text:
Hesitation about writing a paper
The situation maybe a little bit unusual, and I am asking for your opinion.
I have taught an undergraduate course on differential geometry of curves and surfaces last Fall semester. One of the students in my class, whom I think is really bright, told me that he found the proof of a certain well known theorem is a little bit hard to understand. We had some discussion on it, but I was quite busy so I wasn't paying too much attention on it, so we didn't get any good conclusion.
Recently I was revising my lecture notes and I was reminded of his question. Then he and I found that no fewer than three books (two textbooks and a research monograph) give wrong proofs of that theorem. We are quite satisfied with what we found, and his question was settled. Then he asked whether we should write a paper on this issue and submit it to some undergraduate research journal, like Involve. At first I didn't think it was a good idea because finding a mistake of a proof of a theorem in three books isn't really a big deal, and I told him we could send an email to the authors of those books about the mistakes. But then I think his idea might not be as bad as it seems to be because, essentially, when an undergrad can find some mistakes in well-known textbooks that (it seems to me that) nobody can find, it means something to me. My concern is I don't know even if we are talking about an undergraduate research journal, do the editors think it's certainly not worth a try or the opposite?
On the math side of that theorem, those three books use the same techniques but with different assumptions (or you may want to call simplifications). However, the proof in each of those books have different mathematical mistakes (i.e., not just some simple typos). So far we only found one textbook which gives a correct proof. The other books which contain a correct proof of this theorem are either too sketchy/wordy or those books are research monographs.
Since I have no experience on writing a paper based on the "discovery" of this nature, any comment is welcome. On one hand I think it's something to an undergrad student and on the other hand, I am not sure about what the editors think.
Thank you.

How about a venue like the Monthly or College Math. Journal?

Given that a correct and satisfactory proof exists in the literature, you would not be providing "research results" per se, so a full research article probably is not worth writing at this stage, unless you can devise a more elegant or straightforward or otherwise "improved" proof.
If you are unable to provide that, it would certainly be appropriate to comment on the difficulty of correctly proving the theorem, and do a "comparative" study in the form of a letter to indicate the challenges and make them known to a wider audience.
But, as you said, it's certainly a matter worth talking about—it really is a question about the appropriate "form" of writing your results up.

Yes, you are right. I think myself and thr student should think about how to improve the present correct proof. Then it sounds more publishable.

Generally, writing a paper about some kind of a discovery is not a bad idea.
However, are you sure (as in: really, really sure) that:

the proofs in question are wrong;
you have a correct proof?

Pointing "they are wrong" with a finger is not the best behaviour, even less so if you have little credibility (i.e., you are a student). If you can produce a fail-safe proof of that theorem, then why not. I have seen some papers with titles "A bla bli blup proof of foo biz baz theorem".
It might be that your course professor is the best person to approach first. (And I also highly recommend to do so.) It takes some experience to judge if an idea is valid and fruitful or not. Said professor might also be able to discern that you all are wrong and book authors are correct with little to no image damage to you.

Update: If you think your discovery is fail-proof, then aim for the publication by any means (with or without) the professor.
Don't fear being an undergrad.
Kolmogorov (you'd heard this name, I am sure) had at some time a hypothesis that multiplication of two n-sized inputs in on Big-Omega of n^2, i.e. that it is impossible to multiply faster than O(n^2). He mentioned it in a seminar. He was a world-known name then already. A week later an undergrad student showed him a proof that it is possible to do so faster.
While the actual story of the publication is also quite fun and breath-taking, you can research it yourself. I'd just mention, that we all know this student by this method, the Karatsuba multiplication.

First of all thank you for your comment. However, I am the course instructor involved in this rather than the student.

OP is the professor, not the student.

Moreover, our point is while there is at least one textbook whose proof of that theorem is correct, what we wanted to point out is there are some textbook proofs are wrong.

@index theory: Oh, I am sorry. I should read the questions with a greater attention to detail. Is the proof the student is suggesting new and correct?


text:
How do I benchmark research if there is no previous work against which I can compare it?
I'm working on a paper that there is no previous paper for it to distinguish. its an old tool like ant colony optimization that is used on a new approach. I have sent the paper to a journal and they have said it doesn't have a good benchmark.

Please clarify the question; is your paper about an old software that you adapted to use in a new problem?

yes more or less @MFornari

A benchmark is a standard or reference that will allow other authors compare their algorithms with yours. If the problem is known and other papers were published to solve it, follow the lead and compare your algorithm with them using the same parameters. If there are no other paper solving the problem, look for similar problems and check how they are described by certain variables.
The most basic parameter is the problem size, ie how many instances your problem has to deal with. For sorting algorithms, it is the number of items to sort. Usually, we start with quantities that could be easily handled in memory, increase to the limits of available memory, up to numbers that will need disk to store all items.
The second parameter is distribution. Are all instances equally probable and distributed along the possible spectrum? For sorting algorithms, if the set of items is partially sorted or totally random will impact the performance. In my thesis, I worked with geographical objects like cities, which are concentrated in some areas that were difficult to process, and other areas totally empty that could be easily recognized and discarded as not interesting.
Each problem might have multiple parameters, some are important, others are irrelevant. Your work is to identify them and choose values that are realistic and could show the strengths and weakness for different algorithms, not only yours.
Another set of parameters, very common when comparing software, is related to hardware, like the number of processors, total memory, network speed, etc...
Hope it helps, without reading your paper is hard to be specific.

my paper is about using ant colony optimization to find path like players and choose path like them. ant colony basically is used to find nearest path. so I'm using same tool on new application or approach. it works in way palyers add fromone to path instead of bots or ... in my tests it works but there is no same work

@virtouso Are you saying that no papers have approached that problem before in any way?

@TobiasKildetoft at least I couldn't find any thing on ieee Elsevier ....

@virtouso Then it seems like a bigger problem than finding an appropriate benchmark might be to justify why the problem is even worth looking at in the first place.

@TobiasKildetoft so can you tell me how can I include all of these to make paper be accepted? I just explained it in my paper but they mentioned a problem as: there is no good benchmark or enhancement

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do US Ph.D. applicants without research experience convince admissions committees that they are interested in a particular field?
My question is mainly for mathematics Ph.D. application in the United States. However, the answers from any other field (or other countries) where undergraduate/master research doesn't play a critical role in admission are also welcomed (by "critical" I mean if one has no research experience, then the chance of acceptance is small).
As we know, in mathematics or theoretical physics, a solid background in some areas (like algebraic geometry) need several years to lay down and some applicants may not have research experience in the area they are interested in.
Suppose the main reason that applicants want to apply to school A is that the math department of school A has a strong algebraic geometry group, but they have no research experience in it. How would they convince the graduate committee that they are truly interested in algebraic geometry in the statement of purpose?
Please note under some circumstances it is important to convince the graduate committee that one is really interested in a particular field. For instance, if they had changed interest from another field, say analysis to algebraic geometry or they are transferring from one school to another to pursue a Ph.D. degree in algebraic geometry, or the department to which they are applying has only a narrow range of research focuses (some elite private schools, for example).
To put in another way, for an applicant without research experience in a certain field, what kind of experiences/characteristics could make the graduate committee believe that they are really interested in this field?

Well, why does the applicant believe that s/he is truly interested in algebraic geometry?  This must be based on something.

I think it makes a difference here whether this is in a US-style system, where the applicant would have only a bachelor's degree, or a European-style system, where they already have a masters.  Can you clarify?

I have also added some details to emphasize the importance of convincing the graduate committee of one's interest focus under some circumstances.

Possible duplicate of https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/38237/929

Is this really an issue for U.S. graduate math programs? My experience may be a bit dated (1980s through early 1990s), but I knew VERY FEW beginning graduate students in math who had any kind of research experience beyond maybe giving a talk at a local MAA section meeting or an undergraduate honors project that may have gotten published in something like the Pi Mu Epsilon Journal. And targeting a specific field seemed utterly unnecessary. Demonstrated evidence of ability and interest, mainly as conveyed in letters of recommendation, is --- or at least used to be --- of primary importance.

I would have thought that in general the time allotted for a PhD is too short (3 - 4 years full time) to spend too much of that learning the basics of your field to the level of being able to produce original research.  Not forgetting that most PhD students start publishing heavily during their candidature, so that really you would be expected to be producing publishable papers within the first 18 months to two years.  I can't imagine any mathematical academic taking on a PhD candidate who didn't already show some expertise in the field - maybe a few papers already; certainly previous studies in the discipline.  (There may be some exceptions, but I imagine they'd be rare.)  If you had read a little about algebraic geometry and wanted to research into it, you would in many cases be recommended to enrol in a few postgraduate courses first - pretty much to test your ability and expertise - before enrolling in a PhD.  Also, supervisors aren't going to teach you the area - although you may be recommended some background reading - they are just wanting to encourage your research, and also of course to get their name on your papers.

If this is in the US, nearly all mathematics PhD programs take five to six years and have at least a year of required coursework before beginning research.

@ElizabethHenning: Agreed - the description in this answer seems to be completely different from the US system.  Alasdair, I see your profile says Australia - is this in reference to the Australian system?  I've asked the OP to clarify what system they are looking at.

Worth noting that this is basically how things work in Europe too. Depending on where you are, you might have some research experience in a field from a Bachelor thesis, the much more experience from a Master thesis, and generally you'd stay within that field for your PhD, though you don't need to have publications at this point, but it's certainly not unheard of.

The short length of the PhD is indeed a serious problem for some of my colleagues in Europe (particularly in the UK, where there is an actual hard deadline).  Colleagues doing research that requires a large amount of background find it difficult to recruit PhD students that are likely to be successful.  The result is either substandard dissertations, sometimes with the hope that the student will develop further during postdocs, or subfields where almost all the researchers do their PhDs in the US.

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


text:
How often to cite / back-up claims?
Good morning all,
I have recently embarked on an MSc programme in CompSci, on which the first module is Critical Reading/Writing. So far, I have written two "introductory" paper assessments. As I was writing them, I found that my text read somewhat "monotonous", and I felt that not only every claim should be backed-up by a citation, but literally every instance of an assertion. For example:

"Smith writes that all Electrofuzzies are vulnerable to extreme
cold[1]. Jones contests Smith's recent study on thermal vulnerability
of Electrofuzzies in [2] and finds they can tolerate up to absolute zero just fine. This paper argues that it's not enough to simply test for
cold-resistance; one should also test for extreme heat to obtain a
more general picture"

In the above purely-fictitious text (well, perhaps Electrofuzzies actually exist - I don't really know), the first two sentences try to illustrate what I meant by "monotonous" - just fact after fact with no eloquent linkage. The last sentence "It's not enough ...", tries to illustrate that I fear that every time I wax assertive in a paper, I need to back it up.
Questions

Would this then not just turn my paper into one large symbolic link to others' work?
How much freedom of expression should I give myself, assuming that I'm not an authoritative source on Electrofuzzies or literally anything in CompSci at the academic level?
Should I literally cite/reference at every opportunity, if not?

Thank you for any advice!

Have you asked your instructor?  Their opinion is what matters.  Did you get instructions?

What do you mean by "every time I wax assertive"? And what by citing at any opportunity?

I do not know the details of your course, but I see no problem with your example text.

Two things bother me about your example text, but neither is what you're asking about. (1) Shouldn't "up to absolute zero" be "down to absolute zero"? (2) "This paper" could mean (and I think is intended to mean) the paper in which this example text appears, or it could mean the paper [2] that was just mentioned. I'd write either "The present paper argues" or (preferably in my view but anathema to some folks) "We argue".

@AndreasBlass - Good points. I wrote it in haste, but yes - both of your niggles hold weight; thanks!   %"henning -- reinstate Monica", I mean every time I assert something myself, or give my own opinion - or should I write papers like an academic "router", simply vectoring off to other papers? %Anonymous Physicist - You are right; I should, but they have many other students to help, and are not super responsive (I did get instructions, but my question relates not to any one assignment; rather, to a fundamental misunderstanding I believe I have). Thanks all, for your replies.

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


text:
Is it good to only read the high-rated journals as a starting PhD student?
I just started my PhD in computer science (first year) and I enjoy reading the high-rated journals related to my field. It is true that I find them, sometimes, complicated (in some sense) and I cannot continue the reading. The reason why I like reading such journals is that (1) there are many beautiful ideas, (2) solid works and (3) I would like to submit to these journals in the future.
I think, however, that this strategy is not quite good as a junior (student). May be I should read other conference papers and journals.
Can you please suggest some useful advice.

Conference papers contain more cutting edge material than journals in Computer Science.

it really depends on why are you are reading. to keep afloat of new developments in your field? then skimming through top journals is probably the way to go. to get a deep understanding of your particular research topic? then you cannot restrict yourself to just a few high-ranking journals. maybe the piece of information that you really need is hidden in some obscure technical report. it is impossible to answer your question until you clarify your motivation.

I've never been one to sit down and read a journal edition cover to cover. I think you're better off skimming titles and abstracts for articles that pique your interest. You should do this for conference proceedings too. You can't attend every talk at a conference, nor should you really expect yourself to read every article.
At some point you will need to narrow your interest to something pretty specific in order to develop a dissertation. You will also need to develop depth and historical perspective on your chosen topic. You should probably spend as much, if not more, time reading interesting individual articles and all their important references (and so on!) as you should trying to read whole journal editions or entire conference proceedings. There's value in a depth-oriented approach to reading articles.
I find that there's a pruning strategy of sorts that keeps you out of stuff that's not interesting. Sometimes randomly selected articles can be worthwhile, but there's lots of stuff out there that will be boring to you. Using a good article as a guide and reading some of its references can be much more productive.

The gold standard is indeed these kind of journals.  I always tell my students: you are what you read :)   This is because we learn by osmosis.  You need to learn what is 'solid work', how to do technical writing, the vocab, and the most important ideas in your field.  The latter is critical.  If a reviewer finds that you missed a seminal work, your paper will be rejected.
In CS there are top conferences too, so do read them as well.  If you are in networking then SIGCOMM and MOBICOM have very nicely written papers and usually nice ideas.
It is important not to discount lower tier venues.  They may contain interesting ideas that may spark a wild fire.  In other words, read them for ideas and conduct your research as per the gold standard.

I disagree with the first sentence. The gokd standard in CS (if there is one) is in high-quality conferences. Journals are secondary.

@JeffE Gold-standards for novelty, maybe, but certainly not for quality (meaning correctness and presentation).

The value of reading high-ranking journals in your field is that it will give you a somewhat broad view of what leading researchers in your field consider to be "good" and "important" research.
However, this "breadth-first" approach will not help you very much in your own research, including getting your own papers published.
Instead, I suggest you pursue a "depth-first" approach where you find "seminal" papers in the sub-fields that interest you the most, and then read all the important papers that cite those seminal papers, especially papers that argue against the seminal/foundational papers.  In this way, you learn about the scientific discourse involved in any particular line of research.
You can find seminal papers several ways.  Sometimes, they are highly cited.  Other times, they are the focus of special issues of journals or special conferences.  Sometimes, they aren't highly cited (i.e. do not have a high number of citations themselves), but they are cited or used in a few critical papers which in turn led to a significant line of research.
With this sort of analysis, you will learn the skill of evaluating papers not in isolation but in the context of a whole line of research, including research by detractors.

I advocate the "depth-first" approach to support your own research because in your dissertation you will need to take a position through your thesis statement(s) on a few research question(s).  For this purpose, it is of little value to know all the latest research in the best journals.  Instead, you need to know all (or most) of the research in one or a couple of lines of research, and especially the gaps in that research which you intend to fill with your dissertation.

To be honest there are some serious issues with the really "high-level" journals (namely nature and science).  It is seemingly the case that the editors of said journals have a designated "hot topic" which they find to be of interest.  A symptom of this drive is that the reproducibility of the experiments described in such articles suffers, (as evinced by e.g. that guy from Bell Labs a few years ago who was doing some seemingly phenomenal stuff with magnets).  With this said, the acceptance of a topic in such a journal is usually indicative of the problem being of great interest.  Depending on your intended field I would narrow down your search to journals which are more myopic as due to the breadth covered by such high-level journals searches in smaller journals I find tend to be more fruitful (as in I have to parse fewer abstracts/titles for something of interest).

I think interpreting "high level" as "Nature or Science" is a mistake. It seems clear that the OP means top specialized journals in computer science.

To be more direct: Nature and Science are not high-rated journals in computer science.

The comments here point toward a broader issue.  To find out which journals are the important ones in your field, you should not rely on citation counts or similar rankings. Rather, you should ask your adviser and other faculty in your area.  Also, it is likely that you will not get information directly in the form "journal X is important"; more often, the information will be "you should read paper Y." After this has happened for a lot of Y's, you'll have a sense of the importance of journals, just by seeing where those Y's were published.

I found/find that reading 'high rated' journals is a good place to start when investigating a research topic. Not only do they provide a solid grounding in contemporary 'advancements' in your field but they also have the potential to provide a huge resource by way of the reference section. Perusing reference material to which the author/s refer and upon which they preface their research can [over a number of journals] provide a listing of relevant and seminal works that minimises possibly of missing something important.
I also agree with the above comments re: scanning abstracts/titles etc. but would also urge you to seek out journals by particular (reputable) authors/researchers who are in your field and who will more than likely have written journals that could provide some insight into how their research evolved.

Reading and educating yourself as a new PhD student is required to improve your skills to, eventually, write something similar to what you are reading now. If you feel that the level of the papers you read is too high and you cannot follow it, then it is a good starting point to define the areas where you need to improve (given that you are reading in THE related work to your topic). After defining these areas, it is your task now to start working on it by attending lectures offered by your university, MOOCs, reading books, etc.
You can also participate in cs.stackexchange or similar platforms that are related to your research, start reading the related questions, asking questions, and even answering questions.
You can test this with two or three papers that you like most, but you are not able to follow, then you can come back again to these papers and test how you improve.
Starting PhD is always not easy in CS, do not lose your enthusiasm and try always to improve your self.


text:
I'm feeling discouraged after getting tenure; should I quit?
A few months ago, and seven years after I obtained my PhD, I finally got tenure.  Hence I have a permanent position in academia.
After a few months in this new position, I find myself thinking of quitting academia. I do not know if this is because of my new status but I am quite discouraged and not motivated to do research. Meanwhile, it seems that I now face even more teaching, more administration and more research pressure than before.
Have you passed through a similar phase, and if so could you describe your experience?  I wonder if all these thoughts are caused by the transition from being a postdoc/assistant professor to being an associate professor, but I do not know.

I'm sure there are important things to ponder and ask about your situation, but right now, there's nothing that helpful strangers on the internet can answer here.

Just to lift the somewhat depressing mood induced by this question: CONGRATULATIONS!!! Whether you quit now or not, it's an awesome achievement and you should be proud of it.

I think there is a broad and useful question here.  It's the faculty version of our most upvoted question.  I've tried to make it clearer.

You have been working for many years, as a PhD student and a non-tenurred academic, towards the goal of becoming a tenured professor. Achieving a major life goal can leave you feeling a bit flat for a while. Relax. Savor your achievement. Give it time. If you can, take a sabbatical. Even if that is not possible, take a good vacation at the next opportunity.

You might look into counseling; many universities have a confidential employee counseling program.  It can be helpful to sort through what's going on, with more depth than a post on the internet.  This isn't to say "stay" or "go", but you might get a better sense of what the issues are, how to make a decision, and how to make the best of whatever decision you make.  It's a pretty sure bet that the counselor will have helped many of your colleagues with very similar concerns.

Can you elaborate on "research pressure"?  They can't really fire you now for low research productivity, so what other sorts of pressure are you experiencing?

Dear Nate: essentially I am the new guy at the place and many people from the faculty are putting on my shoulders many of their responsibility. That's essentially the point

It's enormously empowering the first time you piss off a chair or a dean after you get tenure.  Don't make it a habit but you do need to do it when you need to for self-protection.

Sounds like it's time for a sabbatical?

@David - Or a lateral move (to another institution)?

Have you passed through a similar phase — Oh, yes.  Well, maybe not passed through; that would suggest the phase is actually over.

Vaguely related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTrlcEpLVnI

Many faculty get post-tenure blues. There are several causes:

Burnout: You've been running at full speed for almost 30 years (k-12; college; grad school; post-docs; tenure track). Your brain needs a rest. It's perfectly acceptable for you to take a break. Many faculty have post-tenure slumps.
Survivor's guilt: Many of your grad peers didn't get jobs, you might have seen other faculty not make tenure. The tenuring process can seem capricious. You've just been through the sausage machine and you didn't like what you saw.
Imposter syndrome: Related to the above, you can't quite believe that you made it and you're doubting yourself. Were you really qualified to make it? Maybe there was a mistake in your file that they might catch?
Fear of commitment: You look at the other tenured faculty and are deathly afraid that you're now committed to be with them for the next 30 years. Oh god, what have you done. Your dreams of leaving academia and opening a bookstore-cafe by the waters of Lake Michigan are maybe just that, dreams.
Fresh fish: At many places, newly tenured faculty are fresh fish for burdensome committee assignments. e.g.: No one really wants to be the MA grad advisor but it has to be filled by a senior faculty member, thus the 'new guy' gets it. Some senior colleagues may actually tell you that you "owe" them because they "gave" you tenure. Bollycocks. You earned your tenure. You owe no one. Just try to remember the 'just say no' skills that you had as junior faculty and wriggle out of any and all commitments until you can figure out which ones you can tolerate.
Peter Principle: The Peter Principle ("people rise to their level of incompetence") is often misunderstood. It's not that you are incompetent, it's that you've been competent in one domain but promoted to a higher domain than where you've shown competence. Associate and full professors often have to do much more administrative work and intrauniversity politics than assistant/untenured faculty. When you're tenured, work becomes less fun and more bureaucratic.  And you wondered why your senior faculty were all sourpusses. Key to your sanity here is to remain in domains that you're passionate about (teaching, basic research, etc.) and enter into new domains only on your own terms. For example, if the provost wants you to be chair of XYZ onerous committee, then you need $x research funds or to go to y conference or get z course relief (h/t to J and Captain Emacs).
Paradise Syndrome also known as the dog who actually caught the car syndrome. You've been working so hard for so many years for something you finally achieved and suddenly you don't know what to do with it. You have to come up with new life goals and purpose for living (thx Pharap).

The most important thing to remember is that they can't fire you without serious cause. Take a break, say no, piss some people off by not taking on work. Let your brain stretch. Go kayaking. Work on your bucket list. And then after that, try to remember what made you so passionate about your field.
Finally, if you really, really, really want to quit and you can't take sabbatical or get a grant to buy you out for a semester then: take an unpaid leave. The provost should be willing to work with you - if not, you can use FMLA or sick leave if you can get your doctor to agree you need time off. It's better than quitting as it leaves you with your Plan A when you recover.

Yes, pick some crazy topic you didn't dare to touch before. Have fun!

Good description at the end of the many possible stages between contentment and outright quitting. And just to be clear to the OP, "you're now committed to be with them for the next 30 years" is not factually true (tenure is a one-way commitment), although that doesn't mean you might not feel that way.

Good point Greg, especially since many of us switched jobs as tenured faculty. Will edit that.

I think you left out one critical point - hating the job you didn't sign up for.  This is Captain Kirk syndrome - promoted to Admiral but really just wanted to be a Captain.  Tenured faculty are largely managers - you're relegated to writing grant proposals, proofing papers, dealing with bureaucracy, and managing your students and postdocs, all of whom now get to do the "fun" part of actually getting their hands dirty with the real research.  Some of the malaise can come from missing that part of the job and not getting to do nearly as much of it as you'd like.

@J... Excellent point, well observed. It's a variant of Peter's principle - rising up to the level where the work stops being fun :-)

@CaptainEmacs Yeah, it's not quite the Peter Principle since most academics are actually quite good at managing a research group by that point in their career - it just may not be as satisfying as the core research activities themselves.  I know people who have remained postdocs even until late in their career for just this reason.

Perhaps also a bit of Paradise Syndrome?

It's hard to give concrete advice here because this is a very personal thing. First: It is quite common to feel empty when such a major goal have been achieved and probably you are left with no further major professional goals now. But face it: You don't need major goals in your life - smaller goals also work fine.
If you lost motivation to do research, I can recommend to try to enjoy doing science for the next time, and not focusing on the outcome too much. As a tenured academic it is one of your privileges to follow your scientific interests and not to worry about the outcome from the beginning. Pick simple problems, and think about them in simple ways. Also, talk to other people about your field and be interested in their work. This will give you insight in other areas but also new perspectives on questions you may already have.
Lastly, and to prove that you are not alone, here is another guy that felt the same. Although I usually don't like it to quote the famous guys on such problems, but it's written well and carries some good advice (but following it will probably not always lead to a Nobel prize as in this story):

Then I had another thought: Physics disgusts me a little bit now, but I used to enjoy doing physics. Why did I enjoy it? I used to play with it. I used to do whatever I felt like doing – it didn't have to do with whether it was important for the development of nuclear physics, but whether it was interesting and amusing for me to play with. […] I'd invent things and play with things for my own entertainment.
So I got this new attitude. Now that I am burned out and I'll never accomplish anything, I've got this nice position at the university teaching classes which I rather enjoy, and just like I read the Arabian Nights for pleasure, I'm going to play with physics, whenever I want to, without worrying about any importance whatsoever.
Within a week I was in the cafeteria and some guy, fooling around, throws a plate in the air. As the plate went up in the air I saw it wobble, and I noticed the red medallion of Cornell on the plate going around. It was pretty obvious to me that the medallion went around faster than the wobbling.
I had nothing to do, so I start to figure out the motion of the rotating plate. I discover that when the angle is very slight, the medallion rotates twice as fast as the wobble rate – two to one. It came out of a complicated equation! Then I thought, "Is there some way I can see in a more fundamental way, by looking at the forces or the dynamics, why it's two to one?"
I don't remember how I did it, but I ultimately worked out what the motion of the mass particles is, and how all the accelerations balance to make it come out two to one.
[…]
I went on to work out equations of wobbles. Then I thought about how electron orbits start to move in relativity. Then there's the Dirac Equation in electrodynamics. And then quantum electrodynamics. And before I knew it (it was a very short time) I was "playing" – working, really – with the same old problem that I loved so much, that I had stopped working on when I went to Los Alamos: my thesis-type problems; all those old-fashioned, wonderful things.
It was effortless. It was easy to play with these things. It was like uncorking a bottle: Everything flowed out effortlessly. I almost tried to resist it! There was no importance to what I was doing, but ultimately there was. The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate.
From "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman", by Richard Feynman

Just my two cents (I need to find a new introductory statement):  I think it would be best to not necessarily quit, but reevaluate what it is that you are interested in doing at this point in your life.
Be it more research, being a more hands on/helpful professor, or heck, even shaking up the status quo at your institution (as there are a lot of aspects of campus structure that could use some shaking up, no matter the institution :P)
Find a new goal, now that you have attained one that takes a LOT of effort, time, and struggle.

I often find once I achieve a goal I become disheartened and demotivated.
I guess you were hoping for this for some time and now you have lost that. Could be a life is about the journey rather than the destination situation.
Maybe find a new goal.


text:
How should I avoid being in the shadow of my PhD advisor after I have my own faculty position?
I would like to receive some feedback from the community about the following situation.
I have a permanent position as associate professor in an institution for some years now (3). This institution is the one I did my PhD 10 years ago, and in particular I am in the same department as my PhD advisor (who is a Full Professor).
Despite having my own research line independent of the one of my PhD advisor (namely, I have my own research problems, projects, collaborators, etc), the truth is that I also continue working with her, and being sincere I trust that my contribution on works is as important as her contribution. I am advising PhD students on different topics, I have my own national research project, etc.
I know that this should not bother me too much, but the truth is that at the end the person who receives the recognition of our work is her. Here by recognition I mean invitations to conferences, seminars, being in committees and things like this. I also know that being on an early stage is not the same as being a well-stablished professor, but when this happens on a regular basis, it makes me start to feel bad. Just to give an example, in the last year I have not been invited to give any seminars abroad, while she has been invited to present our work at least 3 times.
It has come to a point where I believe that having worked as crazy to get this position in a university in the city I wanted to live (because this one of the main reasons I picked this position... I love the city and most important, it solved the 2 body problem), it comes with the problem that I will always be 'the student of *' in the eyes of everybody, even if I obtain significant breakthroughs on my own. I trust that this will affect, for instance, if I want to become a full professor some day soon.
The question is the following: how to act when you have tried hard (and in part having been successful) to be (researchally speaking) independent of your PhD advisor, but in the eyes of almost everybody you are still her student? If this situation is rephrased saying that we are in the same institution then it explains a little what I was explaining in the previous paragraphs.
So, I would really appreciate advice from the community. I find it a little radical to stop collaborating scientifically with her (in part because there is no one around working on this area!), but as time goes by it seems to me that the best option is to start working alone on this common area, or some similar solution...

The general question may be: how to act when you have tried hard (and in part having been successful) to be (researchally speaking) independent of your PhD advisor, but on the eyes of almost everybody you are still her student?  If this situation is rephrased saying that we are in the same institution then it explains a little what I was explaining...

Important information is missing: who is the corresponding author on your shared papers?

Forgot to say that: we are pure mathematicians, which means that we sign the papers in alphabetical order. So no distinction between authors

The corresponding author does not have to be the same as the first name alphabetically. What @DoruConstantin is asking is who your papers state is the person to direct correspondance to.

I do not know exactly the difference: the research is funded by my research grant (I am PI). Some of the works had been managed by her (dealing with journal, etc), and some others directly by me

and just to clarify more: some of the works I am the person to be contacted, and some others is she

I think there is a useful question in here, but the title needs to be changed and most of the specific details in the body should be removed.  It may be easier to close this and ask a new question that is clear and short. @Gaussian-Matter if you are okay with me drastically revising your question then I could try to trim and clarify it.

@DavidKetcheson: please! go ahead! I will be happy with any revision of the text which could be more general and of more interest to the community!

Are you including your ex-advisor on all the research & papers you produce? Even ones that are from your own direct line of research? If so, don’t...

@SolarMike: definitely not: I have 2 research lines, one of them completely independent of my advisor (now my 2nd phd student will finish on this topic). My first line (the one in which I did my phd) I have something 40% with my ex-advisor and 60% without her

It's probably too late to heavily edit the question as it now has a few detailed answers.  I did edit the title to actually be a question.

How long do you expect your former advisor to be active? Maybe the problem resolves automatically in a few years...

@OBu: she is 61. I have thought on your way of argue, but maybe I would become really upset before she retires...

I find a little radical to stop collaborating scientifically with her (in part because there is no one around working on this area!), but as the time goes by it seems to me that the best option is to start working alone on this common area, or some similar solution...

There is some truth to the often-heard advise that one should stop regularly collaborating with one's PhD advisor after getting a PhD. I would argue this is doubly the case when you and your advisor work at the same place. To the outside world, you will always appear to be the "junior" in your collaboration, independently of who does how much work, who has had which ideas, or who is where in the paper author list.
My impression is that in the career stage that you are in, you should prioritize collaborations where you are the most senior person in the team, or where you are at least not overshadowed by somebody much more famous than you. Work on papers with your students, or with other people in a similar or earlier career stage than you. Avoid collaborations where you do all the work and some other eminent figure in the community (your advisor or some other senior professor) could be seen as the strategic brains behind the work.

I think that's a very useful advise :-)

I think the key point here, is not to work independently on the same topic, but to have a sufficiently different topic that no one would consider inviting her to talk about it. And then invest heavily in that line of investigation. You can still keep your collaboration going as a side project, but don't ever expect to be recognised for it and balance your priorities accordingly.

Here is a somewhat radical suggestion that my apply or not, depending on personalities. If your mentor/collaborator is anywhere near retirement this may be especially useful. It is a bit risky (or not) depending on her attitudes and place in the profession.
But you could, perhaps, just start a conversation with her letting her know that you think your career "needs a boost" and ask if she can help you get to the next level. Many people will respond positively to this, in fact. My personal attitude is that I am happiest when I fall into the shadow of one of my former students. After all, our job is to advance the state of the art, not only through our own work, but by teaching students to do the same.
If she thinks enough of you and of the work you both are doing, she will want it to continue after she leaves the scene and you are probably a good vehicle for carrying it forward.
But small steps are to make sure that you go to those conferences with her and become personally known in the community. Find a way to be the presenter of your joint work. Find a way to be the corresponding author on papers so you get contacted by committee chairs and editors.
Don't ignore the other answers here, of course. Work that you do alone or with other collaborators will help distinguish you from your former advisor. But it is a long process. Your early-career tag on the question says a lot. With ten years in the saddle you have a long way to ride and your former advisor won't be a riding companion for the whole way. But take advantage of your association while you can, rather than trying to sever it. Make her the champion of your career advancement if at all possible.

I'm afraid I have to downvote this.  First, it's unlikely that OP could become an associate professor without an independent research reputation.  More importantly, neither OP nor their advisor has much control over how people ascribe credit to their joint work. The advisor will always be more senior; OP will always be more junior, and first/corresponding-authorship won't change that.  The only sure way to really get out from under your advisor's shadow is to develop a research record that does not involve your advisor at all.

@JeffE, you are welcome to downvote, of course, but I have counterexamples to your statements. Long term collaborations, though not at the same university. Giving up a mentor seems counterproductive to and advancing career.  BTW, thanks for giving the reason for the vote, too few people here are courteous enough to do that. Cheers.

Your counterexamples miss one key feature: OP is in the same department as ther advisor. It’s easier to get credit for joint work with remote collaborators from your local peers. But I’ve seen tenure cases threatened over this issue, even when the candidate’s advisor was far away. Finally, working independently does not require “giving up a mentor”. Mentorship and collaboration are different.

@JeffE, I agree with your first point. The same department is a complication to be sure. I disagree with your last point, however, There was an implication of "turning your back" on the professor implied in some of what is on this page. I think that should be avoided.

@JeffE It depends strongly on the personality of the people involved. I saw many senior scientits who made room for others and e.g. when beeing asked to hold an invited talk declined and pointed to "the really interesting person". But yes, this is not always the case, but if it's the case, it is the basis for a getrat cooperation and team work.
I had those people for one field of my reasearch (but in other fields I had the opposite as well), and I pushed several PhD students of mine this way.

I believe the infallible way towards academic recognition is being clearly responsible for major breakthroughs in your field. Probably you have put yourself where you are, by consistently directing the spotlights to your senior author(s). Making someone else honorary first/corresponding author, as well as letting them present your work sure "gives face" to peers and shows reverence. If you got where you are because of such acts of "loyalty" then stopping it will quickly generate conflicts.
But unfortunately there's no other way around this: publish independent research (meaning the best you can produce), stand where you belong, present your work directly. No more special thanks at the end to honorary seniors. Discuss that openly with your ex-advisor, who may feel betrayed.
And by all means, do not expect nor induce some student to give you the face you've given your advisor as in the shape of some karmic payback. This is not a cycle.

Hmmm. Major breakthroughs are pretty rare in nearly every field. You can be a success with much less.

@Buffy Only time will testify whether anything was major or not, but we can always aim for significant questions in the short term. In my field I feel like major steps are actually quite trivial, but perhaps I am biased.

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


text:
Are there any data repositories commonly used in conjunction with arXiv?
I will soon be posting an article to arXiv, and I have supplementary data that is approximately 800MB in size, which I would like to make available somewhere. Are there any data repositories that are commonly used in conjunction with arXiv?

Much of this question has been addressed in How do I get a DOI for a dataset?

There are a couple of relevant options for this sort of thing. These include:

Figshare
Zenodo
Dryad
Dataverse
GitHub
Bitbucket

They each have a bunch of advantages and disadvantages, and they satisfy different use cases to different degrees, so have a good look and decide which one is the best fit for your needs.

Another option, especially if the data will be updated frequently, might be a personal Github account.

If the data will be updated frequently and it then yeah, a GitHub repo can be a good choice, though they recommend each repo be kept under 1GB, which leaves little leeway if the OP wants to make any sort of significant changes to the data. On the other hand, for more moderate repo sizes, GitHub is an attractive choice if you'll be making changes but want good referenceability to previous versions, since specific versions can be given DOIs through Zenodo by simply setting them as releases.

That said, I've made this post community wiki so anyone with additional resources is welcome to edit them in.


text:
Why are PhD salaries so low?
In many European countries, PhD salaries are incredibly low if compared with industry salaries. In my field, computer science, a young programmer can gain in one in one year what a PhD student gains during all the PhD.  Which are the practical reasons of this?
Some possibilities:

Money: university have not enough money to pay higher salaries to PhD students. I don't think this is the cause of the low PhD salaries, as given a budget for a project, the PhD students are hired in function of the budget.
PhD is not considered a job. This, in my opinion, is wrong. PhD actually is a full time job, that requires skills that in many cases (for instance in computer science) will be highly paid in the industry. Projects faced during the PhD are often more complex than homologous industrial projects. The real fact is that a PhD student often (but not always) doesn't produce revenues; but this is true also for professors, for people who take care of the cleaning of the university, and for all the staff of a university, that receive a higher salary then PhDs.
PhD students are the weakest group of the academia. Nobody, when salaries are decided, says "PhDs should gain more!", because, when salaries are decided, actually they don't have any voice.

Supply and demand?

I don't know the situation in Europe, but in the US it's definitely "money".

@AndyPutman is it, though? I am sure Caltech can get enough funding to pay competitive salaries to its PhD students, but since they will get them anyway, they can pay crap, and hire a load more of them.

Regarding #3, Stockholm University recently declared that the first salary for PhD students was indeed too low and raised it 70%, and other universities in Sweden did the same. Sometimes, there is someone looking after us!

There are plenty of people employed at universities who make less than a graduate student in a technical field (graduate students in the humanities may be the first that come to mind, but you really should look around beyond them as well -say, the department assistents). My stipend was enough to live on and save some. And I got a degree out of it with a clear path to higher earnings.

You should really discuss a location here, as in many places in Europe PhD student salaries are actually quite ok - and I certainly know no place where "a young programmer can gain in one in one year what a PhD student gains during all the PhD". In most places where PhD salaries are low (say, Italy), regular salaries are also bad.

Who do you expect to pay for their work, and why do you expect that those people would pay more than they have to in order to receive the same services?

I don't think you understand university budgets very well if you think that universities (even wealthy ones) could easily dramatically increase their graduate student stipends.  It would require a huge amount of money.  And in the hard sciences and engineering (which seem from your other questions to be your main interests), graduate student stipends are mostly paid for out of grant money, so universities have even less control over them.

Because professors make so little.

this is one of the reason I decided to work in the industries after my Master Degree

@StrongBad: There are a lot more graduate students than professors.  For instance, at my current institution (Notre Dame), there are 1610 PhD students and 885 tenure-stream faculty.  Giving all of the graduate students say a $20,000 raise would cost an enormous amount of money (and lots of them are paid through grants, which are definitely a shrinking source of money).  And lots of places have an even more dramatic graduate student to faculty member ratio.

@AndyPutman my point was giving PhD students a 20k raise would mean they would make more than post docs. Giving a post doc a 20k raise means they would make about the same as assistant professors.

The question really needs more focus, as you are asking for a comparison of apples, oranges and even bananas here. There is no thing like a typical PhD salary in Europe, it depends a lot  on the country and discipline we are talking about.

For instance, in Germany, a doctoral researcher in engineering typically gets TVL-E13, which is almost 44 k€ in the first year and raises above 51 k€ in the third year. This is still below industry average, but not significantly. On the other hand, in the sciences, you typically end up with 1/2 E13 position, in the humanities sometimes even just 1/4 – it is a question of supply and demand.

Personally, I just thought it was a great deal that I didn't have to pay for my PhD.

Are you including tuition in your perception of the total?  In the US, that can be a lot.

@AndyPutman, your argument about the budget of a university is not justifiable: if someone doesn't have enough money to hire many people, he/she has two options: (1) hire fewer people that he/she can afford to pay according to the candidates' skill-levels, or (2) still hire many people but pay them less. The second option is viable in high-supply-low-demand scenario, but you are still exploiting the needy people here.

How much do you think they should be paid?

Also the close is awful. There's a question on the site about why all academic salaries are too low, that's not too broad, but if you ask about why a subset of academic salaries is too low, then it becomes too broad? Come on, mods.

I can only speak for mathematics, but a lot of the comments above seem to presume that certain aspects/skillsets/roles of PhD students are more-or-less universal across disciplines and countries which is, in my view not the case. In my variant of mathematics, PhD students are primarily students, being trained. Whether they should get proper and more substantial remuneration for their work as teaching assistants is another matter

@Superbest IMO, that's an argument for closing the other question, as much as for reopening this one...

This is the question (http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16293/why-is-college-tuition-high-but-academic-salaries-low/16302#16302) @Superbest may be referring to. I don't understand how one question is broader than the other either.

@john Yup, I deleted my comment since I decided to write an answer (with that link), and, well...

@YemonChoi, the point is to understand the reason for different treatments to two fairly similar questions.

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

@WBT: Depends, again, a lot on the actual country, but in most European countries (including the relatively well-paying Germany, Austria, Sweden/Norway/Finland, Switzerland) there is no tuition.

And in some EU countries, you don't have a wage at all, or you have just a scholarship. So poor wages are still better than no wages. // So I could only agree with you, that PhDs are not understood like workers, but like students. At least in the Czech Republic. That's why only about 30 % of Czech PhDes complete their program in the assigned period of time. From my perspective most of them drop their carer because of work, they have to find to cover their expenses and then they realize, they have a good job so why suffer in Ph.D. and have no free time? Program so they drop it.

They aren't that low. For example, here in Finland:

a typical salary for a PhD student: 2400–3000 e/month
a typical salary in the industry for someone who just got their MSc degree: 3500 e/month.

Finnish PhD stipends put French ones to shame. My data point: 1600 gross (1350 take-home which is taxed later in the year) in one of the most expensive cities in the world.  But I know that we are already lucky compared to other European countries...

@lafemmecosmique sure. In the Czech Republic, the average salary of a Ph.D. would be 435 e/month, while the average salary is almost 1800 e/M. I can see France's average salary is about 2587 e/m.

PhD-students are students, advanced students but students none the less. It is a classic form of vocational education: learning on the job. It is a form of long practicum, and they get a stipent or a "wage" that fits that position. When they finish, they will get a diploma.

No, this depends a lot on the local system. In Germany, they are called "doctoral researchers" and DFG insists on this term because they are not students. You need a Master's degree to start your PhD and are officially employed at your university according to that degree (with the respective rights and duties). In Austria, the situation is similar.

@Daniel ...and yet it's common practice to give students the same contract as a postdoc but with only 75% paid hours (or even 66% and occasionally 50%), on the rationale that the other 25% is for their thesis.

I feel like this beats around the bush. PhD students work an incredibly high-skilled and demanding job and yet are paid much less than they could get in industry. Whether they are technically students or not does not serious address why this discrepancy exists.

I really disagree with this thinking. Not all the bells and whistles and fancy paper in the world will change the fact that you are taking an adult in their late 20s, who has a degree and qualifications enough for a pretty good career, and busying him full time for 4-10 years, where his main activity is supposed to be research work, and the small hope of being supported by his parents is destroyed in that he is required to relocate. It's one of those things that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and wears a big hat saying "goose" and gets inexplicably half the salary it should.

@MaartenBuis, do you think if the universities (say in the USA) really start charging fees from their Ph.D. students, there will be so many Ph.D. students?! How many of them would actually be fees-paying Ph.D. students?!

PhD students work hard, but they are not yet fully capable researchers.I don't mind that PhD students take that much longer and make too many mistakes I need to correct; that is part of the learning experience. Having PhD students is part of my teaching job, which I enjoy greatly, but it is costing me time not saving me time. This attitude safes a lot of frustration with me and the students: What they are doing does not have to be perfect yet. We will make it perfect, and in the process they will learn more about doing research.

People in the industry also need years of practice to become fully capable professionals. Junior professionals are far from being independent, but they are still treated as professionals. If someone has published a first-author paper (or equivalent), they are obviously capable of doing research and no longer students.

Yes, and only in special cases, where there is a great shortage of people with specific skills, are they paid like full professionals. The normal case is that they are paid less, just as with PhD-students. My economics training ( a long time ago) tells me that if people are paid more than their productivity, then the market is in disequilibrium.

The market is also in disequilibrium when a PhD student publishing several first-author papers per year is paid like an undergraduate intern. The academia is a bureaucracy, where individual productivity has very little effect on compensation.

The fact that they published a paper does not proof they did so efficiently. Again I am not saying PhD students are bad, only that they have a lot to learn.

PhD students are paid in more then just the money they get directly. They're also able to take highly technical classes, have direct access to some of the best minds in their field, get sent to international conferences, and gain free vocational research training. All of this is normally covered by their university.
You could argue that PhDs help produce research and that benefits their school. But learning how to do research is the entire point of the PhD and they benefit from publications as much as their university does, if not more.
The fact that you can get paid enough money to live comfortably on top of all of the these benefits is amazing and, the the best of my knowledge, not found anywhere else. How many places do you know who would pay you to sit around and train for 3-7 years knowing that you will leave as soon as you're decently competent?

Which is almost certainly more fun than building CRUD app backends at foocorp, even if less lucrative.

I know right? I don't understand what the OP is complaining about -- no one does a PhD for the money.

I like this answer. Getting a PhD doesn't seem to pay much, but if you think of it in terms of most of your salary is going immediately back into paying for tuition (which is typically covered), suddenly the amount of money PhD students receive seems to be much larger.

@Kevin Tuition fees are rarely that high in Europe.

The disparity in pay in the computer science industry specifically, compared to PhD research, is because there is currently a massive deficit of experienced software developers in the computer science industry.
The higher industry salaries are designed to get qualified candidates and keep them there, to deliver on projects. No developer means no work means no money.
I would wager that PhD students do not play musical chairs. In the industry, turnover is a very real problem.

plus one for pointing out that compsci is a bit of an outlier compared to most fields.

Do you have numbers for pay in comp sci in some countries?

@Kimball only from the US, but I believe Master's in CS would be around $75K to $80K right now as a starting salary.

Mainly because it's not just a job. Although I do see it gaining recognition as one: we do produce a lot of an institution's research. You are still in training (even in postdocs), this isn't just hierarchy, it's degree-inflation.
A PhD is also an Education, an investment in your future, arguably increasing your future job prospects:

work opportunities abroad (conference, postdocs)
greater independence in your work than a less qualified job
job security (e.g., tenure-track)
potentially higher salary post-PhD (depending on job market)

Our stipend in comparably lower in Aus/NZ than EU but it usually also includes a tuition fees waiver. The contribution of international PhD students at our university is also recognised by only charging domestic fees during the first 3 years, even if they aren't eligible for a stipend.
Think of a PhD on a stipend like a job with lower pay but some perks: a huge emphasis on training, free education, conference opportunities, tax-free income.

My main piece of advice to those considering a PhD course is do it while you're early in your career. Some people do fantastic things coming back after experience in industry or education but it's logistically easier to go straight into it from study. A stipend is more income than most undergraduates live on and it's fairly comfortable when that's your standard of living (e.g., renting a flat, public transport). If you've become used to a high income (e.g., mortgaged your own house, had children, or taken personal loans), PhD study (even part-time) can be a lot more financially stressful.

If we compare academia and industry, I think there is a keyword for the big salary differences, responsibility.
I once asked a PhD student, why he did not want to take a better paid industry job and he answered he had nightmares about firemen-work. Like his code would make a big mess in production and he had to clean up. It really depends on what kind of work day you want. A delayed research paper affects nobody but your self, but a bug in a code can delay a whole plant.
And as an MSc in industry, your work has a purpose to make higher values for the company so there is definitely more weights on the shoulders for an industry engineer compared to a PhD student.


text:
How should the CV for the application of a pure math PhD applicant be structured?
I currently have four sections:

Education
Academic and research experiences
Honors and Awards
Work and Volunteer Experience

I have the following questions:

Should I include a section which gives a detailed account for the advanced math courses I have taken?
Should I elaborate on 3 and 4, or do I just list my awards and experience in those sections without explaining anything?
Should I include my research interest and standardized test scores in my CV?

I don't think a "detailed account" is necessary for anything that's a standard part of the math curriculum: a simple list would suffice. (Note that this would also apply to any other discipline with a "standard" curriculum, such as chemistry or physics!)
I would not include research interest and test scores, as they may be "restrictive" and turn off potential readers. (Test scores, if needed, must be provided in a more official way than just a CV listing, so you might as well leave it off.)
As for honors and awards and experience, I'd include specific information if it is relevant to your career aims; otherwise, a simple listing suffices.

Not even for PhD courses I have taken?

For PhD courses taken, this will likely be clear from your college transcript(s) and should be mentioned in at least one of your letters of recommendation. You can also mention the courses in your statement of interest (or cover letter, or personal statement, or whatever it's now called), which I did when I applied to math PhD programs in the 1980s. FWIW, I didn't make a CV (things may have been different then), but if I had, I would have had almost nothing to put for #2 (reading courses?), #3 (Putnam exam rank?), and #4 (fast food, restaurant cook, paper grader, data entry, farm work, etc.?).


text:
Two figures are redrawn and merged into one. Are reproduction permissions required in this case?
I have two questions regarding writing of survey papers
Firstly, if one of the technical papers reviewed has a number of figures. Take for example: Figure 4 is "Data model" and Figure 8 is "Mechanism structure". In the survey paper is it enough modification (for a waver of official permission) to merge these two into one figure and cite. Say, Figure X: Data model and Mechanism Structure adapted from [ref]?
Secondly, in the case when author A proposes "Data model" and "mechanism structure" in paper [30] and [35] i.e four entirely different diagrams. Is it sufficient as modification (for a waver for official permission) if in a survey, all four combined in one figure.
Thanks in advance

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because we have no idea about the content of the paper, and this is a problem that must be solved by the authors.

Someone out there could have some knowledge that might benefit millions of people in the future. For instance, a link etc. It is not sufficient for any author to solely depend on the answers here, but may be they get some guidance. Furthermote, publications have general ethics that one could always inquire about. If you need more clarifications you could ask. Besides, the question could be edited by anyone capable of doing so. I think practical questions should not be down-voted

I believe this is not a matter of knowledge, but matter of principals and perspective. And those things are unfortunately not global.

At least we know what are those principles and what should be put to perspective. Then, which channels are best referred to. May be someone is there that would prevent such questions from being asked again by giving clear insights on such matters

This is very much a legal question that depends on jurisdiction and on the creative or intellectual added-value provided by the author who builds on the original materials (in this case you, the OP). The latter is impossible to assess without seeing the originals and modifications, and the answer would thus depend on individual factors. Voting to close.

This is quite specific to what you've done. If you've just dropped the four images as-is into a,b,c and d subfigures then yes. The more modifications you make, the less likely you will need permission. If in doubt, ask your university librarian, publisher or an IP lawyer for specialist advice. Or, as I suggested on your previous question (https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/103942/do-i-need-an-explicit-permission-to-publish-someone-else-s-table-in-another-pape), it's usually so easy to obtain permission that you might as well just do so.

Combining other people's published figures to create a new figure does not allow you to waive requests for permission to reproduce a figure. Each individual component is someone else's intellectual property, and they have the right to be credited for the work. Note that many journals have simple mechanisms for requests to reproduce, and usually it's just a matter of asking for the necessary permission.
Simply redrawing someone else's figures for a part (a) and (b)-type figure does not spare you from requesting permissions. If you have completely redrawn and combined figures (for example, to illustrate how the two figures are more closely connected than in the originals), then you are creating a new intellectual contribution. You need to cite the original work that you've adapted, but you would not be reproducing the figures, and therefore would most likely not need to secure reproduction permissions.


text:
What is the proper "subject" for an email in which I want to ask a question about a paper from its author?
I want to ask a question regarding an issue in a paper I recently read. The author of the paper is an academic who may receive lots of emails daily.
I want to choose a proper subject for my email that is as short as possible. I have come with these ideas for the subject:

question
question?
a question about your paper
a question about paper xxx

Are there any better suggestions that are in common usage? I want my email to be formal and polite to persuade him to read and answer my question.

A question about "title". Or just: "Title". Why is this something that needs asking? There is no secret magic set of words.

"question" and "question?" are, in almost all cases, not a helpful subject line for any email.

If this is a recent paper you might get better results by naming the conference/journal: E.G. "Your ABCD2017 paper"

Carefully proofread the email before sending it too, as you're misusing some words here (e.g. witch and audible). The pronoun "I" is always capitalised in English, as is the first letter of any sentence. (I think a grammatically correct email is more likely to get a response.)

@Co3O4 When I see "attention grabbing" adjectives in email subjects, my first reaction is "spam".

I do this from time to time to call an author's attention to a salient Stack Exchange question and encourage them to answer, with good success. The subject lines I choose are short and use key technical terms found within the paper in question. Then you have like the first half of the first sentence in the body to reassure them you are not a crank and your message is worth reading. Put your effort there.


text:
How do I tell a professor who tells me he'll send in a recommendation but doesn't that I don't need his letter anymore?
My professor agreed to give me a LOR. However, despite many reminders, he has yet to send it in. I called him up a week before the deadline and he was annoyed at this. I then considered asking someone else but he emailed me asking me for supplementary documents. Again there has been radio silence from his side after that. Now, the deadline has passed. I think professors can still send in LORs and I’ve asked another professor to write a LOR for me after explaining my situation.  My question is do I email my earlier reference to tell him I don't need his LOR anymore? How do I word this email? Should I show my indignation at being taken for a ride?

I'd suggest avoiding anything that could cause conflict, and anything that feels like you are wanting to vent. It will have been extremely frustrating for you, but telling the professor that will do no real good and risks creating enemies where they are not needed.
If you feel you wish to contact them, it might be worth sending a quick email to thank them for helping you with this, and apologising that it is no longer needed (you do not need to say why, or that the deadline has passed - you are just avoiding them wasting their time writing the letter now). It may seem odd to apologise when you have done nothing wrong, but from their perspective - you have just badgered them repeatedly/added stress to their life and are now saying it was for nothing. It is not saying you were in the wrong, it is just maintaining a relationship with them.
If you don't care for them at all and don't see a bad relationship with them causing you any problems in the future (note: I've found I'm still in touch with most of my old professors, or people who know them/worked with them, in some form or another) - just don't say anything.
It might feel like they owe you an apology, or that they should recognise how they stressed you out - but that's really just for personal feel-good. It doesn't help your professional career at all to chase that.

If you don't feel angry at your professor, you could drop them a note once the firm deadline has passed, so that they avoid wasting time on writing a letter that's not needed anymore, or they don't feel bad about never having gotten around to doing it. I could imagine doing this with some colleagues whom I know are very busy.
In this case you could write something like "Dear professor, I'm writing back about the letter of recommendation that I originally requested from you on [date]. You had agreed to write this letter, but I have not received it. I just wanted to let you know that the deadline for submitting letters has passed, so it doesn't make sense for you to work on this anymore. Instead, I have asked [other prof] to write a letter explaining the situation."
If you will be working with this professor again and would like to set a boundary, you could add something like "It felt stressful for me to make this alternate arrangement without having a response from you about the original letter. In the future, it would be really helpful if you could respond more quickly to email about this kind of matters." Or something like this, although that's hard to word.
On the other hand, if you feel indignation at your professor, as seems to be the case, then I don't understand the purpose of sending a further email at all. What good would it achieve? If the letter of recommendation arrives at some later time, you can simply explain that the deadline has passed so you can't use it, but thanks nevertheless.

Thanks for your feedback! Please note I am not suggesting being "snarky" or "chastising", I just suggested pointing out politely and nonviolently what you would like from them in the future. I agree that this only makes sense if you expect to continue working with the person (it's probably not worth it otherwise), but in this case it may be worth it. I agree it's tricky, and may not be possible depending on circumstances, but it can also be useful to make the working relationship smoother in the future. I'd say it depends on the current relationship between the op and their professor.


text:
Should I resign if my research advisor verbally abuses me?
Summary: Supervisor is verbally abusive on a regular basis. He may be trying to sabotage me by delaying the annual report on which my funding depends. Should I quit or stick it out?

Details:
I enrolled in the Mathematics department at a local university in June of last year. Now, I'm not a highly talented person, I'm average at best. So I haven't done any groundbreaking work in the past year, and what makes it worse is that due a problem of mismanagement, most of the time they do not have access to any of the online journals, so it's very difficult to do research work and yet my supervisor demands that I attend every day and stay from 11 am to 5 pm at least.
I managed to come up with a few theories along with proofs and examples. As I have a government-funded fellowship, now it's time to send them the annual progress report and, suddenly, my supervisor says he won't prepare my report unless I have communicated a paper to some journal.
First, he said that to prepare a paper, one must take at least a month to arrange one's findings in a proper order, take care of the minor details, make the best possible presentation etc. and that's understandable.
Then, when he is expected to make the report—that is, last Friday—he suddenly ordered me to get the paper ready by Monday! I just learnt LaTeX so it took some time—two sleepless nights—but I finished anyway. Now comes the decorative parts like Introduction to the paper, sectionwise introduction, abstract, etc. I have never done these things before but I wrote what I could. Now my primary education was in my native language and my English is not really high-quality.
Now starts the problems. I'll give a list:

He yelled at me because my typing is not up to the mark, I made quite a few typing errors. My English is so poor that makes him want to vomit!!!
He wrote a few lines for the introduction while saying I'm insulting him by making him do this.
He should not have accepted me as his scholar since he could tell from my signature(!!) that I was not worth it.
Regarding the typing errors, he questioned the authenticity of the certificates/transcripts of my previous degrees (implying I constituted some sort of fraud to get those).
Not only am I a bad student and a disgrace to his reputation(?), he also finds my mannerisms, the way I talk and dress and behave quite disgusting. This is another reason he regrets accepting my application. What does this even mean?
His good student 'K' wants to work in the field I am working now. Great news. But how did he break it to me? "Have you seen her transcripts from high school? or college? And look at you, you'll never be anywhere close to her. You'll never be like her." I don't know if there is a decent way of saying this but he was screaming like crazy. Why would I even want to be like her?
Brags about how many students he has rejected over the years but he is now 'trapped' with me. When I or anyone else forced him to accept my application is not known to me though.
Keeps threatening to write letters to the authorities so they will terminate my fellowship.
Someone called his cell phone and he said 'I'm stuck with the crazy one' loud enough so I could hear. Another professor from another department came to visit him. He pointed at me and said 'Can this one be deported to your department somehow? I can't handle this anymore, just insufferable.'
Says I'm becoming like his another callous student "Fat J." Right, the teacher has codenamed an overweight student Fat J. Sounds funny? He must have codenamed me too.
I got my master's degree from a top ranked university of this country and the one I'm in now doesn't even come in the first 50. But according to him, that university has a good reputation (God only knows why, because they have no good faculty members and their syllabus and exams are designed so students get high marks). I know nothing, I've learnt nothing, I should be ashamed (of what exactly?) and it's his university that gives a proper education but got only bad reputation; so from now on, he will accept students from his university only. (Who's stopping him anyway?)
He should have invested this time in other fellows instead of wasting it with me, that would get some real work done.

And so on and so on......
Now all of this may not look offensive but his tone and wordings, the degrading language he was using, it was unbelievable from a teacher. It doesn't sound like a teacher is scolding his student but like he has personal issues with me. This has been going on for the last 4 days. He called me in his office and screams these things at me for 2-3 hours in a row. I just keep my head down and listen quietly.
Recap: First of all, he demands me to do a one-month job in 7 days. Then my efforts are not appreciated. If he has so much problem with me, if he wants me gone and appoint his good student K then he can just fire me officially on the grounds of unsatisfactory academic performance. Why is he doing this instead then? Is it possible that he is releasing some personal frustrations on me?
While other professors are giving their fellows' first-year reports consisting details of topics they've studied, seminars, lectures attended without having any papers published/accepted/communicated, my guide is pulling off so much drama. Is he doing this on purpose? This way my annual report gets postponed for an indefinite time period and I lose my fellowship so I have no way but to leave.
And all the work I've had to do on his behalf, from typing his letters, arranging his files, typing the entire syllabus of the department, to writing question papers for 10 different subjects in hand. While he can't even provide with access to any of the international journals.
Questions: In such situation should I give resignation before this abuse takes its toll on my nerves? Or is this typical behaviour of research advisors especially during paper preparation due to stress? Although I'm the one in stress because whatever little work has been done is done entirely by me not one bit by him and then I've to put up with this.
I was starting to like the subject but now just the thought of having to see his face and listen to that voice is keeping me awake at night. Should I quit before he harasses me some more or is it perfectly normal behaviour and I should learn to get used to it?
Pardon me for this very long post about my personal experience. If you can take a little time to go through it, then please give me advice.

I'd recommend you try to edit the wall of text down to the core cause-and-effect, and try to add spaces after punctuation. As it currently stands, many readers may be scared off by the sheer amount of text.

That being said, from your description of things, run, don't walk, for the nearest exit.

@tonysdg, you beat me to JeffE's favourite phrase. OP, this sounds like a terrible situation. Get out as fast as you can.

@astronat: I'll admit, I stole it :)

Honestly, this is the kind of story that prevents some of us from ever even attempting a PhD.

What country are you in?  In the U.S., it is discrimination (and illegal) to harass a student with a name focused on the person's weight. // Please check in regularly with a department administrator.  You need that progress report.  But it's okay if it comes from the department, not the advisor. // Once the progress report has been submitted, find another advisor, and perhaps a different department.

@DanielR.Collins It is very far from the normal PhD experience.

@PatriciaShanahan: I don't know, my sample of close friends who got a PhD all described their experience as something like, "You just have to eat crap until your advisor decides to release you from slavery".

Is there some Faculty-level body to which you can take your concerns? In various Canadian universities this would be the College of Graduate Studies; in many UK universities there should be a Faculty level co-ordinator of postgraduate research student experience. I agree with all the other commenters who have recognised that this behaviour from a PhD advisor is completely unprofessional

all of this may not look offensive < hell damn, it does!

This seems really a depressing experience. "While he can't even provide with access to any of the international journals" How can he even do that? In most places, you have access to them through the library. Anyways, he seems to have serious issues, yet if you run away now, you may have a problem to secure a scholarship or a good place. Fighting back a little through university pathways, as many of these seem to be against proper conduct, is maybe your best interest.

I'm tempted to think that this is a South Asian country. I've gotten my Ph.D. from India, and this sounds quite familiar to some of my friends' experiences.

You should certainly not put up with your advisor's egregiously inappropriate behavior in the long term.  The only question is: given that you cannot complete your degree under this horrible advisor, what do you want to do?  Unfortunately academia does not reward people who resign immediately under almost any circumstance, so you should only do so if you really are ready to terminate -- or at least, interrupt for a substantial period of time -- your academic plans and career.
If so: yes, this sure sounds like a case where resigning immediately is appropriate.  I would also urge you to speak to other faculty members and administrators in the department and the university so they know why you are doing this.
If not: unfortunately you need to bide your time and find a more graceful exit strategy.  I would begin by sounding out other faculty members in your department to see if any is willing to take over advising you.  (Let me say though that your description makes your entire department sound like a real mess.  Still, it would be good if you could stay for long enough to gain admission to a better department.) If not, I would reach out to contacts at your former department(s) to see if you could come back -- not necessarily to get a PhD, but at least to stay in academia while you plan your next move.  If you really want to stay in academia and can't find anywhere else to go: this is a very tough situation.  I would consider speaking to the department head, graduate coordinator or some other administrative figure -- but someone for which you have reason to believe will be sympathetic -- explain how unbearable your current situation is, and see if they have any ideas.  Unfortunately the kind of department/university where a faculty member can behave like your advisor is more likely to be the kind of department/university where other faculty and administrators are unable or unwilling to intervene usefully on behalf of the students.
I'm really sorry for the way you've been treated.  It is wholly unacceptable.  Good luck.

I would definitely suggest working towards a transition to another advisor in the department if at all possible, as suggested here, before quitting altogether (unless you decide not to pursue graduate education). Also note that, OP, if you have represented everything accurately, this is beyond incredibly poor behavior and at some point the people in charge of your department need to be made aware of it. At major US institutions there may also be other resources for you outside of your department, I'm less sure about anywhere else.

My supervisor is the HoD now.And yes, this whole department is meesed up,if only I knew before taking admission.None will say one word against him neither would anybody take over me.The faculty are like one close unit.As it stands now, if I resign now,my academic career is over. I'll have to find some clerical or desk job. But that would be better ,I now think ,than this sort of abuse.

@BryanKrause: I represented things accurately and there is more. He was really nice,kind and helpful in the initial days. I don't know what suddenly happened. He is HoD and all in all of the dept. transition is not possible.I had seen teachers who got angry if fellows made mistakes,one who fired a 'demotivated' fellow in a short notice but this sort of degrading meaningless insults coming from a teacher reminds me of the high school bullies.

@user80631 Do you know if this behavior is new behavior? Or do others expect it as well? If it's a general pattern (even with nice times in between) I doubt you are the only victim, and other people in the department may feel the same way as you. If it's new behavior, it's always possible there is actually something happening medically, which isn't in any way your responsibility to deal with but there could be colleagues who recognize the change.

If I leave now, I'm pretty sure he'll spread rumours about me that I could not handle Ph.D or God knows what and make me look bad.

@BryanKrause : This new behaviour is only for me. I have to spend much time in or around his office. His behaviour is perfectly normal with all the staff and fellow professors. But with me, he is a different person. I even spoke with another student,did not tell him all these, just ask if he is the angry type. Well turns out he is known to be the nice guy.

@BryanKrause : Although this nice guy never misses any chance to pick on someone or the other for fun but he usually keeps it light with loud laughs. Now that I think of it, I should have guessed his bully-like nature from that.

if I resign now,my academic career is over -- [citation needed]

@JeffE : Well I can still apply for teaching jobs at schools or colleges,in fact, that's what people here do after Ph.D, but due to current political situations in my country( pardon me for not revealing my country's name), that'll take another 2-3 years to just get appointed. If I could get some research work done by that time that'd be useful otherwise totally wasted time.

This is most definitely not normal, and if people in this department think it is, they are wrong. He may not be happy with you - this happens - but then his criticism has to be specific and constructive, or at least not personal, if he thinks it is unrecoverable.
It may be that he is under pressure himself, possibly through ill planning or other mistakes of his own, and having to handle a supervisee which does not operate at (justifiably or unjustifiably) expected levels of performance puts additional stress on them that they just happen to take out on you.
One indicator for this theory is that they took on a new role - this role may stress them out significantly, so that their self-control has gone. I am making this analysis not to defend or excuse them, but to give you a perspective where this may come from. This may make it easier for you to understand how to proceed; it would be a good idea to transfer to someone else.
All in all, however, you deserve, like anybody else, to be treated with a minimum of modicum and respect, no matter how well you perform, and this is clearly not happening.
TL;DR: it's not you, it's him.

I assume that the best is to try to talk to the student ombudsman/representative about this. Most likely the faculty knows about this issue with this person (this is not unheard of in academia), and while they maybe can't change him, they probably can make sure that you can switch advisers without big problems. However, try to go step-by step here in case that they are stubborn.
Don't bet on legal paths since that will take long and give the faculty all of the incentive to deny the problem.

I'm in academia and have worked with many students from many departments, and, sadly, have heard of these types of inexcusable behaviors before. To the degree that you've described only maybe 1-2 in 20 years. However, my response is always the same because, as Daniel Collins said above, "You just have to eat crap until your advisor decides to release you from slavery". The only thing that differs is the amount a crap & the years of servitude, Lol. That sounds like 4-5th year students. :)
That's extreme, of course, but there's a lot of truth in it. No matter what your technical/legal rights are (many mentioned above), I've never even heard of anyone using them (obviously, this doesn't mean that many people haven't). The main reason is that the unstated "contract" between a student & advisor is that they basically treat you however they want, but they will help you get published and hook you up with good jobs/postdocs, etc. Most of the time, the advisor honors this "contract."
Since yours is not honoring this contract, you could file a complaint, etc. Before doing that though, I'd consider some important questions:

How big of a name is he in the field? That is, how far does his power (contacts) reach? If he's big enough (and you think he'll honor your "contract" in the end), I'd think long & hard before taking any official steps.
Will anyone else in the dept. be willing and ABLE to advise you (i.e., how specified is your research? Is he the only one who knows enough about your research interest?)?
If no one CAN be your advisor, are you willing to change your research topic to fit with another prof's?
If you decide to leave the math dept., where else could you go? What other depts. would allow you to research your current (or similar) topic? What other profs have the knowledge & interests that fit with yours? Would they be able to give you funding?
Would you be happy studying something besides math?
Would it be better to change universities altogether?

This is too long, sorry, but I'd strongly caution you to have something set (acceptance, funding) before saying/doing anything that your advisor might hear about because he sounds like the type of vindictive psycho that would go all out to punish you. And if you're in the US on a student visa, you can't count on having time to get something going before you're out of status.
Remember that many students make similar changes; it can be done. Just be cautious & smart about how you do it. Good luck!

You just have to eat crap until your advisor decides to release you from slavery ... the unstated "contract" between a student & advisor is that they basically treat you however they want -- No no no no a thousand times no. Graduate students are not slaves. A faculty position doesn't magically grant anyone the right to be emotionally abusive. "Hooking you up" with a good job/postdoc does not excuse subhuman behavior. Life is too short to negotiate with bullies. Just get out.

First off, if you are a woman and the adviser is a man, then you're in a problem that is only recently being revealed as more prevalent (your post and language suggests that you're a man, but I wanted to get that question out of the way, because it would lead to the simplest stereotype of the problem).
Record these interactions if he shouts at you or insults you. There are plenty of cellphone apps that can record audio; just set your phone to record before you walk into their office, shove the phone in your pocket (upside-down, so the microphone points upward to get a better recording), and make sure it save it afterwards. You probably won't ever need to show someone the recording, but it helps to know that you have it. And you can show someone the recording in a private and off-the-record way, in a way that lets them understand what you deal with.
Your task is to look for another adviser. If there are conferences that you can go to, then maybe you can do so, even if it's only to observe, network, or ask researchers some questions about their work. If anyone asks about your situation, you can honestly explain it as "my adviser is currently overburdened and cannot work with advisees like either of us anticipated." That doesn't really blame him, and it will probably sound nice and reasonable to anyone else.
Also, as you need some editing help, feel free to message me and send me a few paragraphs of intro, conclusion, or the less knowledge-intensive stuff.  Poor english in research papers is one of my pet peeves, but it only bugs me in published papers; this editing and review process is the period when it can be fixed, and I'm happy to help improve the clarity of the literature. I can help you rewrite a few paragraphs towards english fluency (no credit or acknowledgement requested, and you shouldn't thank "that guy on StackExchange" anyway). If the advisor still complains about those, that will help you affirm that the adviser has some personal issue, and it's not your fault. And I can give you a 2nd opinion on the readability of your english, which many native english authors are bad at. I am a harsh reader and editor, but I'm like that because I have ADHD and I need a paper to be clear and well-presented so that I can follow it. Crazy grammar leads me astray and it takes me three times as long to read a poorly written paper than a well written one. I don't see any glaring errors in your post, but your post is written conversationally rather than academically. (I've not published anything yet myself; as I'm still working on that research, so I would only say I'm qualified to edit by virtue of being a native english speaker and pedantic).
As the subject is my personal pet peeve, if I was an adviser then I would have the student work with another student who may not be as experienced but who is fluent in english and a serious student. Both students would benefit from that, and the junior student could get some acknowledgement or credit if they put in a lot of time or helped over several drafts. That's what the younger grad students are for. And no matter what, if I were the adviser I'd always personally double-check the first few sentences of the abstract, intro, conclusion, and whichever section starts the real content of the paper. Those are the fluffiest and most academically boring parts, but they are the parts that will set the reader's first impression.