text:
Is 5 years of professional experience bad for a future career in academia?
I am a current master student (my field is earth sciences). Some time ago, I was sure that I should apply for a PhD right after I graduate with a master's degree. However, now I am thinking about taking a gap and working for about 5 years prior to my PhD. Will this professional experience look good or rather bad in my CV if I plan to apply for research-based PhD programs and pursue my future career in academia? Thank you.

If the job you take is research based then it could help rather than hurt. But one issue, in some places, is that letters of recommendation from academics (primarily) are very important. The US is like that. So, explore the requirements for application and keep in touch with former professors if that is an issue.
Letters in general need to confidently predict your likelihood of success in a doctoral program. Those with doctorates (academics or other researchers) who know you and your work well are in a position to do that. Others not so much.
Something else to think about is whether living for a few years on a much reduced income will be feasible for you at that time. Other things may happen in your life that make you depend on that income.

Note that "research based" can be subtle. Much (most?) of the "research" at companies (as opposed to research labs) is product based. That isn't the same thing and has much less value in many cases, though I don't know what product based earth science would look like. By "research" I intend extending what is known rather than extending what is useful.

If the job will benefit your application will depend on the type of job. If the job is say, as a lab technician and you are thinking of a PhD in Mol Bio, or if the job is an as an engineer if you are thinking of a PhD in engineering, etc. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, the main issue might be that your letters of reference from professors will be dated.
But regardless, I am of the opinion that taking a break between degrees is a great idea. I took a 6-year break between my BS and PhD and I think it helped me a lot, especially in terms of managing relationships with coworkers and supervisor, project management, etc. It is also my observation that older grad students do better than those fresh out of college, all other things being equal.
Your experience outside of academia will also give you perspective. Academics complain a lot (myself, I log about 5 complaints per hour, 10 per hour on Mondays), but after spending 5 years outside of academia, you will also appreciate how good academics have it.


text:
How long does it take a journal to assign an associate editor?
I submitted my paper more than a month and a half ago and the journal still hasn't assigned an editor yet. It passed initial validation, though. I found out that for others, it generally takes 1-2 weeks to pass initial validation and assign an editor.
I reached out to the editorial office and they said they were finding editors and asked me to recommend some. I recommended 8 editors more than three weeks ago and nothing have changed. Should I withdraw and submit to another journal, or how should I reach out to the editorial office again?
Note: this is about assigning handling editor not reviewers.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Clarification on Preprint Submission Policy during Manuscript Review in Springer journal
I am currently facing a situation regarding the submission of a preprint while my manuscript is under review. I submitted my paper to The International Journal of Advances in Engineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics (Springer) in September, and it has been in "with editor" status since then.
I have contacted the Chief Editor for clarification on whether I am allowed to submit a preprint of my paper to platforms like arXiv while it is under review, but I have not received a clear response yet.
Has anyone encountered a similar situation with this journal or other journals published by Springer? What is the general practice regarding submitting preprints while a manuscript is under review? I am seeking advice and insights from the community to better understand the best course of action.
I am aware that journal policies can vary, and I have checked the journal's website for information without success. I'm reaching out to the community for guidance while I await a response from the Chief Editor.

In general, one can submit a preprint in ArXiv unless the journal prohibits this action. I think you don't have to take any permission from the editor. But you can check the section typically named such as " information for authors", if nothing mentioned about such prohibition then you can freely submit it to ArXiv because ArXiv is not considered as publication. I personally submit every paper to ArXiv before sending it to journal.

You don't have to ask, the answer is "yes you are allowed to post preprints".

Springer Nature journals encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers of the authors’ choice, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms.

Source

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


text:
Seeking Advice: Combining Control Theory, Machine Learning, and Applied Math in Graduate Studies
I'm an electrical and computer engineering undergrad in Portugal, considering a switch to machine learning or applied math for my master's. I've completed Andrew Ng's deep learning specialization and have worked on deep learning projects, including those with transformers. Currently, I'm exploring reinforcement learning and plan to study game theory. My goal is to understand these fields better before deciding on my master's focus. I particularly enjoy signal and control theory in my studies, alongside complex analysis and differential equations, though I don't plan to work directly in these areas. Instead, I aim to apply this mathematical knowledge in programming, avoiding complex proofs.
I'm contemplating a Ph.D. and a career in either industry or government, discouraged by the competitive and flawed academic career path. I'm leaning towards a master's in electrical engineering with a focus on control theory but want to keep options open for deep learning and applied math. I'm curious if it's possible to combine control theory and machine learning in a master's, possibly within a single department, and whether a master's in applied math might be more inclusive of my interests.
I'm also concerned about learning unique subjects like control theory at a level not offered by online courses, while also wanting to maintain the ability to engage with and apply self-learned topics like game theory in my advanced studies. I'm questioning which department (CS, math, or electrical engineering) would best suit a master's or Ph.D. combining control theory and machine learning, if such programs exist in Europe, and how online learning in game theory could integrate into my postgraduate studies.
Any advice on navigating these decisions would be greatly appreciated.

Don't worry too much about the label of the program or degree.
Find professors who do the kind of work you want to do. Apply to work with them or to the programs that they take students from.

If you want to do a Master's rather than a PhD, I'd recommed apply to a program with good reputation, where:

a significant part of your graduation requirements can be completed with 'free electives' (i.e. those without any restrictions, incl. department which offers the course); and/or

a significant part of your graduation requirements can be completed with a master's thesis/project if you do find a professor whose research has a major overlap with your focus.


text:
Should I include repeated code in my thesis appendix?
I'm writing up my PhD thesis and I'm not sure about the inclusion of some of the code I have written. I have a number of MATLAB scripts that I have included in the Appendix. The issue is that I have further scripts that are completely identical but use different variables. So the code is the same but the variables are different. This is important in the body of the thesis as running the same code but on different varriables produces different results. Do I need to include every single version of the same script in the appendix, or should I just include one example of the script and describe the different variables in the caption? I ask as this turns 12 scripts into about 30 scripts, which seems a bit much.

Why does this code need to be in your document at all?

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

It sounds like you should be using functions in your Matlab code.  The purpose of functions is to avoid repeating code that does the same thing.  (See Matlab's function documentation.)
So, if you have code that is a script that is a loop that adds a to b to equal c, you could define a function to do that loop and add operation as follows:
function c = loop_and_add_elements(a,b)
   for i=1:length(c)
     c(i) = a(i)+b(i);
   end
end

You could save this function as a separate file called "loop_and_add_elements.m".  If if is within Matlab's search path, you can do your repeated operations in a script as follows:
c = loop_and_add_elements(a,b);
z = loop_and_add_elements(x,y);

This way, you can avoid repeating the code structure that is in "loop_and_add_elements.m".
(In case it is not obvious, in the function example above, the loop is unnecessary; you could just write c = a +b; and get the same thing.)

and the fact that matlab only exports the top-most function in a file making you add a file for every little function you want to reuse makes it a sad excuse of a programming language. Because functions are the core idea of programming and the fact that this has to be explained to people using matlab just shows...

@FelixB. Octave is better than Matlab in that regard (and worse in others), but the fact that they haven't fixed this for so long is just sad indeed.

@FelixB. Not disagreeing with your general point, but apparently you can define multiple functions in a file by making them static methods of a common class. Should be quite similar to the modules found in other languages.

I appreciate the response but this doesn't answer my question. The question wasn't about the correct way to write MATLAB code but about including code in an appendix.

@ChrisD91 Fair point!  I think it is good to include the code somehow for the purpose of reproducibility.  You could put it on github, do a release, and then get a DOI from zenodo or your institution so that you can cite it in you thesis.  Or, you could include it as an appendix.  A github repository is probably more useful for other people, and it could also help you later when you are applying for jobs.

(1) You can ask your supervisor.
(2) Chances are it won't make any difference. The people who assess your thesis are in all likelihood not interested in whether these functions are in the Appendix or not.

Most likely you should not include any code in your appendix.

If code is vital to understand your thesis, it should be in the main body and discussed there. Usually those are short excerpts, not even fully functional programs.

If the critical part is the input (what you use variables for...) you should have a table indicating the different input variants. This likely needs no supportive code either, but prose describing the meaning/purpose of each variable.

If code is vital for reproducing your thesis, it should be in a code repository/archive and cited in your thesis. GitHub+Zenodo is a popular choice1 but there are other means and some universities offer similar services now.

Otherwise, generally if you have trouble presenting code that is a good indication that the code just is not written well. Instead of trying to cram it into your thesis, read up on basic code refactoring techniques to restructure your code into more readable and relevant pieces.

1 I may be biased here since it originated in my domain. Make sure to check with your supervisor and university; usually, the university library is responsible for scientific data/code archival.

I'd say a properly archived GitHub repository is almost always a good thing, but theses these days are mostly stored electronically, so having a whole bunch of code at the end in the appendices is no big deal. If that code is well commented/and or designed to be self-documenting, there is IMHO no reason not to have it in the thesis. Ideally it should be copy-pastable into files and able to run from those.

You can solve two problems with one action if you do the looping and functions. If only variables are different but with same code, simply create loop where your same code takes all the variables that require same chunk of code one by one while doing calculations. That will help you to save space, time, and workload.

How I would solve it:

Describe very clearly how your script depends on those variables
Make a table that lists the values associated with each experiment. You can then refer to an experiment by refering to a partcular entry in the table.

Step 1. will be much easier if you have written the code in terms of functions and their arguments, which is best practice in code design anyway.


text:
Academic Violation - Can I avoid mentioning it to grad schools?
In my second semester senior year, I was being proctored via zoom for an exam and our professor had asked us to turn on both audio and video for it. I accidentally had my mic muted during the exam. My professor reported me and failed me in the class. My transcript shows a grade of NC (during covid all Fs counted as NC) but other than that it does not show anything else on my transcript indicating the academic violation. If I were to apply to masters programs without reporting this, would they be able to find out?

This might depend on place, but in the US it would be unlikely. It is remotely possible if there were private communication (improper, actually) with that professor.
Your university has handled the situation with its own processes and posted its results as it deems proper. For this reason you don't need to explain. That is the university's job.
If NC has an alternation meaning than "Failed during Covid" you can point to that. But if that is its only meaning then you might be asked why you failed. I would find this unlikely as there was a lot of disruption under Covid and a lot of reasons for failure of courses.
The underlying idea here is that people aren't perfect and often do the wrong thing. But once the infraction is handled it needn't, with some exceptions, haunt a person for life. And, for those rare but exceptionally severe infractions, people are expelled. Let it go, but be prepared to answer questions.

I'm wondering, though, how an "accident" resulted in failure. That seems odd in itself.

Thanks!  And I’m not sure why the professor decided to fail me over this either tbh. I’ve tried to appeal but have been denied.


text:
MSc Thesis supervisor wants to push paper to conferences, yet is super obscure on the topic, he just wants to rush
My supervisor pitched this idea of working on this "sms abuse" paper, he claims it will be a "breakthrough" and no one has publish something like this before.
He wants me to collect data from these temporary sms websites, and find a link how attackers might use this sensitive data shared on these websites to hack into people's accounts, bank, emails, you get the idea.
It all sounds nice and easy, but I've asked him how can he be so sure that the credentials posted on these sites can be used to break to other people's accounts. Because usually you'll see some OTP or some one-time code to get back your account, like:

4564 is your Google OTP. Please don't share it with anyone.

I think it's just his hypothesis that people get hacked this way, since there's no data or facts that this has been done (at least that I know of). He's very reluctant to help me or point me in the right direction, he just pushes his agenda and dodges my questions.
I'm very pragmatic and also a bit cynical and I question every single thing, it baffles me how he's a postdoc and takes matters lightly like it's child's play. He's also well-versed in the cybersecurity domain and I'm not, so maybe that gives him the confidence to act like this. But also he's very hasty to publish the paper to multiple conferences, it seems like he wants to reach his quota and doesn't care on the quality of work.
Sorry for ranting but the bottom line is: how can I educate myself on this "unknown domain (for me)" and finish my thesis?

Are you his first student? What was the future of his previous students' research?

He's had other students and they graduated, but he sees students thesis as business. In the sense that he's suggested to me and other peers to publish these papers in security conferences straight away. I believe he earns smth substantial each time the papers get submitted in conferences. In the end of the day, I have to do most of the work, but I would like some sense of direction at least in the beginning, since it's my first time writing a thesis paper.

Probably the most relevant question for you right now is, "What happens if this idea doesn't pan out like you [the supervisor] think?"
The correct answer is, "Then your thesis becomes a detailed and rigorous [to a degree appropriate for an MSCS] explanation of why this didn't work."
If you get that answer from whoever approves your thesis and sets your grade then that's a reasonable course of action.  Whether or not you can resist or change directions depends on your personal circumstances in your specific institution.
(The anecdotes are too long to be useful; suffice to say I've been on both sides of this experience, both times with good faith on all sides.  It didn't feel great, but both cases worked out with successful theses.)
The second most relevant issue is the lack of guidance or support; that was not a factor in my experiences.  Overconfidence, yes; lack of support, no.  You're going to have to find a middle ground between getting nothing and getting spoon-fed in advance.  It might help to dig in and do a little research and a little work before just dismissing the idea or demanding a justification.
Have you done a literature search to see if this idea has been tried?
Have you started even a small scale implementation?

"Then your thesis becomes a detailed and rigorous [to a degree appropriate for an MSCS] explanation of why this didn't work.". Although thats totatly right, it seems that at least he needs to find out the answer to this question. The answer cannot simply be because I couldn't find the solution since the topic was complicated. This is not an impossible outcome if the research topic of MS thesis is selected without any small precomputations.

@m123 I strongly agree.  But that is what I was trying to say by "detailed and rigorous".  I'm trying to NOT give the student a "get out of work free" card, and also NOT give the supervisor a "get out of supervising free" card.


text:
Deciding between publishing a single or multiple papers
What are criteria that help to decide whether to publish several losely related results in a single publication that contains the results as "chapters" or each result in a separate publication?
The concrete case would be new results related to matching theory; some results would be concerned with the theory itself and others with new heuristics related to the TSP.

What does "TSP" mean?

@JochenGlueck, TSP stands for Traveling Salesman Problem and is about the abstraction of finding the shortest roundtrip through a set of  cities

Minor piece of advice: in the US, university administration is becoming increasingly more hostile to the interests of faculty. Faculty are being denied tenure or having tenure revoked due to not publishing enough. I think that, where possible, multiple papers is better for your career.

Publishing a single paper can be easier since it only has to go through review etc once. But having multiple stories in one paper makes it harder to clearly present each story, starting with choosing which one to emphasize in the title.

IMHO it depends on how closely the parts are related. There are two basic principles that sometimes are in conflict with each other:

Present one idea a time.

Put everything that is based on the same idea together.

Both are presumed to facilitate the reading and understanding of your work, and that (making the life of the reader as easy as possible and using his/her time as efficiently as possible) should (again, IMHO) be the primary concern when making the decisions when, what, and how to publish. Everything else is secondary.
As to "scooping" Buffy mentioned, my God, I wish (sincerely, no joke) that somebody would scoop me on some of my projects and take the headache of figuring out how to organize the exposition and endless proofreading off my shoulders. Fat chance! Showing your ideas (or even ready proofs) to other people has its benefits, of course: for instance, you understand better what you are talking about yourself after such discussions, but convincing somebody to seriously think of them usually takes more effort than finishing the project off by yourself.
Just my two cents :-)

thanks for sharing your thoughts on the issue; I think I will have to weigh the arguments and then take a decision. As I am not associated with a research institution and closer to ending a career than to starting, one, my importance ranking of arguments will likely differ slightly from what is reasonable under other circumstances.

Let's assume that all of the "chapters" are actually publishable, which isn't a given by any means.
You would be dealing with two different sorts of publishers for the two options. Some publishers will publish only single papers of some maximum length. Others, including book publishers, will publish longer works, sometimes as special issues. But the criteria for that are quite high.
However, as I see it, the main issue is timing. If you hold back publishing the early parts until the later parts are complete you stand the risk of getting scooped as it is common for several people/groups to be working on and thinking about the same ideas simultaneously. That its an effect of the "state of the art". People are intrigued and want to follow up recent work.
Ultimately, however, unless you intend to self publish, in which case your audience is likely to be small, the decisions are made by others. And, if you publish a lot of papers on the same general topic it is possible that later in your career there is room for a retrospective, bringing the ideas together.
I suggest that, unless you have something truly unique and remarkable, that individual paper is probably the best path. It also avoids the "all or nothing" possibility.


text:
How to deal with "cans of worms" of references in publications
I have found an algorithm that solved a puzzle in an unexpected way, so I'm planning to publish it on arXiv.
After some online research I learned that the puzzle belongs to a larger class of more or less related problems with a long list of relevant publications that should probably be cited as references to prior art.
Question:

is it acceptable for a serious mathematical paper to provide the circumstances of the discovery of an algorithm as an explanation for not going into details of prior art but rather focus on the algorithm and its properties?

Maybe you can find one or more good review papers that you can cite, mentioning that more references are given there?

When I read the title, I expected it to be about papers/areas that have lots of issues/controversies.

I don't understand how the circumstances you detail in your post (basically, "I solved a problem X without realizing at first that it belongs to a class of problems Y") provide an explanation for not going into details of prior work. I mean, it does convey to the reader that you chose not to bother to look much into prior work, but is that really what you want the reader to take away from your explanation?

You need to know whether your algorithm is novel. For that, you need an overview of the field. That overview goes into the introduction.

Help your reader to understand the context of this problem/algorithm
Academic articles are expected to be placed in their relevant context through a literature review and citation of relevant works.  This is to aid a reader to ensure that they are given a broad understanding of the field and the corresponding ability to look up relevant materials that frame the subject under discussion in the paper.  It also assists the reader to understand what is (and is not) novel in your paper and how it contributes to the broader literature in the field.
While it is perfectly acceptable to provide the circumstances of discovery of an algorithm, this does not alleviate the need to tell your reader about other relevant works relating to that problem or a larger class of problems that subsumes it.  If that latter information is useful context then it should be included in your paper to give your reader a broad understanding of the field in which your algorithm falls.
As to the problem of opening a "can of worms" in your literature review, this requires some judgment in relation to relevance and also some judicious consideration of how "deep" to go.  It sounds like you have identified a large body of literature for a larger class of problem that subsumes your problem.  Whether all of this "should be cited" depends on how relevant it is to your more narrow problem and algorithm.  It might be reasonable to cite some core papers about the larger class of problem without going too "deep" into that larger field.  Think carefully about what is useful to your reader.

I like your well-balanced and neutral discussion of the subject

I'm famous for my well-balanced and neutral discussion on this site.

is it acceptable for a serious mathematical paper to provide the circumstances of the discovery of an algorithm as an explanation for not going into details of prior art but rather focus on the algorithm and its properties?

Short answer:
No,
you should make reasonable efforts to discuss your work's connections to relevant literature. (But you are not required to open and fully digest any can of worms you encounter.)

Detailed answer:
No one cares about the "circumstances of the discovery" that you are writing about. That would be seen as irrelevant, and providing those circumstances as an explanation for anything would, in my opinion, detract from whatever seriousness your paper purports to have. (To be clear, if the circumstances are interesting you can mention them just for a bit of extra color, but they do not justify writing the paper in any other way than you would be writing under different circumstances.)
The main thing that determines whether a paper is serious or not is whether it makes a valuable contribution to human knowledge.
Other factors that affect the perception of seriousness is whether the author seems to have done a thorough job of addressing the issues arising from the topic being discussed, and issues adjacent to them.
Not citing relevant literature that you could easily cite, and not discussing related or adjacent issues that you could easily discuss, are all signs - and unfortunately, not uncommon ones - of an author who is trying to finish a paper quickly with minimal work and without doing a serious job of studying the implications of their work to what already exists in the literature. The general impression this leaves is of a sloppy, unserious author and paper. Even when the research contribution itself is nice, this can leave readers with a poor taste. It is in essence a missed opportunity to pick some low-hanging fruit that makes your paper better and increases its potential impact with a small investment of effort.
So, as a general rule I would say, do not leave low-hanging fruit on the tree. If your work relates to topics that you can, with relatively low effort, understand and discuss at least briefly in your paper - even a paragraph or a sentence along with a citation can provide a valuable service to interested readers - and if you want to be perceived by others as a serious scholar, then you should feel obligated to invest that effort.
Now, what about high-hanging fruit? Mathematical research topics are so complex and interwoven with deep connections that it can indeed happen sometimes that you may need to make a very large effort to understand the full implications of your discovery on the field it relates to. (I know the feeling, this has happened to me many times.) In that case, it's fine if you don't make that effort; no one expects you to open these sorts of large cans of worms when all you want to do is discuss an algorithm related to a puzzle that interests you. In that case, the appropriate thing to do would be to at least tell the readers that your work has possible connections to a large body of literature, a full discussion of which lies beyond the scope of your paper, and give some relevant citations (for example to some survey papers, or other papers that serve as good entry points to that literature). Doing this would only require a small amount of effort, and would reassure readers knowledgeable about these connections that you are not trying to get away with a sloppy or unserious attitude to scholarly research by hiding relevant literature you are aware of. And it gives all readers the information they need to open the can of worms themselves if they should desire to do so.
If you take this approach, the impact of your paper may be limited by the fact that you're only discussing a special case of some much larger theory, but I think a paper doing this can still call itself a serious paper that makes a useful contribution other people will respect and appreciate. And if your result is interesting enough, other people will surely come along later and work on mining your ideas to pick the higher-hanging fruit those ideas point to.

I'm a civilian but the only time I recall the circumstances of discovery being relevant was some proof discovery that everyone thought was new and interesting and then at the last second before publication it was rediscovered in some ultra obscure paper decades earlier.  And finding that was interesting and why it had zero impact previously was interesting.

I would disagree with the "no one cares" generalization; it may be the mindset of some to not care about the origin of a problem that led to a new contribution to scientific research; other may see it as a source of inspiration for identifying interesting research topics.

@ManfredWeis to clarify, what I meant was "no one cares, in the context of the question of whether your paper should be accepted to a journal (or should be considered a 'serious' paper)". Like I said, it may be an interesting story people would enjoy reading about, so in that sense I agree with you people might "care" about it. But as an explanation for why your paper is written the way it is or why it omits discussion of certain things, it is irrelevant.

One option is to cite the latest review or text on the subject and add "and reference therein", thus inviting the reader to follow up, if they want to know more on the subject.
Note that the above recommendation reflects my philosophy that the references should help understand and justify the premises of the research. However, often they also serve (perhaps unavoidably) to please/reassure those who have made contributions to the subject - here one could limit oneself to citing "the big shots" and anyone who bothers to complain that they were not properly cited (this is why many authors choose to let their paper hang for a couple of weeks on arxive or another online resource, so that people may voice their objections.)

Why omit it?
I guess, listing all relevant publications is a lot of work on the part of the author, so I kind of understand the motivation.
I have no experience with arxiv, but it does not appear that they impose any limits in terms of paper length, in contrast to other publications which might impose a page limit or something similar.
So, if there is no strict limit on the paper, there is very little speaking against including the "can of worms" into the paper. Apart from the additional work.
If you are worried, that discussing all the related problems might take too much space and disturb the structure of the paper, you might consider moving this part into an appendix. This way you preserve the conciseness of your paper, without omitting the discussion of related literature and related problems.

I think "apart from the additional work" is really the issue OP is worried about. It can sometimes take an unreasonable amount of work to understand the full literature related to your result, so it's a legitimate question what is the best way for an author to handle this situation. If it's a small amount of effort, then sure, the author should do that extra work and include the discussion.

Personally, I think it is acceptable, or rather, that it should be more acceptable than it currently is. Nobody has time to be an expert in everything, and if you found something novel by being outside the field that should be seen as something positive. I would personally be quite happy to read a paper that says, in effect, "we skip a detailed literature review of field A because our background is in field B; see XYZ for a review of A." Giving the broader context of the problem within field A is still important though, as other answers have said.
What's important is not to claim the algorithm is new if you think it might already exist. That might take some work to check, either by following the rabbit hole of references or by consulting with an expert. If it does already exist you can always present your paper as an expository one, presenting a new perspective on existing work.

It is also my gut feeling that nowadays a few keywords and citations should suffice to raise the attention of experts in the field so they can check the relevance of publication; of course an extensive online search for already existing prior work is inevitable but I don't see why every paper should list the whole blockchain of a problem's history.

Of course no one can be an expert in everything! But if you just want to talk about something that may or may not be a new piece of human knowledge without doing the legwork of carefully checking and explaining why it is a new piece of knowledge then an academic publication or preprint server are not the correct venue. You can always write a blog or send the results to friends or mathematicians who might be interested!

@user2705196 I don't think the question is about checking whether it's already known, and you'll note that my answer says you still have to do that. I'm just saying you don't need to include a detailed literature review in the paper if you're not an expert in the field. Why would the reader want to read a review by a non-expert anyway?


text:
How to go about publishing a paper solving a new problem
I am a computer science student in university, at work I stumbled across what I believe is a NP-Hard problem that I have an active interest to solve in it's complete form.  I have no experience in either solving these problems or publishing papers.  My question is how I would go about solving the problem while having a paper I can submit at the end, advice on guidance for solving would be welcome though extraneous to the answer.  I spent time searching to see if this problem was solved yet, the closest to it I found was stock cutting algorithms which this is not so I am under the impression that the problem itself is novel.

If you are a specific university, then your best option is to talk with professors at that university and get one to help you. 2) I'm a little concerned here about your desire to "solve" the problem in this context. What do you mean by solve? Do you mean you have an algorithm which is better than the obvious one for this specific problem? Or do you mean something else?

By solve I mean come up with an algorithm for a novel problem, that is to say that I haven't found this problem in the wild which was surprising, but I want to figure out a way to figure it out, and it could be extremely practical in terms of ui

I'm going to ask George Corser probably, thanks... I was considering it but due to my own level of stupid I wanted to try keeping things to myself as I'm more than a little likely to just drop this

A good start is to become familiar with the area of NP-hard problems and understand what can and cannot be done with them. Specifically, NP-hard problems cannot be "solved" efficiently. That's pretty much the definition (in practice, though of course not as far as theory is concerned) of what NP-hard actually means. All you can do is to find approximate solutions, which is something that can often be done efficiently.
I don't think anyone can give you advice on solving (or approximating) the problem unless you describe it in detail.

The arrangement of boxes into a box which should have an aspect ratio of 1.777... such that the solution is graded by how small the containing box is (the way to verify in theory the solution being to generate every combination and search those for the best). I've considered try this by representing each contained box using a vector... I was mostly asking the question for the paper, should I have used the word approximation rather than solution in my question?

This sounds like the knapsack problem, or one of its variations.

I looked up knapsack and stock cutting problems, I thought it was closer to the stock cutting. Is there a reason that it's closer to knapsack?

@TimothyH You've never explained in detail what the problem is. I can't know what it is closer to.

George Corser gave me a little direction, I'm going to start working on the problem, thanks


text:
What are some things I should keep in mind as I enters Masters?
So I recently received an offer from a fairly prestigious university for an MSCS degree. I want to continue to a PhD, and I wanted to know if there were any words of wisdom from people who have gone through that route, and their do's and don'ts. I feel like I didn't take advantage of my university resources in undergrad (mainly because of covid, but also because I didn't know stuff like research under professors existed until second sem of second year) and I wanted to avoid that.
I'll be a 100% honest, I'm not completely sure about the exact topic that I want to research about, but I do have an idea of what field I am interested in. I'm a bit lost about how to start performing research as well. Would I be expected to email professors and ask for RAship straight up, or would I be expected to work with them first and then be granted an RAship?
Tldr: Give me words of wisdom for a masters student who wants to do a phd

and welcome to academia.SE! Your question might be considered too broad, and might even have been asked before. I'm relatively new here myself, so I'm not sure.
During your master's, you should focus on three things:

Learning as much as possible.

Discovering what area you might want to research for your PhD, and starting the research process (even better if you can get some publication(s)).

Developing strong relationships with professors, both because it helps (1) and (2), and because these professors will write you letters of recommendation to get into PhD programs.

Your question about whether or not to start a "research assistantship" right away is going to depend on the field of study, the country, and the specific university. I recommend you ask that question to the person who accepted you. That person is likely the chair of the graduate admissions committee and perhaps is the graduate chair of the department.
I have a PhD in math and a master's in computer science. In those fields, in the USA, it's normal for students to start with coursework, then transition into independent study courses with faculty members whose research they are interested in. Those latter courses cover specialized knowledge that is required to get started in the specific research of the faculty member. However, it's also normal to have a master's advisor and to do research in their lab. Where I got my degree, students chose their master's advisor during the first year, but not before they started. But, again, different places might do it differently.
Because the one-on-one relationship with your master's advisor is so imporant, I recommend you take the time to get to know them and their work (and, to hear from other grad students who work with them) before you decide who will be your advisor. In your first semester you can shop around with different potential advisors and labs, while taking courses. I don't think that would set you back relative to deciding now which lab to be in and then already being in that lab on day 1.
Once you pick a master's advisor, do try to meet with them as much as possible. Where I did my degree, one hour per week was the standard. Also, try to get into good time management habits so that you do your work uniformly throughout the week, instead of in a giant rush right before that weekly meeting. Do go to seminars (especially graduate student seminars) and ask lots of questions. Focus on learning and recognize that you have a very limited amount of time there, so it's important to make the most of it!
Congrats on starting this exciting next chapter of your life!


text:
Is it ethical for a Master's student to have someone else do their research with the intention of submitting it as their work?
A student is enrolled in an online Master's program and has asked a co-worker/ technician to develop and perforem the laboratory assay that will the be submitted upon completion to satisfy the requirements for the degree. I duagree but others do not seem to be concerned.

It's normal to work with others in science. It's rare that a submitted work, even a thesis, is actually entirely the work of one individual in an empirical field.
If the plan is to not acknowledge/disclose the source of the work, that's unethical.
If this is the entirety of the thesis, then disclosure that someone else did the work would likely prevent graduation.
It's difficult to know what exactly is going wrong (or not) in this situation without more information. If you're a third party, you may not have enough information to know.


text:
(MLA) Citing from a collection of published letters
I have a book of published letters as one of my sources and am trying to figure out how to properly cite a handful of these letters in MLA format.
The book: The Letters of Emily Dickinson, Harvard Press, 2024.
My citation:

Dickinson, Emily. The Letters of Emily Dickinson. Edited by Cristanne Miller and Domhnall Mitchell, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2024.

So I am looking to take quotes from some of these letters, which in the book are listed numerically. Letter 1, letter 2, etc. I am a bit unsure on how to do my in-text citations. Here is an example of what I have:

An observation of some of Dickinson’s letters, which she sent often to her friends and colleagues, helps illustrate the wavering nature of her beliefs: “I hope the golden opportunity is not far hence when my heard will willingly yield itself to Christ… how happy if we may be one unbroken company in heaven,” (10) while written elsewhere: “They are religious, except me – and address an Eclipse, every morning – whom they call their “Father” (338).

I have taken to simply listing the number of the letter as it appears in the book, since Dickinson's name is already mentioned. But it seems as though I'm getting conflicting information on how to do this exactly.


text:
Research in Machine Learning in the era of transformers
I'm a master's student in Machine Learning. I'm interested in pursuing research in the field, but I'm concerned about the recent advancements like ChatGPT, CLIP, and DiNO that require massive compute power for training. It makes me wonder: what can an average budget researcher do in this era of large transformer models that are expensive to train ?

One might think researching computationally cheaper ways to train models could be good...


text:
How would you email Professors for research as a masters student
Fairly recently I was accepted to a MSCS position in a US Midwest university, where I was offered the ability to choose between doing a thesis or not (and I want to do a thesis). However, doing a thesis would involve me needing to reach out to professors and I'm not fully sure how would I do that. I am currently interested in more theoretical side of CS.
As far as I could tell the best way was to go and read some of their papers and ask questions and generally show that you are curious about the topic they work in. I was able to do that with one professor. However, some of the papers that other profs have are very difficult to understand because they end up being too big, and I currently don't possess the background information expected to read the papers. My question then is, in this case, how do I go about asking them for research? Aka should I wait till I take the class for the research they do (for eg taking game theory for a prof dealing with game theory in economics) or should I just cold email and try to schedule for a meetup?

The professors will be expecting thesis masters students to come around asking to do a thesis. They will not expect you to know everything that they know. This is a normal, expected interaction for them, happening every year.

I understand, but I wanted some clarification on how email would be structured and most importantly what I'd put in the email

Does this answer your question? How should I phrase an important question that I need to ask a professor?

Why email at all? Why not go visit them during their office hours?

You may be overthinking this. Keep in mind that you'll almost certainly not be funded while doing the thesis. So, the professor has essentially spends nothing except an hour every few weeks to take you on as a thesis student. They have nothing to lose and plenty to gain, since you might turn out to be really talented or end up doing valuable work in the end.
You've already noted two ways you can initiate the discussion. Another way could include attending internal seminars, talks, poster sessions, workshops, etc. that they're going to be presenting at and asking a few questions at the end, then following up later.
Or you could get an introduction from a professor you already have a good rapport with but aren't interested in research-wise (just ask "do you know Dr. X? I wanted to do a thesis project with them, etc).
Or you can just email them. Mention you're an MS student in the department rightaway, that you want to do a thesis project under them, then either mention a potential project and why you want them to supervise, or mention a couple of their papers and just mention some of the ideas that interested you. No need to go into depth.

Is there a reason you state that I won't be funded during the thesis? Are RAships not common enough if you're performing research with a Professor? I am fairly hopeful for a TAship at my university too.
This might be a dumb question, usually professors don't have a current project they are working on, when you state to mention a potential project, would it be something you have devised or rather how would you find out the current projects someone is working on?
Thank you for response, I have like 3-4 professors who's work sounds really interesting, I'll email them once I get a gist of papers

@etthrowaway The demand for PhDs in CS in the US is high enough that there is no reason for professors to spend money on a thesis student who'll leave after a year, versus a PhD student who'll be around for four or five years. RA-ships for MS students are rare cases - a prof has leftover money from an existing grant, or has a small, short-term, project that needs to be taken care of, or the student commits to a PhD with the same prof, or the student's in the 3h year of a BS+MS program. Profs actually usually have a whole list of ongoing projects. Potential projects are something you devise.


text:
Does membership of a consensus panel count as a publication when the article involved your participation
Does membership of a consensus panel count as a publication when the article involved your participation but not one of the main 5 listed authors who contributed more to the publication

"Count" for who, for what purpose? To clarify, this is a case where the authors are listed something like "A Adams, B Bonham, C Chen, D Donald, E Erickson, and the Underwater Basketweaving Consensus Committee", right?

Participation on a consensus panel "counts" as participation on a consensus panel.  Participation means that you were recognized as having adequate expertise to participate, and thus this belongs in your CV.  The most obvious issue for me is where it goes in your CV, and that would be most dependent on the nature of the panel and whether this is intramural or extramural work.
However, it doesn't count as a "publication", unless the panel produced some sort of report.  If a report was generated, then you need to figure out if it needs to go in a peer-reviewed list or a non-peer reviewed list of publications.

And even if one were on the panel they may not be an author on a report.


text:
US PhD after Europe Masters in Neuroscience timeline question
I am about to enter the second year of a masters program in cognitive neuroscience at a well known school in the EU. I am originally from the united states and am hoping to continue my academic career in america.
I am wondering though what the timeline would be. Most PhD programs I have seen include two years before the final project that consist of internships and coursework, much like a master, and often include the granting of an MS along the way.
Already having an MS in cognitive neuroscience, Would I be required to complete those preliminary years of coursework at US universities, or would I be able to skip to the final project, shortening the total time of the PhD? Thank you! I am specifically looking at Harvard, UCSD, and MIT. I have 5 papers (2 first author, 1 co-author, 2 second+ author) and a stellar academic record.

Since you have already a good CV, you should care about Harvard, UCSD, MIT only in hte future if you got a professorship position from them, not to rot there as a PhD under the pressure to keep up their prestige.

Would I be required to complete those preliminary years of coursework at US universities

Yes.

would I be able to skip to the final project, shortening the total time of the PhD?

No, you won't be able to skip.
A US PhD research project in cognitive neuroscience does not start when your courses are finished. If it's a 5 year PhD you're expected to spend 5 years doing research. You're expected to take some courses your first couple years at the same time, but that doesn't mean you're not doing research then. Depending on the program you may be given several months to rotate around and choose an advisor, but once that's done you get started immediately.
On a program-to-program basis it's possible (but unlikely) you'd be allowed to skip/"test out" of certain courses, but more likely you'll just repeat them and find them easier if you've already done something similar. Most courses in graduate school aren't quite that interchangeable anyways, besides some foundation courses meant to get everyone on the same page (since neuroscience is so interdisciplinary).


text:
Can I submit an abstract to a different conference before withdrawing from another?
I submitted a paper to Neurips, but I'm not very happy with the reviews/scores, so I'm thinking about withdrawing my paper to resubmit elsewhere. There is still an opportunity to raise the scores in the discussion phase, so I'm not 100% certain on withdrawing just yet.
If I did withdraw, I was thinking of resubmitting to AAAI. I noticed that the paper deadline for AAAI is after the end of the discussion for Neurips, so it would be possible to see if my scores are raised first. However, the abstract deadline is before. Would this be ok or could this be considered unethical and against the conference rules? Of course, if I were to decide to not withdraw from Neurips, I would then withdraw my abstract and not submit a full paper to AAAI. However, I'm not sure if an abstract submission counts as a submission to multiple conferences.
This has probably been asked before, but I couldn't find a direct answer, as the deadlines have changed this year and the fast track option has been removed.

To be honest, it's surprising that such dominant conferences have overlapping deadlines (usually they take care not to overlap). Do you think that you have a chance of getting accepted?

If you are already thinking about withdrawing, I am sure you are confident that it might not get through at NeurIPS. I would not attempt to send a rebuttal. Reviewers almost always (!) never increase scores. I have my personal experiences (at least twice) with IJCAI. It is better to withdraw, improve the paper and send off somewhere else.

It should be fine, you just need to make sure to withdraw the paper from NeurIPS before the full paper deadline of AAAI, or delete your abstract submission in AAAI before the full paper deadline, so it does not count as double submission.
Abstract submissions in ML conferences are meant to be temporary, you only commit at the full paper deadline, and that is where we would count it as a double submission if it has not been withdrawn from the other conference.


text:
How long an essay can be?
I was sure that even the longest essays are about 20-25 pages. But Eric Gill's "An Essay on Typography" is more than 150 pages. And here it becomes unclear to me where is a difference between an essay and a book? How long an essay can be?

Well, Wikipedia calls An Essay on Typography "a book".

You can write a 1000 page book titled "An Essay on X" where X is something you like to write about.

A book can have 20-25 pages.

Merriam-Webster says an essay is "an analytic or interpretative literary composition usually dealing with its subject from a limited or personal point of view". Some other places have 'usually short'. 150 pages is short compared with many other pieces of writing.

There is no limit. An essay is only vaguely defined, typically by its focus of topic and length, but there is no hard limit for how short an essay must be to be called an essay. I think most would agree that 150 pages is unusually long for an essay, but still possible. A highly focused persuasive piece of writing could still be called an essay even if very long.
A book is a form factor for a piece of writing, it doesn't describe the type or style of writing itself. Pretty much any piece of writing can be published in book form, whether that's an essay, a novel, technical manual, or biography. "Essay" describes a piece of writing with particular characteristics of purpose, style, and length, while "book" describes a physical object with pages and text.


text:
Is there a reason Ph.D. programs are focusing on the GPA of the last 60 credits?
I've been researching getting into a Ph.D. program for neuroscience, and I'm seeing stuff like this:

A minimum average of 3.00/4.00 for the final 60 semester hours (90 quarter hours) of undergraduate study. - https://catalog.uic.edu/gcat/graduate-college/neus/phd/

This appears to be a new thing, at least to me. For what I learned over a decade ago, it was important to have at least a cumulative GPA of 3.5/4.0. It looks to me that the admissions requirements have decreased. Maybe on average people in their junior and senior years are taking more advanced courses relative to their major; but I don't think that holds in all cases.
What's the value of seeking the GPA from the last two years of undergraduate study? To measure a person's academic maturity in seeking a good grade?

This appears to be a new thing -- Even back in the 1970s (and surely much earlier than this), data asked for when applying to U.S. graduate programs (many, but of course not all) often included various things such as GPA in major courses, GPA in upper level major course, GPA in last 2 years of undergraduate study, etc. In your case it's a required minimum GPA for these, but I also recall this being the case for some programs I looked at in Fall 1980 (earliest I applied to any graduate program).

Also note that minimum GPAs like this are often an absolute minimum - it is necessary but by no means sufficient.  It doesn't mean that a person with a 3.00 GPA necessarily has any realistic chance of admission - just that they will still be able to apply.  It's quite possible that in practice the GPA needed for a realistic chance is more like the 3.5 you have in mind, or higher.

I think you have the reason. It is the upper division courses (in the US system) that are a better predictor than the first two years.
If you can do well in more advanced undergraduate courses than you did earlier, you are probably advancing. You are probably better prepared for what is to come than if it was only your early courses in which you did especially well.
And people are looking at grades not for the grades themselves, but for the indication of learning. An imperfect measure, of course, but little in life is perfect.
And, as you note, none of this is true universally, but there are probably no universal predictors.

It can also be interpreted as "forgiveness" for those who had a rough start to their undergraduate studies.

There are two reasons I am familiar with:

Performance in the upper division classes is more likely to be related to a student's performance in graduate school because of the greater similarity of grad work to these courses compared with introductory courses.

Performance over the first two years, when a student is less mature or may still be adjusting to college, is not very predictive of a student's performance in graduate school.

This also has equity implications. Students who went to less challenging high schools will have more adjusting to do in college, and therefore might have lower GPAs for the first few semesters. These students are more likely to be lower income or first generation college students. By considering only the last 60 credits -- the credits most likely to predict a student's success in graduate school anyway -- the schools can reduce this irrelevant advantage for students with intergenerational privilege.

Your last 60 credits reflect your GPA following some adjustment period to college, where some students may have issues that they've managed to overcome. Presumably, the later credits also include some of the more challenging advanced coursework in your major.
All in all, it sounds like a reasonable policy.  It doesn't guarantee a student that meets the requirement is guaranteed not to flunk put of a grad program for GPA issues, but I bet it correlates positively, while not barring entrance for those who have overcome on ramp issues.
Note also that's a minimum requirement that certainly doesn't guarantee admission, so it's not a "low bar", just a screening tool.  Your 3.5 gives you a better chance at admission than someone who has a 3.0.


text:
Earn doctorate by writing thesis by yourself?
Perhaps this is a ridiculous question, and I couldn't find any previous asker, so forgive me.
Is it possible to earn a doctorates by writing a thesis by yourself and then submitting it to a university?
I have a bachelor's and a masters and I am reading lots of research papers in an unrelated field. I am in a unique situation because I have lots of time, could devote 30-40 hours a week reading and doing research, read many research papers throughout the week and, I think, could conceivably write a thesis with new academic contributions by using the research tools available at the university I teach at (I'm a lecturer) and confirming that this thesis would have meaningful or new contributions, which I assume is one of the requirements of a doctorial thesis.
For someone like this, what are the options available? I know that I could possibly get published if my paper was good enough, but what else could someone in this situation do to get ahead academically and in his career?
I am also aware that part of the value of a doctorate, or any degree, is the prestige due to where the degree was obtained.
Anyhow, I am assuming this is impossible, but I'm also curious why and if there are any other loopholes available for someone in this situation.

The specifics will likely vary very much by country.

The 'titles' are practically same, the content very related, however OP question, seemly, isn't exactly the same as the suggested. Unfortunately, OP isn't explicit/clear enough.

@StephanKolassa indeed, the specifics will vary; especially between the States and UK/Australia. The specifics will also varies based on the form of Doctorate

There is something called a PhD by publication. I don't think it is common, at least in the US, but that is essentially what you are describing. Here is an example from University of Portsmouth in the UK.
I believe the general idea is that you already have a body of work that you then put together into a thesis and defend. Likely you would apply, show that you are "qualified", and then spend some amount of time writing your thesis under the (likely remote) supervision of the university.
I think (I don't know for sure as this isn't a path familiar to me) that it would not be an option without substantial prior publications. It would probably be more straightforward to just start a PhD in your situation since you would need years to accumulate the requisite body of work anyway. Although if you have substantial time and the ability to publish independently, this seems like it is technically an option.
As for prestige, you would have to search out what Universities offer this degree track. Whether or not they are prestigious enough depends on you goals.
One thing to consider, if you don't already have a good bit of research know-how, it will be difficult to do any work independently. There are a ton of pitfalls that are not obvious without experience (or an experienced mentor - like you would have in a traditional PhD program). So while it is easy(ish) to read papers it can be hard to produce good ones.

As far as I know, in the U.K. at least, for PhD by publication, you still have to enrol on an actual PhD course, you just can just submit a bunch of bound papers at the end rather than writing a thesis from scratch. I’m not sure you’d be able to arrive with papers and ask for a PhD

@user438383 I don't think I ever said that you could submit papers without writing a thesis or do so without being enrolled. I'm not intimately familiar with the process, but based on a brief search of university websites, they do seem to expect that you show up with papers and then write a thesis. This is different than the traditional (or at least traditional in the US) process of taking classes, qualifying exam, years of research to then produce and defend a thesis.

You question ain't ridiculous, you just need to frame it well enough. Also, don't underestimate the rigour of a Doctorate: it is tasking and demanding.
Regarding your question, yes it is possible to earn a doctorates through various means beyond the traditional 'thesis' or the US style of courses, exam and dissertation.
However, you just can't write a thesis by yourself and then submitting it to a university?

... what are the options available?

Published papers in credible journals (ensure you have some Q1/A rated) and follow the PhD by Publication (retrospective route). I wrote an answer sometimes back in May.
Essentially, you register at a university, write an exegesis/commentary with a golden thread around your existing publications. This is examined with the requirements for PhD (and in the UK and some Australian, appear for Viva Voce)
Being a lecturer already and in an academic environment, you could register for a Doctorate through distance learning. You'll carry out your research (remotely at your current environment), write up your thesis and submit for examination (and possibly Viva Voce).
You might have the option of submitting a Thesis by Article (similar to retrospective route but in this instance are publications during your candidacy, one or two might be written manuscripts yet to be accepted).

From a documentary analysis I did (for a manuscript under review), there are about 16 UK universities offering PhD by Publication (retrospective route) to everyone, while over 30 offers to staff or alumni or associates with research ties, while some offers to staff only.


text:
PhD Thesis from High Quality Masters Thesis and Publications
I went to a non-PhD awarding university for my CS master's degree applied to the medical field. I treated the research very seriously and tackled multiple existing problems and original research. My thesis ended up being around 100 pages of high-quality content. I also have 3 technical peer-reviewed publications from the work and 5 medical peer-reviewed publications from the work. In my undergrad, I also had an additional 5 publications (although only loosely related to work or not at all). Additionally, I performed so well in my masters that they made an exception for me to teach as a full adjunct professor instead of a teaching assistant while I was still in the last year of my master's program (despite the master's degree being a requirement for adjuncts at the university). My students got higher scores on their final common exam than all other permanent professors.
This brings me to some questions:

Given my research experience, teaching experience, and publications, how would this impact
a potential PhD thesis?
If I did a PhD, how long should it take to complete?
Could my experience have awarded me a PhD if I went to a PhD-awarding university?

Are you targeting any particular countries? Ones that require a master's before a PhD generally are 3-4 years while the US, even if you have a master's, usually require coursework so 5-7 years.

My apologies for the ambiguity. I am looking to consider a US PhD.

My best publication in the most prestigious journal is taken directly from my MA thesis, so...

That's a very impressive master's thesis performance! Generally, PhD's are supposed to be for the work you complete during the program, so on some level it won't contribute directly to your PhD. However, if you seek out the right advisor/program, you likely could graduate at an accelerated rate. Some things to consider for judging if this will be an option:

What course work does a program require?
What sort of qualifying exams do they require?
Is your advisor willing to support a continuation of your master's work?
Does your advisor/program value your master's work?
Is your advisor/program open to you graduating at an accelerated rate?
Would they consider continuations of your current work that are published during your time at the new institution as contributing towards your PhD?

Generally, the time to complete a PhD based on your current experience will rely a great deal on the answer to these questions.
Depending on the program, it's not out of the question that your work could already have warranted a PhD had it been done at a PhD granting institution with the support of the PhD program. That said, it's far from a given, based on your description and on how PhD programs vary from institution to institution. You can't let yourself be too disappointed about these things -- no work is every perfectly evaluated.
Although this does not directly address your question, I think it's very important to consider the question "why am I getting a PhD"? If your goal is to maximize your chances of becoming a professor at a top university, you likely will not want to graduate rapidly so that you can enhance your application. On the other hand, if there's some job you want that requires a PhD and can otherwise obtain, it may make sense to try to accelerate as much as possible.

Thank you for the thorough answer. I am just considering the option of the PhD, but I haven't looked at any particular places yet. I did enjoy teaching as a professor, but I am leaning more toward industry research positions requiring a PhD. It would be nice to retreat back as a professor once I cant keep up with the fact pace of industry.

"If your goal is to maximize your chances of becoming a professor at a top university, you likely will not want to graduate rapidly so that you can enhance your application." I disagree with this. There may be a step in between, however the CV of a clearly gifted young candidate with a good number of publications already will only look better if they also did their PhD quickly, assuming it turns out well.


text:
What do you do with graduate students who don't want to work, sit around talk all day, and are negative such that others don't want to be there?
I have a biomedical lab. There are graduate students who don't do their work. Instead, both of them spend most of their time talking (not about their research). They also complain a lot and make a negative environment for others so other people do not want to join the lab. What do I do? I am up at night worrying about it. There are other good students in the lab who do work.

Are you their advisor? If you have authority over them then perhaps talk to them. Get to know what they don't like about the work. Explain things better. Set some goals they should catch by X date. Give them other tasks, etc. Find ways to motivate them. Why did you hire them in the first place?

I have a lab -- does this mean you are the lab's director? Does it mean the grad students report to you? Does it mean you set the rules about who gets to use the lab, when, where, and how?

Is there a reason that "You fire their arses" isn't on your radar?

This is a very underspecified question. Students chatting is not a bad thing by itself.  You claim that they are complaining, but we cannot assess whether they should "suck it up" without knowing what they are complaints are about.

Yes- I'm the lab director. All the work done is bench research. I have a project planner for goals but most often goals aren't meant, which is typical for science so it's a little bit of a moving target. Employees get assessments but grad students do not. When I go in the lab, all I see is them chatting and rarely see them working. I will admit I have a hard time telling them their performance is not up to par. I don't want to be mean/nasty- many of these kids are dealing with depression and anxiety. But I also feel I am bein walked all over.

Is it definitely the case that they "don't want to work", or is there any other possible reason?

It is important that we know your country.

"many of these kids are dealing with depression and anxiety" - also your problem candidates? Note that you are - I am guessing - not qualified to deal with their mental health issues, except perhaps sending them of medical checkup. But you can mitigate stress by giving them the next steps to take to move forward productively.

Are they liberal arts graduate students? If so, I think the usual course of action is to give them tenure.

omg- give them tenure- too funny!

i will ask them about depression/anxiety and will refer them to our student health. unfortunately I think the counselors have a huge back up these days- especially since covid. Therapists are in high demand these days

This is a great question. A critical task for anyone running a lab is keeping up team morale and the environment from turning toxic. It's a never ending task. And you are right to worry about it, as the situation can deteriorate into a negative filter, in which good people move away and only the complainers stay.
I'll make some recommendations, in order of escalation. But a few caveats before that:
The first thing to do is a little bit of introspection. Ask all students about their complaints. Perhaps some of the complaints are legitimate and the issues are bothering all students, but only a few are sitting around complaining. As the lab leader, it's your responsibility to address any and all valid complaints.
Second, be aware that many people (myself included) engage in intellectual work by cycling through intense concentration and intense diversion. We work for 3 hours without breaks, then recharge by breaking off the concentration with unrelated tasks for 15-30m. This can include chatting, browsing the Internet, etc. Make sure it's not that you are only catching them in the diversion part of their cycle.  Pit bosses don't motivate academics.
Third, recognize that academics complain like it's a sport. Myself, I log 3 complaints every morning before having coffee.
However, if you actually have your ear on the lab floor and you know for sure that all legitimate complaints are taken care of, then these are some strategies:
One colleague of mine has two sets of grad student offices, one near the lab, one in the basement. He moves toxic people to the basement. I'll just say that the method works.
Another colleague is very hands-on, modeling positive behavior, countering toxic behavior and complaints with positive behavior and talk: having coffee in the break room every morning and listening to people's concerns, fixing any issues as early as possible, having a weekly lab lunch, etc. Nobody likes unfairness, and your other grad students might take it to themselves to tell the complainers, "hey man, why don't you shut up and get some work done?"
You can always address the complainers directly by asking if anything is wrong. They'll deny it. Just take their denial at face value, but the cognitive dissonance might make them change their behavior.
You should avoid trying to counter their negativity with negativity (scolding, passive-aggressive emails, nagging, etc.) It doesn't work.
Finally, the nuclear option if nothing else works: presumably these people are not getting anything done. If they are interrupting the work of other students, it's your responsibility to protect the other students. Write the problematic students a warning for lack of academic progress. At the third warning, fire them (check your institution's policies about the necessary steps, it probably won't involve HR, but it will probably involve more than a few administrators.) Do it for the sake of your good students.

Maybe OP should consult HR to make sure they follow the correct procedure before firing them.

Your ratio of 3 hours of intense work to 15-30 min of break is very hard-working. The proportion of intense work can be significantly lower and people still get a reasonable amount of work done and get decent phds at the end. Of course if there is too little hard work they won't get a phd but the point where it gets problematic is hard to judge.

This is extremely helpful. I will make more of an effort to sit and have coffee in the fellow room, join them for lunch. This way I can hear what is being said. I did overhear them being nasty to an undergrad a couple of days ago and came in and said something and told them they made him feel bad. The grad students and undergrad talked and they are good now. And you are right- I remember complaining about my advisor but today I think he is the best!

@MamaD One PI I know even bought a Nespresso machine and paid out of pocket for the coffee pods. I mean, who is going to complain about THAT?!

i will look into that!

Candidates sometimes ask me before joining my group how many hours of work I expect. I told them, if you can do everything to move productively towards results in 2 hours on Monday morning and slack off the rest of the week, that's good enough for me. It's very, very rare, but there are these cases. Of course, they join, and, of course, they work very hard. Never tell off for chatting, but monitor with some consistency that they make progress overall and, if not, how to mitigate that.

@cheery.beach7701 a coffee machine is mandatory for any academic team

@MamaD Don't look into being too nice when they walk all over you. In the present situation it looks like you are trying to appease them; they will become worse, this is almost a promise. You can consider becoming generous (I don't say nice) once people respect you. At this stage you have first to regain authority.

Top three answers are spot on.
The only things I would add are:

Document everything. You need to have a file for each individual grad student (at least the trouble makers). If they complain, cause trouble, or when you talk to them seeking resolution etc. you need to immediately document. The reason is this: should you have to fire them, or seriously reprimand them, you better be able to show a pattern of behavior on their part, and an effort by you, to resolve it.  This is without a doubt the most important protection you can have.  Lawsuits can be filed, both against the university and you personally.

It doesn’t matter if you are principle investigator, or the PIs assistant.  You are an authority figure.  Me personally, it’s the assistants to the PIs, directors, etc. that really have the most power.  If whoever is your boss doesn’t allow you this authority, or undermines you, that is the problem—and in that case, they are dumping this on you without granting you authority nor their help.  That isn’t just and you should be held in a much higher regard.

I suspect moral is quite low. This is not because you are lacking. It happens everywhere.  When people don’t know exactly what the hierarchy is, and they don’t meet with the “leaders” frequently and aren’t told what their role and responsibilities are, they begin to feel neglected.  They feel like they are going to fail and the negativity over flows. Regular meetings (ie: every week, every day—or whenever, regardless of what is going on) are pitfall.  It’s usually a bad idea to have regular meetings, especially if those meetings are only informative, as in you are only providing them information.  However, many labs have so much to cover that daily meetings are a must.  So, try to provide the information they need in emails, postings on the white boards, hand outs, etc.  This will allow you to cut straight to the important aspects at meetings, specifically hearing their progress, sharing ideas and providing feedback.
At first, I would have regular meetings, every morning and every evening. Set a tone. Let them know this is the way it is.  They are kids. They won’t like being called kids, but they are.  They aren’t hardened experienced adults like you.  In the meetings, tell them the goals for the morning/day/week.  Make them specifically say what they are doing to meet said goals, where they are, and if they are having difficulties.  This way, everyone in lab knows what others are doing.  After all, it’s every grad students responsibility to make sure they do everything in their power to help their colleagues be successful.  If one is sick or away, others can step in. Once they catch the tempo and are a smooth running machine, cut back in the meetings.

Above all else, do not ever let them push you around.
And if someone complains, your response should be, “How do you propose to fix this?”  If they don’t have an answer, show them the door and tell them to not complain again unless they have a reasonable solution to the problem. They aren’t undergrads anymore and you expect them to begin acting like it.
Good luck.

Thank you- i have been doing biweekly meetings with a project planner. But I will increase the frequency of this as you said. The hard working students are fine with biweekly but the other obviously need it more often. You say not to let them push me around. I am having trouble with this. The two problem students have very strong personalities. They lash out at me when I point out problems with their behavior. The two students are also best friends and gang up on everyone else. I worked as a postdoc in a lab in which the advisor was very nasty. So, I try hard not to be like that.

Every day two meetings is too much. I can see daily meetings, but not twice a day. Keep them short and sweet.

In addition to @cheery.beach’s suggestion you can jointly set their weekly goals and track the progress closely by having them present in the weekly meeting. Usually just walking through the lab at multiple points during the day makes the students more likely to focus on their work. One on one meeting to listen to their grievances would also be helpful. But the bottom line is either they don’t have enough work that they enjoy. This is an easier problem to solve. If they don’t like field or the lab at all it’s better to just share maybe they don’t want to spend their whole life in the area they don’t enjoy and ask them to find other opportunities

I do need to make more of an effort to just be in the lab. This is a great suggestion. I have so many deadlines and I tend to come into work and plow through the paperwork. I have asked them if I can find something else for them to work on and they said no. Neither of them want to have a career in science after earning their PhD so i do think they just are not interested. The problem is that if they leave, I've been told no students will ever want to work with me again

"I've been told..." - by whom? And with what reasoning?

@MamaD "...after earning their PhD..." sounds like it's guaranteed, just kill time, wait it out and voila! you get one. Hmm... Is that the way it should be? "...if they leave, I've been told no students will ever want to work with me again". There will always be stories, rumors, etc. But it sounds like the other students would be relieved, for them it would be a happy ending and that would be the narrative. As hard as it may be, you must find a way to stop their perception that you just come and plow through paperwork and they can generate the atmosphere they like.

@MamaD weekly meetings should have 2-5 minute progress updates from each student. One liners. At the end of the meeting generate action items - "Student X, when will you be done doing Y? Give me a date, no, not a list of reasons why you can't - give me a date." The date goes on the slide. Always have the student provide the date. Of course things slide somewhat, but rather than just "keeping a file" on each student, this is incredibly visible. The students that get stuff done are de facto recognized by completing things, those that don't are seen by all.

This establishes a drumbeat of "not getting anything done" but in their own words, not yours. It's a way to shine a spotlight on unproductive behavior for all to see, over and over, each week. The hard working students will love it, and without you saying anything the story becomes clearer if they leave of why they left or needed to be kicked out.

Love it! Thank you!

Second what @uhoh said. Each item of work should have a clear owner, a deliverable, and a due data. And remember that "as soon as possible" is not a date.

Just one more thought. Sometimes letting bad student go actually makes the whole lab more productive. There are times when hard working students get demotivated by seeing that colleagues are not working without any repercussions.

I will incorporate due dates for sure in lab meetings. I will definitely consider letting my students go. A senior faculty member said the same thing

This sucks, but reassured that you are not the first one to face this situation. The bad news is that this will not fix itself. Don't make the mistake of waiting too long before addressing issues, idly hoping things would just magically clear up. They won't. Negativity and toxicity spread and fester and if you are losing sleep over it, that's a telltale sign that something needs to happen and unfortunately as the PI it is your job to step in.
If you have not yet done so, then you are probably dreading it or are at a loss what to do. In that case, first seek advice. Talk to colleagues, or HR, or anyone else you think can help you out here. Then at least you will go in feeling you are not just winging it.
Also sit down by yourself, and look at the situation from every angle.
Then go and talk to your people. Up to you how you want to do that.
You might opt for a group setting, and call in everyone to address this - but this will only work if you feel confident and in the lead (which you are, but may not feel like). You could consider having a third party present, but this needs to be someone who has experience with these group dynamics.
You could opt for an e-mail to the lab expressing your concern (not about specific people obviously but about the atmosphere in general) and announcing that you will address this with everyone 1-on-1 in the upcoming weeks. Then it's out in the open and people can prepare (and so can you), but it might also result in gossip and different stories going around because you are not talking with everyone at once.
What is your relationship with these two toxic people like? How often do you speak to them 1-on-1? Can you have coffee with them and tell them you get the impression that they are unhappy and complain a lot and maybe this will allow them to open up on you?
Alternatively, do you have one person in your lab whom you trust who might fill you in on what is going on? Don't make your problem their problem, but sometimes it helps to get an idea.
Whatever you end up doing, prepare yourself and remain calm (which can be the hardest thing) during these interactions. Thank people for sharing their perspectives. Do something with the input, and keep the lines of communication open.
Also be aware that this is a process, not a quick fix and something that you continually need to pay attention to (maybe not to the extent of your weekly lunches colleague but more than you are doing now).
And finally, be aware that there might be the possibility that someone might end up leaving the lab if they are not happy. This too will pass and it comes with the job. You've got this and over time you will get more experienced and better at dealing with these things.

I think it is a great idea to address this in a group setting- I can ask the director of graduate studies to join me. It is two "mean girls" who are good friends and they gang up and are mean to the students that are harder workers. I have tried to address the problems with them and they lash out at me and then make me out as the bad guy. I was told if I ask them to leave the lab I will never get another graduate student again because they all talk.

@MamaD: They will not just attack you! Their bad behaviour towards you (their superior) has shown you that they will attack others even worse. You have to be firm and tell them to stop or face consequences. You must stop listening to people who tell you to suffer and to let your other good students suffer "because [otherwise] they all talk". That makes no sense whatsoever; all the good students would be so happy, and other good students would be happy to join too! Only the bad ones won't, but why on earth would you want them?

Don't let yourself be bullied. Even more so: do not let them bully other students. Preventing this is your job. Be factual, precise and parsimonious in speech, but make clear that attacking others is an absolute no-no. If they attack you, tell them to formulate their complaint in writing and that you will have a look into whether there is merit. Do not accept verbal complaints. Writing only.

I was told if I ask them to leave the lab I will never get another graduate student again because they all talk. This is absurd. Are you running a lab or a theater troupe? Good grad students are hard to find for sure, but grad students in general? Please. I'll bet that if you fire those two you'll have replacements within a week.

"I was told if I ask them to leave the lab I will never get another graduate student again because they all talk." This is not true. Yes, people will talk, but two bullies will not dictate your future nor the reputation of your lab. You need to take action and in the long run you will not regret doing so, as difficult as things may be right now. I also like Captain Emacs suggestion to get stuff in writing. That always helps and they will probably also tone it down a notch in that case, which may even help  you get some usual facts out that you may miss in their verbal canon fire.

These are students, not children. Take this as a teaching opportunity. If you feel their behavior is inappropriate tell them this and teach them why, listen to their concerns and set expectations for the future. Following that if their behavior continues you can ask them to  continue their work in an environment they find more suitable to their needs.

I will separate the issue into different aspects.
You seem to have too much of a "laissez faire" attitude in your lab. This is possible with a team of extremely high morale and it is possible to develop such team spirit, but it is a long process to get there, especially from where you start. Clearly, it does not work in your lab at this stage. You have to pull in the reins.
Because of your experience with a nasty lab leader, you do not want to be like them, so you are ready to err on the opposite end of the spectrum. But a too permissive attitude can be as eroding (though for different reasons) as a too rigid/nasty one. There is a fundamental difference between nasty and strict, which is often confused.
In fact, the key to success in a difficult environment is strictness, but fairness. This is the magic combination. You can afford to be strict if you are very balanced and fair. Any hard measure you take that is supported by healthy reasoning is less hard. People will get used to it and if you are predictable (not a pushover, just consistent in how you handle things), your life will become much easier.
Your problem is that your "problem children" already know your weaknesses and triggers. They have sensed what they perceive as your weakness, and you have now to retrain them to understand that compassion and friendliness is not weakness. This will be a major issue to fix. For now, accept that compassion and friendliness have to take a back seat. They can be in the back of your mind for the future, but they are not your allies in the moment.
Your problem children will probably not admit to what they do and they may skirt the issue when confronted directly, so I suspect, just sitting down with them and having a polite professional conversation to find out if they have a point is probably no longer (or never was) an option. If you think it is, you can try this as a first step to get things under control. Right now, it looks like the time for that has long passed (if it was ever there).
So, you need to start by rebuilding your reputation from scratch. Set the new ground rules. If they attack you as a person, make clear that this is what they do ("you just insulted me"). They are more likely than not to deny it, but if the attack is personal, insist that it is and that this is not an option and not acceptable, either, strictly no excuses. It's most effective if you do it very dispassionately, as if for a third party that you do not care about (think as if you were defending some neighbour from gossip which you see, but never talked to; that it happens to be yourself is of no consequence here). Importantly, establish their personal attack as a fact of the conversation. People like that do not like to be nailed down, as the fogginess of their grievance is their main tool to camouflage their agenda.
Explain that they are free to express any valid grievance in writing to you; explain also that you will try to take it seriously and address it if possible, mitigate its disadvantages if it is not. Sometimes, this is not possible at all, in which case, you tell them that they will have to live with the constraints. Your person, however, is not up for discussion. If they persist, you get up, say, "when you are again prepared to have a constructive and respectful discussion, we can continue." and leave.
I am not sure who threatens to cut you off from students if you fire them. This is something you have to find out. More likely than not, this is a bluff. However, if there is someone in the department that actually threatened you with this, find out from the upper echelons what your disciplinary options are with these candidates. Do not fear them talking to other students - the students that will be discouraged are the ones that you do not want to have on board, either. Others will like the fact that you have your group under control.
Scientifically, you can discuss goals with all your students, including them. But I would not give them substantially more time than to others. First, it is not a good investment, second, it is unfair to the others. You will, however, have to plan their agenda in the background, to more extent, so that you are meticulously prepared when you meet them. Meticulous preparation and indisputable competence is the strongest weapon against such people.
Good luck!
Summary:

build yourself into a situation where you distinguish between actionable/valid criticism and ad hominem. Accept the first, reject the second.
develop a dispassionate persona
develop a stricter, but always fair and predictable persona.
build up a more stringent cycle of planning and monitoring; as well as clearer intermediate targets (papers, posters, presentations)
learn what your formal options are if you continued being trolled by these disruptors
build up your competence and preparation levels for meetings with the problem candidates

In addition to all of this, a lab meeting where you discuss rules and guidelines for a lab. Discuss (as a group) what makes a lab function well and what makes it function poorly. Discuss the role of bad apples in killing morale. There was actually a great segment on NPR we have used in my classes on the effect of bad apples in groups!

My colleague who I've known for 10 years said the same thing- they don't respect me. Thank you so much for the detailed actions I can take. I have copied these and will implement them. Have you thought of writing a book?

@MamaD They may not respect you, but it doesn't matter. They are entitled to their opinion about you, and you are entitled to ignore it. Once you do, it will likely upset them, because with this they lose control over you. You, on the other hand, play the professional's card: When you open the options to voice valid issues, you force a choice upon them. They can become more professional to everyone's benefit, or they choose to remain stuck in their unproductive mindset. Their choice, now. And, thanks for the nice suggestion, but the drops of advice I can contribute are not enough for a book.

I was trained to be a good scientist. I haven’t received any training on people management. I am also naturally an introvert and struggle with people skills in general. This situation is making me want to quit my job.

@MamaD You were trained. Now, that you are senior, it is time to learn. Don't wait to be trained. Being introvert is not a reason not to learn how to handle people. Most of us have been there. People skill is a "skill" and thus can be learned. Science is harder than people skills, but for many of us scientists it's the most fun part, and thus we spend not enough on the other. It's a matter of investment. Quitting the job will not solve the problem - you will always have to handle people, one way or another. BTW, how did things go?

Thank you for basically tell me to "suck it up". I do appreciate it. You are right- I will have to deal with people no matter what my job is. Things are better- the key is to know in my head what my rules are and "dispassionately" stand for them. This way the students don't feel they can push me around. For example, I asked a grad student last week to help a tech with a project- she said she would only do it if she got a stipend increase . I told her, in my lab, we do service for others and there will be no stipend increase. she accepted it and helped the tech out.

Thank you so much for the advice- it really helped me get out of feeling really down about my job.

@MamaD If my small tidbits of advice could help you, that's my  pleasure. Good luck!

You already have some great answers here, but reading through them I don't see mention of "motivational interviewing" - an effective method (anchored on listening and reinforcing more than lecturing) for building trust, eliciting goals, reflecting on behavior, and helping the other person develop/reinforce behaviors & strategies aligned with those goals.
As a lab PI, I have used this method (initially unconsciously, based on experience as a physician), but then in a more informed way after seeing the mature literature on this topic.

CAn you recommend a book I could read about this? Thank you!