possibilities:

If your software is intended to show that a certain theoretical technique works in practice, then you should also create some test cases on which you can test whether your software in fact does that.
If your software is intended to be an improvement compared to an existing product, then you need to find some benchmark which you can compare them both on.
If your software is intended to solve a particular problem or work on a particular data set, do experiments to show that it indeed works on it.

Ask yourself: how would you test if this software works correctly?
What is your software for? What problem does it solve? Why is it reasonable to solve that problem in the way you did?


text:
Conditional acceptance
I just got a conditional admission from a highly prestigious master's programme in Europe but I have a question. What happens if I got conditionally accepted but I can't provide my diploma at a given time written in the letter? (because my graduation will be after the deadline). I already contacted with the university but it would be nice if you could share your experiences if you had something similar.
Thank you.

You'd have to ask them. In the best case we can give general, vague answers.

Every such case is individual and depends on the rules set in place. Contact both universities, actually. Perhaps your current institution can assure the new one that the diploma is certain to be issued by some date. Perhaps the new institution will accept that. But it is up to them.
I doubt that they will be especially finicky about the rules, but no one can say but them. Keep all of your other options open until things are finalized.
Even a letter from a professor might assure them that all is well.

I already contacted my university but I will get the response tomorrow. I also contacted with some students from the same department where I applied to if they do know something about this or not but this will take at least a day for them to see and answer. I hope a document given by my current university would be OK.

Talking to students isn't going to get you anywhere. You need to correspond with whoever made the offer. Administration or some "hiring" PI.

You are right, I was thinking maybe if they had similar problems or they know someone who had been in my situation, they would know how things go. Actually I already contacted with the corresponding person but this will take some time as well.