text:
Editor said I may apply reviewer's suggestions and resubmit "if I wish", what are the consequences if I don't?
Few months back I communicated a paper. I got the reviewer's report in a positive direction. But he asked us to add some results if we wish and in the end he wrote:
"I leave it to the decision of the editor for further process."
Now I got a mail regarding this from the editor:
If you wish you may send a revised version according to the suggestion of the referee.
My question is will they reject our manuscript if we are not interested in updating our work as it will long time to finish. I am in dilemma. As the editor started his words with "if you wish". What could be the possible consequences if we are not interested in sending revised work.

Perhaps you are reading too much into the "If you wish". It seems to me that the phrase could just be a form of politeness that appears sometimes in formal writing. If the editor only said "You may send a revised version according to ...", that might come across as slightly impolite (at least to my ear). Adding "If you wish" to the front makes it obvious that the editor is not trying to tell you what to do.

When you submit a paper to a journal, you are implicitly agreeing to make a reasonable effort to publish the paper in that journal. But you are not signing a contract that requires you will make absolutely every change that the referees suggest. In the end, it's your name on the paper.
If the editor has actually rejected the draft (e.g. "revise and resubmit"),  and you are not interested in sending revised work, there are few direct consequences. You only need to write an email to the editor saying that you have carefully considered the referee's reports, and that you would like to retract your submission. It is polite to acknowledge the referees at the same time, since they have spent time on your paper. But see the note of caution below!
If the editor has accepted your paper (e.g. "accepted with minor revisions") then I would recommend making a good faith effort to revise the paper. This is what you implicitly agreed to by submitting to the journal. Of course, you do not have to make all the changes, or make them exactly how the referee wants. But you want to make a good-faith effort to address them in your own way. You don't want to cultivate a reputation as someone who is not willing to make even reasonable changes to a submitted paper.
One word of caution: it is not entirely "safe" to retract a paper and then submit it in the same form elsewhere. The new journal might end up picking the same referee! Here is a different answer on this site about this exact issue. I recommend reading that entire Q & A thread, actually.

First, a reviewer can only make recommendations for revisions. The editor should make clear what changes should be made but it is still up to you if you see fit to do so. Of course, if an editor says you should make certain revisions and you do not, particularly without indicating any good reasons for not doing so, the risk is that rejection decisions may follow. From this point, you may see that providing good arguments why such revisions cannot be made are necessary.
The fact that revisions take time is not by itself a good argument since it may mean your manuscript is currently sub-par but that is up to you to convince the editor when you submit your revisions. The revision process is in this case a sort of give and take process where any revision not made has to be clearly argued from a scientific point (not from a point of time constraints or other irrelevant aspect).
The comment you quote seems a bit lazy on the part of the editor because I think there should be additional qualifying statements indicating if any comments are more important than others and set the review(s) in perspective. How you should decide to respond is therefore hard to judge since the editor has, at least seemingly, not provided any guidance on what needs to be done. This, unfortunately, opens for decisions in any direction. Your experience with your field, should, however, provide some guidance for what should be expected of a study such as yours and also checking the standards of the journal should add some pieces to decipher what must be done. In the end, you will need to provide feedback on the reviewers comments that allows the editor to understand the scientific reasons and ramifications of your revisions (or lack thereof).

Thank you sir for your answer. But I would like to add that the topic that reviewer asked to add is a property which is not related to the TOPIC of my work but ya it is related to my subject of course.

It is always a good thing to imagine that at the next conference you will be having a dinner with the reviewer without knowing it.
An alternative to running the experiments is to add a paragraph discussion about the suggested results. If they are related to the paper, it can go to the paper. If it is not, that a reasonable explanation why the certain property is not interesting to the paper should come in the rebuttal letter, along with clarification of the paper's focus.
For example, in your paper you are examining how green the alligators are (to gather empirical evidence that all alligators are squared bodied). Your paper measures the greenness level, and the reviewer suggests you need to measure the redness as well. Now, that requires hunting down the same alligators and recollecting the data.
You update your paper to emphasize that you examine the level of the green hue irregardless of other hues, and add possible future research direction to examine how different colors mix. In your rebuttal letter, you thank the reviewer for the suggestion for an interesting future research. State you updated paper to clarify the focus on greenness only. The redness effect is out of scope for this paper, but would make a nice extension in the future work.


text:
Which undergraduate research experience will help more for graduate admissions in mathematics?
I was recently offered a six-month undergraduate thesis at two places. Let us call them A and B.
I am looking to apply abroad for my Masters in pure math next year. Hence, recommendations are important to me.  I am not sure which offer will yield a more useful recommendation.
The professors who have accepted me at A and B are both the leading experts in my field of interest (Algebraic Geometry), and have won the highest honour given for Mathematics in my country. The professor at B seems vey encouraging and helpful, and has found the time to go through my math blog and offer feedback, while the professor at A has a reputation for being abstruse, and hence perhaps not ideal for a person not experienced in research. However, A is a much more reputed and well known school than B.
Should I go to A or B?
Will a recommendation from a well-known professor from a less well known school matter as much as one from a well known professor from a well known school?
Should my personal equation with the professor be the most important factor for me?

I added "mathematics" in title and tags, because (I've heard) undergraduate research is very different in mathematics compared to other fields (so the answer to your question may be specific to your field).

@ff524- Yes, that sounds like a useful thing to do, thanks.

Why the downvote?

I think your question is a bit confusing for readers from the US (like myself, who I think make up the majority of the readership).  I don't know what you really mean by "a six-month thesis."  Without knowing the country or universities involved, it's hard to say much.

I agree with @Ben Webster (though I didn't downvote).  It is clear from your question that you are outside of North America.  But you are being rather cryptic about where you are -- "the highest honour given for Mathematics in my country"; what would that be? -- and thus your situation is not very clear and it's hard to advise you.  Some things that could be clarified: (i) why can't/aren't you doing your thesis in your current university?  (ii) Where "abroad" are you interested in applying?  If e.g. the US, then most students will not have done undergraduate theses anyway.

@PeteL.Clark- I am from India. The highest honor being talked about is the Swarup Bhatnagar Prize. My institution is not well-known for mathematical research. I intend to apply to the US.

@BenWebster- The comment above was also directed at you.

@PeteL.Clark- A is Chennai Mathematical Institute, while B is IISER Mohali

I understand your question as: Which will be more useful for graduate admissions (all other things being equal): a recommendation from a professor at a well-known university, or a recommendation from a professor at a less-known university with whom I have a more personal connection?
There is no one-size-fits-all answer here. The answer depends quite a lot on the degree of the difference (both the difference in reputation between universities, and the difference in how well each professor will end up knowing you personally).
As you have intuited, a recommendation from someone at a well-known institution is worth a lot more than a recommendation from someone at an institution that is not well known. On the other hand, a recommendation that describes your specific talents at mathematics in complimentary detail is worth a lot more than a perfunctory letter that says "Algebraically speaking did a thesis in my institution."  (Meanwhile, you know nothing at all about the letter-writing skill of either professor, which is another important variable.)
There is also the impact on your development as a researcher. You would likely benefit from working with someone who takes a close personal interest in you. You would also likely benefit from being at a well-known institution that attracts many talented students and has a very productive research atmosphere.
Your decision will ultimately be a personal one, and we can't give personal advice on Academia.SE. However, since your goal is to go to graduate school abroad, I would suggest the following:
Find out where undergraduate students who work with each professor end up.
You can ask them directly, or talk to their students. In either case, you'd like to know:

how many of their undergraduate students want to go on to graduate school in mathematics? How many of these actually do?
for the students that went to graduate school, where did they go? Are these institutions you would consider attending for graduate school?

The "road less traveled" can be great, and rewarding, and all that. But it's also more difficult. If there is a well-traveled path that leads to your desired outcome, get on that path if you can.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does the NSF support researchers with no academic affiliation?
It seems that NSF only supports researchers affiliated with academic institutions. For instance, if a researcher is in the industry, is there a chance to get funding from NSF for a pure academic research?
Let's say the researcher's employer is not a scientific/research establishment, maybe it's a manufacturing plant, and the researcher's interest has nothing to do with his/her daily job.

There are non-academic research institutions/companies in industry that employ researchers to do research for them. Are you including them in your question, or asking only about the case where the research is totally not supported by the employer?

@ff524, both cases are interesting, but the totally unsupported case is most interesting to me.

Generally speaking, it's my understanding that NSF grants are awarded to institutions (to be used by the PI), not to individuals (with the exceptions of some fellowships for grad students and postdocs, which have other specific eligibility requirements)

@ff524, I had the same suspicion that NSF do not grant the researcher but grants the institution.

Another answer quotes the Grant Proposal Guide, which is of course the essential resource.
The NSF does solicit proposals (like other agencies) for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.
But I'd also say that whenever you have questions about NSF funding for a research idea, I'd figure out an appropriate program officer and send them an e-mail. For example, I'm in chemistry, so I go to the NSF chemistry website and guess an appropriate sub-program.
In general, I send an e-mail saying something like:

Hi, I have a research idea that I think might fit in your program but I have some questions. Would there be a good time to talk this week? [etc.]

Sometimes I'll even get a call back promptly from the program officer, or a polite message that program X might be a better fit, etc.
In all cases, the NSF program officers want to fund the best research they can, so they are very helpful at suggesting appropriate approaches (e.g., if it's possible for them to fund your idea).

+1 for figure out an appropriate program officer and send them an e-mail

NSF's Grant Proposal Guide section I.E addresses eligibility. I.E.3 addresses for-profit corporations and states:

For-profit organizations - US commercial organizations, especially small businesses with strong capabilities in scientific or engineering research or education. An unsolicited proposal from a commercial organization may be funded when the project is of special concern from a national point of view, special resources are available for the work, or the proposed project is especially meritorious. NSF is interested in supporting projects that couple industrial research resources and perspectives with those of universities; therefore, it especially welcomes proposals for cooperative projects involving both universities and the private commercial sector.

My read of this is that it is certainly possible for a company to submit a proposal, but the introductory language certainly hints that not all programs will allow for-profits to submit:

Except where a program solicitation establishes more restrictive eligibility criteria, individuals and organizations in the following categories may submit proposals:

Which is to say that many RFPs limit submissions to categories 1 and 2 from that list (universities and other non-profits, respectively).

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


text:
Do PIs contact other references which are not listed on CV?
Normally, we have to include contact details of three referees for PhD/Postdoc position application. So let’s say we apply for an opening postdoc and include three PhD supervisors as reference. Is there any case that PI (of the Postdoc position) will contact the not listed one (e.g. Msc supervisors) for reference?
PS: let’s say the Msc supervisor is famous and included in CV but not as reference.

The fundamental problem with your question is that there is a very, very wide range of PIs. Has one of them, at one time, stepped out of the confines of the reference letter system and asked about someone?
Of course.
I know because I've been asked. And considered asking people.
For a competitive application process, I generally try not to. I don't think it's fair to the applicants who I don't happen to have personal contacts with some people in their own network. If the "extra" recommendation is good, that person has had more opportunities to impress me. If it's bad, they've lost the opportunity to curate their references the way everyone else got to.

We probably shouldn't since the application process should be confidential, but I have gotten numerous phone calls from friends asking about people and I have called friends about people. These phone calls typically have an unspoken rule that no one says exactly why the conversation is happening and that the conversation is private. That said, when your department is running a search and the person you are calling about is a likely applicant, it is kind of obvious, but you never know.
I would never have such a conversation over email or request a formal letter. During committee meetings discussing the applicant, might reveal some of what I was told but generally not who told me.

This may vary from place to place. In the Universities which I am familiar with, PIs usually rely on supportive administrative staff (e.g. secretaries) to receive the references and attach them to the application pack. The notion of famous  is somewhat different for non-academics and I would not expect a secretary neither to recognise your famous MSc supervisor, nor to request an extra reference.
In my practice, we would only seek extra references if we suspect that the provided references are faked and/or the contact details of referees are spoofed.

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


text:
Why do we sign an agreement to adhere to the United States Constitution, before teaching at the college level?
In some parts of the US, why do we sign an agreement to adhere to the United States Constitution, before being hired to teach college level courses?
I asked the human resources lady about what happens if I don't sign the agreement, and she said I wouldn't be hired.
I don't think signing such an agreement is necessary to work in industry; so why is it necessary for employment in academia?

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

I had to sign a statement like yours in Colorado as well. As far as I know, all public employees -- including faculty -- have to sign it as a condition for being hired.
My best explanation for this is that it dates back to the 1950s when fear of communist subverters was strong in the United States (read up on Senator McCarthy, for example). The pledge was then meant as a reminder to new employees that their allegiance is with the country, not their personal ideology.
I don't think anyone is going to say that you "unqualified" if you don't sign the pledge. At the same time, I think it is not illegitimate for a country to require some sort of pledge to the constitution and shared values if you will be paid by tax payer money. You may not be asked to sign a pledge to the constitution if you work in industry, but you surely will have to sign all sorts of paperwork that assigns your inventions to the company, requires you to not say negative things about the company on social media, that you do not divulge company internals to outsiders or the press. So I think there is not all that much of a difference -- both employers ask you to keep in mind what is important to that employer.

That's interesting, I had to sign one of these in California, but I now work for a public university in Colorado and I don't recall having to sign one when I started.  Maybe Colorado law changed between your experience and mine.

No, looks like it's still on the books, so perhaps I did sign it and just forgot.

I only started here last year (2016). So it's not been a long time since I had to do this :-)

Oh, how interesting the reference you dug out -- it really is only faculty who have to provide the oath.


text:
Is a business card necessary for a graduate student?
I know some PhD students have their own business cards, but I don't know if it is a standard practice for PhD students to have their own business cards. I think a business card can be useful for networking in conference or collaborating with some industrial partners. So, is are business cards necessary for a PhD student or other graduate students attending conferences?
PS: in case it is field-specific, I would like to know the different practices in different fields

MSc research students who may attend conferences, seminars or workshops may also be interested in this question. May be "Is a business card necessary for a research student?"

It's probably discipline-specific, but I hand mine out all the time. That being said, I talk to lots of vendors of computer hardware that I want to get back in touch with, so exchanging cards is helpful. As a grad student, it might be worth having some small cards from someone like Moo that have your name, email, affiliation, and a link to your website. It might be easier to hand those out than to carry 20 preprints of your article when you're giving a talk.
All that being said, it'd be pretty unusual to push your cards on people you meet at conferences. If someone asks for your information, or a copy of your publication, you might offer the card, but I wouldn't volunteer it unless you've been asked for something. It's just not part of the culture in most of the fields I have experience with for students to do so.

Before designing and buying your own cards, ask if your university provides them for free with its corporate design.

It's worth asking, but my experience is that they aren't free for students.

@BillBarth In Europe, where PhD students are also employees, most universities seem to print business cards for students as well. In general, if you want to have a business card as a PhD student, I would really try to get one with the university corporate identity.

@xLeitix in parts of Europe, where phd students are also employees ;-) Here in .uk, PhD students are not employed, and the practice varies - some universities issue them, and others do not. Mine doesn't, so I made my own - and because they're well-designed and not corporate they usually get noticed and receive positive comments.

My department reimburses PhD students for the cost of business cards. (Also, my university does not allow its logo to be used on self-designed cards)

My university offers inexpensive business cards for PhD students, but they're only offered with the university career center's contact information (rather than your own department's contact information), and they also require your expected graduation date (come on, I'm a first-year PhD student in the humanities—it's far to early to know that). I ended up designing my own card in LaTeX which is effectively identical to the university's standard template, but with my department's information on it.

As a PhD student, I had business cards and never used them. Now I don't even have cards. I consider them a relict from different times. I would say nobody strictly needs a business card anymore, and I rarely see them being exchanged at conferences either.
Now, a homepage is a different story. You definitely need a homepage, for many of the reasons you think you may need a business card.

i agree but i would add that while they may be a relic, there are still cultures that it is very important (korea/japan), so depending on where you are, or if going to a conference in that area, it may still be beneficial

@user1938107 This may be correct. About 90% of all business cards I have ever received are japanese. However, I think they generally understand when I tell them that I don't own any.

I still see quite often people writing down each other's names and e-mail addresses at conferences. Business cards would be a way to make this process faster and lower the barrier for exchanging contact details.

When there are some websites like LinkedIn, ResearchGate and etc., why the person needs to pay and make an on-line homepage for himself. I agree with the first part of your answer that being on-line is beneficial to the researcher, but there are some useful websites that the researcher can use, make connections and present his research activity and CV.

@Parsa First, you should not have to pay your own web page. Any institution I know of provides web space for researcher home pages. Second, relying on LinkedIn or RG is a surefire way not to be taken seriously in my community. I strongly recommend against that.

Yes, I agree that those websites are too general and public for an academic person. So, you are saying that a someone[dot]universitydomain[dot]com website is better and more prestigious than a someone[dot]com website and is more preferred?

If there's any chance that you're going to be interacting with industry at conferences or other events, you need business cards. It's part of that culture. If there's any chance you'll be interacting with anybody from the far East, you need business cards (and ideally, a briefing on the etiquette of giving and receiving them).
Within academia (and not in the far east), it may depend on your field. Coming from a commercial background I was surprised to find that they aren't used in the same "scattergun" way in mine; but it can still save time with scribbling details, and a good card, offered appropriately, may make meeting you stand out in the fog of somebody's post-conference memory.
Summary: it's worth having some, but try to judge what is "normal" before pressing them on people.

This probably varies from country to country, but given that business cards can be had for the cost of running off-the-shelf preperforated stock through your computer, I think it's worth having a few. It does make handing your contact info to someone easier, plus giving you and/or them a surface upon which to scribble a note about why they should contact you.
And at least around here, many restaurants collect business cards as tickets for a free-lunch lottery. Trade shows may also use them as lottery entries.
Yes, e-mail addresses are starting to replace business cards as e-mail becomes an acceptable replacement for postal mail and phones, and smartphones can be used to enter contact info into a website.... But it isn't a complete replacement yet, and may never be.
And I find I use them informally as well, when I want someone I've just met to contact me about something.
Recommendation: Spend a small amount to print off a few, see how quickly you're using them, use that to guide how many more you obtain, how often, how many you should bother carrying at once, and how much effort you should put into the card's aesthetics.

"e-mail addresses are starting to replace business cards" I disagree: e-mail addresses are the content you want to communicate, not the medium. It's like saying that microwave ovens are replacing beef meat. :)

@FedericoPoloni: Exactly. Or, in other words, I frequently use (both giving and receiving) business cards (also in an academic context, conferences and such) with the very purpose of exchanging the e-mail address.

Granted... but business cards can carry more information than just the e-mail address; they commonly provide name, title, phone number, sometimes mailing address... as well as e-mail. The reason I called e-mail an alternative is that folks have become more comfortable with only collecting e-mail addresses (which are short enough to quickly write down) and gathering the rest of the info later.

"as e-mail becomes an acceptable replacement for postal mail" What is this? The 1990s? I don't think I've written a paper-letter in a professional context in the last five years. If you exclude job applications before they were all online, I don't think I've written one ever.

As I said, it depends on what community -- and country -- you're dealing with.

In 15 years in academia (theoretical computer science, UK and Greece, plus conferences and workshops in several different countries in Europe and North America), the closest I've come to a business card was when somebody I'd befriended at a conference gave me a card for his hobby photography website. I've never had business cards printed and, to the best of my knowledge, nor have any of my colleagues.

This may depend on the country. In some countries, PhD candidates are employees of the university just like anyone else employed there, and thus get (or can get, upon request) any number of business cards printed from their office supplies department at any time. Thus, in such places, the effort of getting one's hands on business cards is virtually non-existent and hence there, it is a standard practice.
As implied by other answers, handing out business cards greatly simplifies establishing contact with other researchers on conferences, which is one of the main benefits one can draw from attending a conference.
In terms of establishing contact, I have only ever met two kinds of people on CS conferences - those that had their business cards ready and could thus easily provide some contact info at the end of a fruitful conversation and the agreement to keep in touch or exchange some further information, and those that did not, that would instead start a cumbersome search for something to write, use the back of someone else's business card (!) or require the recipient to find some suitable virtual place in whichever electronic device they currently have nearby to store the address, and remark that they "should really print some business cards for the next conference".

I'm in the biomedical and clinical sciences (Epidemiology in particular) and I regularly hand out 5 to 10 business cards at the average conference I've gone to, and often get just as many. I tend not to actually engage with industry that much, but they're an excellent, quick way to give someone your contact information in a way that's about as non-disruptive as possible. They're also harder to lose than scraps of paper, and as someone else mentioned, easier to keep track of - business card holders can not only hold your business card, but the cards of others.

In the US, at least in doctoral psychology programs, we're often encouraged to have business cards to hand out at conferences. Conferences are often seen as a way to start building connections for internship, and a business card is a simple way to come across as polished and prepared (it's also less likely to be lost than a slip of paper, as I've seen faculty slip my card into a card holder). Further, my mentor does a great deal of field research in health clinics, and it's helpful for her students to have cards with their contact information readily available when coordinating with site staff.
In my department, our academic mentors typically pay for the cards, which are designed with the school's logo, just like the faculty members' cards. However, most of us wait until we have received our MS as part of our program requirements. We don't attend as many conferences pre-MS anyways, and since they're ordered in bulk (250 minimum) that way you don't have a large number of unused cards. In sum, it's not necessary to have business cards, but it can be helpful.


text:
Why do journals need styles?
Fairly high on my list of "I want those hours of my life back" is time spent wrangling my LaTeX to compile correctly with the style files provided by journal publishers, and subsequently dealing with copyeditors who introduce errors while making my papers conform to "house style".
Back when the primary medium of a journal was a print publication, I suppose maybe it made some sense for all the papers in one journal to look the same. But nowadays I acquire nearly all papers electronically, and I assume the same is true for many people. Is there any good reason for journals to continue to insist on a house style?
To be clear, I certainly understand that some minimal requirements are necessary. For instance, a journal that has a print version will certainly want consistency in font, font size and margins, to ensure a fair comparison of the lengths of different papers. And I recognize that copyeditors serve a useful function in general. But I don't see why a journal needs to require that I use their custom .cls file that is (for instance) incompatible with standard packages like amsthm, numbers equations as (1) (2) (3) rather than the more useful (1.3) (3.2) (5.3), or requires enumerated lists to be labeled 1.2.3 instead of (i)(ii)(iii).
I recognize that this sounds like a rant.  But I really intend it as an honest question.  I can think of at least three possible kinds of answer:

There is a good reason that I'm unaware of.
There is a bad reason that I'm unaware of (e.g. somehow it makes the publishers more money).
It's just inertia, leftover from older days of print journals.

I would really like to know which of those is the case, and if (1) or (2) then what the reason is.

I would be scared to leave the style up to the authors.

The same reasons uniforms and standards are used.

I like journals having different styles because if I'm looking at a paper on arXiv the style quickly tells me what journal it's been submitted to/ published in.

Two comments: (1) Are you sure that wrangling with the LaTeX is necessary? Publishers "encourage" it on their website, but (in math anyway) usually you can decline and then their employees will do it. Considering that they charge money for their journals, I believe that it is perfectly ethical to leave this work to them.

(2) Here is a question I asked when a copyeditor made a complete mess of my paper. I refused to go through and enumerate all the mistakes they introduced; instead, I sent them an angry e-mail and demanded that they start over. Many copyeditors do an excellent job. But if a copyeditor treats your work carelessly, then I recommend the same response.

Do you want papers in Comic Sans? Because this is how you get papers in Comic Sans.

@astronat In my experence most papers on arxiv are pre-wrangling into the journal style, and why would I care anyway?

@Fomite feel free to add "font" to "font size and margins" in my third paragraph.

@Mike as someone who has yet to publish it's useful for me to get an idea of what type of paper is published by which journal.

@astronat you have yet to publish yourself and yet you're already familiar enough with the style of different journals that you can tell them apart at a glance?  I've published plenty of my own papers and I have yet to develop that ability.

@Mike the 3 main journals in my field all use different fonts and citation styles... so yeah, at a glance. It's like brand recognition, I guess.

@Anonymous that's a good point.  But even free journals that charge no money, and presumably have no budget or employees to do the work themselves, generally ask authors to use their supplied style.

I suspect that one reason is that it makes it look like the publisher is contributing something beyond web hosting.

@Anonymous Also, given the hash that copyeditors often make of my already-wrangled files, I would be scared to leave any more than necessary to them.

I find this question surprising. I don't think I have had to actually have anything to do with the journals style so far in publishing papers. They ask for a .pdf for review and then for the .tex file when it is time to publish. Then they have a copyeditor apply their style using the .tex file and then you point out those places where the copyeditor introduced mistakes (also, my experience with copyeditors has not been nearly as bad as yours, mainly having to point out places where the math break lines).

@TobiasKildetoft In my experience, practically all journals' websites say "prepare your latex using our style file".

There are several reasons:

Publishers want their papers distinguishable. Everyone1 knows Elsevier by the logo and font.
Consistency itself is a good goal, to an extent.
It means you easier meet certain quality standards. (If I could, I would show you things people submitted as final versions for publication.)
I'm afraid that if you let people do what they wish, it would be seriously disasterous. (I speak from a Copy Editor/Typesetter experience.)
I would not call it inertia, from my point of view, journals are typography and typography is art, and art should be done artfully, no matter we live in a crazy fast-cooked world.

Last but not least, note that AMS does not require you to comply with everything, I published a paper where some enumerations are numeral and some are alphabetic.

1Almost.

Well, I'm not one of your "everyone".  I generally barely even notice what journal a paper is published in.  And I don't see an intrinsic value in consistency, especially when the consistency is only across a bunch of papers with nothing in common except that they happened to get published in the same journal.  Can you explain in what way requirements like "enumerated lists must be 1.2.3." make it easier to meet quality standards or avoid disasterous results?

For "not being everyone", well, you are not, many are. Like with any brand, many people recognize it by the logo and style, many people do not. For consistency, well, that's up to you, but it is somehow related to the quality standards. Why it is good that there is a prescription how e.g. lists or headers look like? Well, if one list is enumerated 1,2,3 and another one is enumerated a,b,c in the same paper, it would (at least in me) raise question about the significance of this: Are lists enumerated this or that way somewhat special in the article? Have I missed something?

Or imagine one section having a bold title and another one on the same level having an italic one. Again, does it mean that even though they are numbered 3. and 4., it's somewhat that 4 is actually a subsection of 3 or not? And I could continue endlessly.

I have intentionally enumerated one list 1,2,3 and another a,b,c in order to be able to refer back to individual items from both of them in the same paragraph unambiguously.

Well, then the Copy Editor should understand your reasons and let you do so. But it does not mean that the journal should not set up any standards. OTOH, (with my CopyEd hat on) I wouldn't be really happy about this and would try to suggest an alternative.

I don't see why anyone would be unhappy with it.  It's just like writing the arguments of one function as f(x1,x2,x3) and another as g(y1,y2,y3) to be able to distinguish them.  Requiring the arguments of all functions to be called "x" would be silly.


text:
1st year Ph.D. student in Computer Science - want to switch fields
I finished my Masters in Computer Science at a decently reputed university in the United States. I was (and still am) excited about doing research and I applied to the Ph.D. program at the same university. I was accepted and I started the program this Fall.
Because of my experience in the department, I could start working in a lab from my first day in the Ph.D. program. I'm currently working on a topic that is closely related to my Master's thesis topic. But now I feel that I should explore other areas before committing on a Ph.D. topic.
I've been working on Operating Systems for as long as I remember, but recently, I attended a couple of seminars on NLP and Bio-informatics that got me excited. I don't have any background in either topics. But this makes me think that I should take a semester to explore other areas of research in Computer Science.
How should I go about this?
Update - I told my advisor. He said I should devote 100% of my time on his project. I fired him.

What did your advisor say when you asked this question?

I haven't spoken to him, yet. Somehow I doubt he would be thrilled about this. He is very driven by publications and he wouldn't let anyone remain in the lab if they're not 100% committed to the work. That wouldn't be a good thing for me if I wanted to return Systems research later.

Just do it.  If your advisor doesn't like it, fire them.  You're a first-year PHD student; it's natural for you not to have settled on any specific research interests yet.

First of all, it's better to make the exploration now than later. Having a good place to apply your CS knowledge can be very powerful, and now is a better transition time than you will ever receive in the future.
With that said, there are several bioinformatics courses online that you can try out; one popular one is Coursera. This allows you to spend a few hours per weekend exploring the topic from a well known professor, and can help you decide whether or not you are truly interested. From there, as @ff524 stated, it is best to ask your advisor for information on how to continue applying your skills to both your PhD and bioinformatics.


text:
A single definitive paper, or an initial manuscript and a followup?
Suppose that someone wants to publish his idea and his first successful experiments in a venue and then perform some extra experiments (for a more powerful proof) and publish it in another venue.

Submitting the first to a conference hope to be accepted soon and then submit the second one after a while to a journal, referencing the first.
Submitting both of them to journals and write them in different manners.
Waiting until future experiments finish and combining them to be published as one journal paper.

I count, here, some negative and positive points of the ideas

In the 1st idea, the first paper proves that your innovation has improved a method in the state of the art and the second one refers to the first and says that this innovation, even, is able to improve other more-powerful methods in state of the art. Of course both of them are contributions. But, lacking the powerful contribution of combining them in one paper.
In the 1st idea, you are able to present your work in an international conference and take advantage of global feedback.
In the 2nd idea, you should suffer side effects of deleting some parts from each paper, to avoid plagiarism.
In the 2nd idea, you will have two journal papers which normally are more creditable than having one conference and one journal paper.
In the 3rd idea, you should wait for finishing the experiments.
In the 3rd idea, though you have one journal paper instead of two, this paper is published in a more creditable journal than others.

However, please let me know the optimal choice.

Are you spending as much time on your actual idea as on the marketing?

Your (2) idea is clear plagiarism, however you present it. And have you considered that if the first paper get rejected, your whole scheme collapses?

If it is good work, don't submit to a low impact journal. No one will ever read it. If it is not good work, why submit at all?

@DaveClarke That's why I put the ":(" sign in front of that. Some guys do this work for some restrictions. I encountered it as a bad suggestion.

@Alexandros the first paper will not be rejected, for ever. It is a very common thing to submit a rejected paper to an alternative journal. When you are sure from your contribution, why to be worried of rejection?

Yes, but a journal might take 0.5 - 1 year for rejecting it. The 2nd another year to accept it (including revisions). That means your 2nd work  remains unpublished for 1,5 - 2 years.

@Alexandros I think that 2 years is not much for a creditable-journal paper.

(6) Post the first paper to the arXiv now, post the second paper to the arXiv later (citing the first), and finally send the combined work to a high-impact conference/journal.

What does your supervisor say?

@Davidmh 3rd or 1st suggestion

@JeffE Could you please write your comment as an answer; however, I my self prefer the answer to be 1- publishing the 1st one in arXiv and then writing the second full paper and submitting directly to a high-impact journal.

Regardless of your elaborate schemes, you will always need to take into consideration that you cannot "sell something" twice.
If the only novelty that you present in a second paper are additional experiments (and deriving conclusions from these), then you must never ever state something different as a contribution of the paper. And in many fields, this would be quite a weak contribution, basically only leaving your schemes 1 (conference+plus extended journal version) and 3 (single publication) as realistic, unless you want to settle for a very weak venue for the second paper.
Slicing your work is also frowned upon in academia, for several reasons. First of all it looks as if you are trying to inflate your CV. If it makes grasping your overall contribution harder, it should also be avoided. Also, there should always be some scientific reason for splitting up your work. For example, if the target audiences for the two parts of your work have a very very limited overlap, then splitting up your work may yield a better service to the community. If the parts of your work are mostly interesting in isolation, and actually only of interest to few people in their combination, then splitting up the work is also sometimes the best way to go. And finally, if the underlying techniques of the two parts of your work are so different that publishing the two parts together would lead to a paper that is only readable by the very few experts that have knowledge about all techniques, then the split may also be justified. In all cases, you have to reference your other work and explain the differences in contribution.
In some fields with published conference proceedings with page limits, it also became customary to to leave out some additional information in a conference paper and writing longer journal version later. This is ethically OK because the journal paper in some sense replaces the older paper. This seems to be precisely your "scheme 1".

I should add that I actually don't really understand approach 5.

you don't know the arXiv.org?

Oh, I know arXiv.org. But your part "taking advantage of the first paper being published with your name, in a high rank journal" is confusing. So you  want to wait until the Arxiv paper has been accepted at the first journal? But then why do you submit it to Arxiv at all?

In the funny 5th suggestion, the first paper is submitted to arXiv.org and immediately to a good journal. Then, you will not have problem for referencing an "in prep" reference, in your second paper.

Ok, so the "taking advantage of the first paper being published with your name, in a high rank journal" does not refer to the review process for the second paper. But then this is not a specific "advantage" of this scheme, it is rather a general property of a paper in a good journal. The problem with the probably-too-little contribution for the second paper is also present in this case, however.

Do you really think: proving that the previously-introduced method works even from the newer-introduced methods, is a "very" poor contribution; it is not much but it may not "very" poor.


text:
Finding research papers for undergraduate research
I am seeking some help to find research papers (preferably in the area of Markov chains) for my undergraduate research for reference. Any guidance on how to find research papers in general for undergraduate level research will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance

@EnergyNumbers Just found some from google.

MathSciNet, your advisor, your librarian.

Google scholar or your library catalog are good places to start.

Academic knowledge is connected through a web of citations and references. Once you have a piece of that web, you can follow the threads towards other papers.
Start at the Wikipedia Page, specifically the Notes and References sections.
See if any of the links there take you to a PDF... look for DOI numbers, or PDF in the link. If not, use Google to try to find a paper. Start reading it.
Look for a word or phrase you recognize, and want to know more about, or something seems about the direction you want to go. Likely, this will be cited... look in the references section of that paper, then google that paper (or follow the kindly provided links).
You're traversing a web of references, so you'll come back to the same papers sometimes. If I were you, I'd keep notes about each of the papers I look into.

Title
Authors
Link to PDF
Single sentence summary.

Once you've been doing this for a day or so, you'll notice that there are some authors who have a good connection to the topic you're interested in. Look up their university web page; Often they'll have a list of their papers.
Essentially, you are crawling the web of references yourself. Keep following the links, keep track of where you've been, where you want to go.

Oh, one other thing: Google Scholar is a decent choice for getting an overview of a topic because it will sort papers by reference count: Highly cited papers often contain important information; Be it an excellent summary or a novel insight.

The most useful advice I've ever gotten about finding research papers: Book an appointment with a research librarian.
Get in touch with your university's library and see if you can make an hour or so appointment, or if they offer workshops or classes on searching the literature. There job is, quite literally, to know how to find information, and generally they're more than happy to share their expertise. Even as an experienced graduate student, I got things out of my visits with them.

Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately I do not come from a place with such facilities due to the poor and outdated  resources in our library and the people only issue books but knows nothing else. Due to this my only hope is the internet!


text:
Are public lectures popular in USA?
In Poland where I study, public lectures by professors from other universities are not common (maybe one or two lectures every semester in my faculty). I stayed one semester in USA as an exchange student. There were 2-3 public lectures every week in our department. It was surprisingly for me as many people even undergraduate students attend each lecture. More surprising, there were active discussions after each lectures, students asking questions and even follow the lecturer to nearby cafe to talk more about the topic. In Poland, a few people attend a public lecture. Some leave during lecture and some after lecture. A few remains for discussion and almost no one asks question.
Is it the regular practice in America that students actively attend public lectures as much as (if not more) than their classes? Even most courses I attended had a guest speaker in a session.

I think the question should be: why are American students (particularly undergraduate ones) interested in new topics? Practical or personal interest?

Public lectures are not generally required, but are one of the well-understood benefits of university education.  For most American universities, lots of interesting speakers come through and are widely advertised.  It's good for the university because it shows it's a place that such speakers find worthy of visiting, and for the faculty by giving them opportunities to interact and collaborate.
As for the students: if world-class speakers are showing up and talking about interesting things, why wouldn't students choose to attend the lectures that interest them?

Many world-class academics come to Budapest (where I live) for academic collaborations but a few give public lecture. Because, a few students attend. It is unusual for undergraduate students (I doubt if they even read an announcement of this kind on the board). Only graduate students who closely work on the field attend, and rarely ask question (one reason is low confidence in language).


text:
What to do when untrusted claims are made in an extended abstract of which the full version hasn't appeared
I've read a certain 'extended abstract', published in conference proceedings, that presents a useful mathematical analysis of a computational problem and uses that to provide a sketch for an algorithm to solve the problem. The sketch lists the general (well-known) techniques on which the algorithm is based, but doesn't explain the algorithm in detail and is in particular not detailed enough to see that the claimed complexity of the running time holds.
The extended abstract is quite old and there's no trace of a publication that completely describes the algorithm from the extended abstract.
I have attempted to 'reconstruct' the algorithm from the sketch, but I've been unable to achieve the claimed bound on the running time and I believe the author has been mistaken in his bound (and that therefore the sketched algorithm is rubbish). When I mentioned this to my advisor, he replied that since there is no 'follow-up' of the extended abstract, the algorithm is probably rubbish. (the author is still alive and in academia, so absence can't be the reason not to publish)
The mathematical analysis was actually quite useful to create another (significantly different) algorithm for the same problem, which unfortunately has a worse behaviour than the claimed bound from the extended abstract.
I might be able to publish something related to the problem, but I'm not certain my results will be good enough. Additionally, I might be able to prove a lower bound strictly higher than the upper bound claimed in the extended abstract, thereby contradicting* it.

So, concretely, I'd like to know the following:

Is there a place where the author could have published a retraction of his claim (of having an algorithm achieving the claimed bound) and how would I find such a claim? (Other than contacting the author, that one is obvious)
If I'm unable to publish anything related to this, could/should I do anything?
If I am able to publish something, how should I cover this issue? In particular, I'd like to be able to avoid comments such as "Haven't you read [extended abstract]? They've found a much better algorithm than yours!"

Also, the most of my doubts are related to the scientific status of the claim. Is it 'obvious' that it is poorly supported and possibly false, or does this require an extensive argument?
I suppose it isn't completely obvious, as the extended abstract is cited in a paper with the claimed bound (this paper doesn't actually use the bound, so there is no risk of 'error propagation' there), referring to a 'clever trick' that isn't explained in the extended abstract. (Perhaps the author of the citing paper had some private communication with the author of the extended abstract?) Of course, the citing author may knowingly be citing a vague claim, but let's apply Hanlon's razor here.

*: Technically, as this would be a conditional lower bound, it doesn't yield a formal contradiction. But such a bound would at least cast extreme skepticism on the claim from the extended abstract, comparable to when someone claims a resolution on P vs NP.

The obvious place to look for either a substantiation or a retraction of the extended abstract's claim wold be on the arXiv. Also, since the author is still active, you or your adviser could write to him and ask about the algorithm and its running time.  If you still can't get the information you need, then I think you can publish your work and include, in a "Related Work" section of your paper, a citation of the extended abstract and a statement to the effect that you have been unable to find the details in the literature or to reproduce them yourself.  Of course, if you manage to contradict the claim in the extended abstract (or to show that it would imply implausible things like P=NP), then you should say that.

The extended abstract is from 1995 (a bit old, as I said). So I doubt I'll be finding anything on the arXiv (I tried searching, but I think I'm searching wrong). I did check dblp for publications of the same author, but I saw nothing related to the abstract. I'm a bit reluctant to contacting the author unless I'm researching with the intention of publishing, but I suppose that is the best once do have that intention.

If the author of the sketch is still in academia, you can email them and ask. They may confirm that their claim is wrong, or will direct you to the full algorithm or help you reconstruct it. Next step is to discuss the details of the reconstruction with someone (first choice is your supervisor) who may help you locate the mistake: of the original author or yours. In any case, from my experience, many times when my first impression was that someone is wrong, it was me who was wrong in the end.

I do agree that it is hard to show that the author is wrong, as it is similar to showing Fermat's 'proof that doesn't fit in the margin' is wrong: I have no idea what his precise argument or algorithm is! (I mean, the claim could be true. I simply doubt that the author has shown that, because why wouldn't the author simply publish it?) Perhaps it would be most tactful to simply ask for an explanation of the algorithm.


text:
Biosketch for New Researchers
How do you describe your Research Support (part D of NIH's biosketch) if you've never been a named member of a grant?  For junior researchers, NIH provides helpful guidance here on parts A (personal statement) and C (contribution to science).  Certain applicants can skip the Research Support section (high school students, applicants for predoctoral or postdoctoral fellowships, applicants for dissertation grants), but what if you're none of those?  I don't want to leave it entirely blank, but I don't want to mislead reviewers.

I disagree with @Formite's answer. My perspective is mostly related to NSF grants and faculty applications, not NIH proposals, but it's very common and not at all bad for new faculty to have nothing to list for external support. Many people list their university start-up funds -- this is a good thing to do, since it shows university commitment. I think it would be seen as misleading to write down grants for which you weren't a PI, for example things that funded you as a graduate student or postdoc.

I asked various PIs who funded me throughout grad school, and they agreed with @Raghu that it was more accurate to leave the section blank.

Note that NIH-style sketches have a space for "Role" where you can specify non-PI roles, and that these grants show up eRA Commons.

I'm going to answer this by looking at my early biosketches and seeing what I did.
Basically, I very much doubt your research support section is blank. Research support is not necessarily just the grants you were the PI on, but any grant you have ever been funded on - so for example I listed the training grant I was on as a graduate student.
If you've never genuinely been funded in any way, then I would say leave it blank.


text:
What does the typesetting process for a math/science journal using LaTeX look like?
Hopefully this question isn't too broad. Following up on https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/99123/what-software-do-publishers-use and Elsevier production team messed up my paper. What should I do?, what is the overall process that a typical academic journal uses for typesetting a LaTeX document? I would appreciate a brief step-by-step overview of the process.
Some random questions that I've often wondered about (no need to answer them all): does each journal just have a LaTeX template with a really elaborate preamble, into which they mostly copy and paste the TeX submission and then make minor tweaks from there by hand? Can it possibly really be true that Elsevier usually retypes the entire article by hand, as an answer to the linked question above claims? That seems completely ridiculous. Do the typesetters have any math training at all, or when they typeset equations, are they just manipulating symbols in what is to them effectively a foreign language? Is there at least someone around who understands the paper to whom they can ask questions if they're not sure how an equation should be formatted? Is it true that they're almost always in India?
I would especially hope that during the proof revision stage, there's someone around who understands the paper content, because understanding an error in an equation can be nontrivial. If one were to write a comment on an unrevised proof like, "These parentheses are misplaced; they should group the Jacobian determinant together with the integration measure", would anyone on the other end be able to understand that comment?

Please avoid asking multiple questions in one question.

Don't expect the typesetters to understand mathematics: if parentheses are in the wrong place, tell them what symbols they should go before/after; don't expect them to understand what the symbols mean. If it's complicated, just give them the correct LaTeX for the expression.

Edited the title, as "math/science journal" and using LaTeX are not the same thing.

This may differ quite a bit from journal to journal. In the best of worlds (from the author's point of view), the LaTeX source is used in some robust automated process to generate the final product, e.g. using latex or pdflatex, possibly with a slightly different documentclass and different fonts.
However, often the paper is typeset using a completely different "professional" typesetting system, for which there may be an automatic conversion from LaTeX. It may well be the case that many equations have to be corrected or completely typeset by humans. In this case, the person in charge will most likely have no training in mathematics, but they just manipulate symbols in what is to them effectively a foreign language. However, they should be able to understand LaTeX.
If the proofs are hopelessly messed up, then don't even try to correct them, but send them back demanding that the paper be properly typeset according to your LaTeX source. Point out roughly what the errors are and how many. It is the responsibility of the typesetter to set your paper properly and according to the LaTeX source.


text:
Are postdoc salaries in the USA adjusted for cost of living?
I'm a life sciences Ph.D. student preparing over the next few months to begin applying for a postdoctoral fellowship. Several of my potential advisors are on the coasts--California, Boston, Seattle--where the cost of living is quite high. Others are in the Midwest where the cost of living is much lower. I've lived a lot of places myself, so for the sake of argument we can assume I'd be equally happy moving to any of these places.
Although I don't want money to be a factor in this decision, I do have a wife and children and (insert salary here: $45,000 for example) allows a much different standard of living in the Midwest than Boston or Long Island. For those of you who received multiple postdoc offers--is this something that they take into account when setting your salary, or can I expect more or less flat offers across the nation?

There is a wide variety in the range of post-doc salaries. In the biomedical sciences, the NIH's salary guidelines hold sway, as the NIH is the largest source of funding for such positions. So there's relatively little cost-of-living adjustments.
However, I think many institutes set their own scale according to "what the market will bear." Popular schools like MIT could pay somewhat less and still be competitive because of the "prestige factor."

There is no fixed "postdoc salary", so by extension there is no way to inherently adjust for cost of living.
The NIH postdoc salary level (which is probably the closest thing to a 'fixed' postdoc salary in the U.S.) is adjusted for years of experience, but isn't necessarily adjusted for cost of living. There are ways around this, for example institutions in very expensive parts of the country (New York comes to mind) may be able to provide subsidized housing to postdocs to help offset the expense of living there, but this is far from assured. They may also find additional "pots" of money, provided by the institution, non-NIH grants, etc. for which they can pay a postdoc more.
But it's not the only factor under consideration - the institution may know they're in a position to not pay much because of the prestige and perceived career benefits, or on the flip side may need to pay more because they know they're potentially competing against private industry.

This is not the most direct answer, but you might find the glassdoor website useful. You can see salaries for postdocs by institution and see how locations you're considering might vary. It's hard to fix everything you might want while making the comparison, but I think it will be useful to you.

Are you affiliated with the linked site? While it seems like an appropriate link, it is best to declare any affiliations http://academia.stackexchange.com/help/behavior

Nope, I'm not affiliated at all. I'm just someone who has found it useful when I've been curious about salaries. It's widely known and used in the private sector (where I am) and seems to have decent data for academia as well. I think there are a few other sites with good data that are useful for answering similar questions, I'm just not as familiar with them.

I can confirm that Glassdoor is widely used in the private sector. From my personal perspective, it is approaching familiarity akin to Linkedin. @StrongBad

Stanford University, whose housing market is in the top 2 or 3 worst in the country, sets a minimum salary for postdocs. Currently, a beginning postdoc is guaranteed $44,310, which rises over time (e.g. to $51,830 in one's fifth year). This page states:

"The San Francisco Bay Area is an expensive region. ... Postdocs who are considering offers of appointment at Stanford are encouraged to consider the cost of living in this area in light of their lifestyle, needs, and where applicable, financial obligations towards spouses or family. ... The minimum funding levels for postdoctoral scholars at Stanford are perhaps the highest in the country for trainees, and they are designed to support a stipend-level income for a single trainee."

(We don't generally have postdocs in mathematics, so I can't say whether it's common for postdocs to be paid this minimum salary.)
More generally, everyone in the administration is aware of, and concerned about, the problems that the housing market creates for postdocs. For example, a new program began two days ago through which postdocs are eligible to purchase highly-subsidized Caltrain passes; this program was designed specifically with the aim of mitigating the cost of living, by making it easier for postdocs to commute from more affordable towns in the area.


text:
Fighting for academic fairness: My authorship is unaffected but my PhD advisor pushed up authorship of a co-author at the expense of other co-authors
I’m Nick, a postdoc currently working on publication of my PhD work. There are several authors on the paper - two former graduate students as co-first authors (myself and Aubrey), followed by five undergraduates (all of who have graduated now) and another younger current graduate student as the last author (Pax, who overlapped with Aubrey and me during our PhD years) before the PI's name (i.e. PI is senior/corresponding author).
We are preparing a submission to a journal after three failed submissions.
In this version, our advisor moved up the position of Pax to be second author, after myself and Aubrey. We only noticed from looking at the manuscript version she sent to us with comments. In other words, she didn't discuss the change with us.
After several days of contemplation and looking through the manuscript to see if Pax really added so much to the changes in the manuscript, both Aubrey and I decided that Pax didn’t deserve to be second author - and the answer is pretty obvious because all the remaining authors contributed intellectually and experimentally to the paper. Pax, on the other hand, has never added much to manuscript meetings and doesn’t know the data from the paper as well either. Despite that, my advisor decided to move up the position of Pax to be second author.
When we questioned my advisor on this, she said that Pax contributed intellectually to the current layout of the paper (which didn’t change significantly from the last version) and gave another unconvincing answer about how intellectual contribution is difficult to assess (which in this case, I feel the answer is pretty black and white).
Aubrey and I really think there is a hidden reason that my PI is unwilling to admit, but what bothers us is that our PI is being non-transparent. I figured this is academia and the PI gets the final say in what she does.
Neither my or Aubrey’s authorship position is affected. But I know that since I am the first author on this paper, I can fight for the authorship positions of undergraduate authors all of who have really contributed a significant amount of work to the paper. This way I can learn to fight for fairness within academia.
What shall I do? Pursue this issue further with my PI or resign myself to the situation?

Please consider splitting the question into paragraphs to make it easier to read.

This question is really disorganized.  Is there reason to think this authorship dispute will have actual consequences?

Hi, welcome to Ac.SE. Long winded posts tend to attract down- and close-votes, so I edited your question to make it more readable for our community. Apologies if you think I left out anything important, you can always edit again with the links at the bottom of your question.

Also, I noticed you don't list your PI as an author? Is this the case?

This question's answer depends strongly on field, which isn't in the question.  In my fields (physics & telecoms) any positions other than first or last are largely irrelevant, and last author is actually a prestigious position.
The last part is obviously not true for you, but in general detailed order matters more for the morals of those involved than it does to the wider world.

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


text:
Professional looking to gain research experience
I'm a public health professional working for a national agency in the UK. I'm really keen to gain some research experience, but despite my organisation encouraging staff to be 'research active' it's not something that seems particularly feasible within my current programme of work.
Does anyone here have experience of gaining research experience independently and/or on the side of their day job? I would appreciate any advice you would be able to share on developing a research profile or experience outside of your primary professional role.
The two suggestions I have had so far are conducting independent research, or seeking out part time collaboration with an academic department (subject to employer approval). To what extent do these seem like feasible options, and what are the challenges/opportunities you see with pursuing either of these approaches?


text:
Does the NSF award grants to foreign researchers not affiliated with US instutitions?
I mean the foreign researchers who are not affiliated with US institutions, and are located overseas. I suspect that NSF would not award them research grants, but need a confirmation.
I also imagine that NSF may award grants for collaborations of US and foreigners. It would be interesting to get a pointer to a resource which describes the conditions for such collaborations.

From the FAQs:

NSF rarely provides support to foreign organizations. NSF, however, will
  consider proposals for cooperative projects involving U.S. and foreign organizations, provided support is requested only for the U.S. portion of the
  collaborative effort. For further information, contact the Office of International Science and Engineering. (Reference GPG Chapter I.E.6.)

Individual funding opportunities list specific eligibility requirements. These generally say something like "The PI must hold an appointment at an eligible US institution."
There is an office of the NSF specifically devoted to encouraging international collaboration, and there are often specific funding opportunities earmarked for collaboration with a particular country. You'll find examples of many such opportunities on the linked page.
Having said that, it's not impossible for NSF money to trickle down to foreign researchers. For example, I am at a US institution and I participate in a project supported by the NSF, in which our budget includes a subcontract arrangement involving researchers in Australia. As far as the NSF is concerned, this money is paid to a US institution (mine), but we are allowed to use some of it to pay our foreign colleagues as subcontractors. (The details of this arrangement were of course specified up front in our proposal.) Specific grants may have different requirements with respect to subcontracting to foreign institutions.


text:
Should one apply for tenure track positions below current rank?
Should a full professor apply for an associate professor position if it's the only way s/he might be able to continue his or her career?
The situation in question involves a person recently promoted to full professor (after 5 years as associate prof. and 5 years as assistant before that, all at the same institution). At the time of application for the assistant/associate level position, the person will have held the rank of full professor for 1 year. The person's current position entails living 2500 miles apart from spouse and elderly parents for 8-9 months each year.

My feeling is that if the person is better off in the new position, who cares if it's assistant/associate/full professor or even a professor at all? The precise definition of "better off" is then entirely situation dependent, which makes this question difficult to answer in a general way.

Two similar examples popped up at my US university. (1) An "associate professor with tenure" from Argentina applied and got hired as an "assistant professor on tenure track" at my univ. His personal reason was a "preference in geographic location". (2) A full professor applied to a "teaching track lecturer position". His application was declined. His personal reason was he wanted to be closer to family. I am sure there were other factors involved in the decision process but these are the personal factors I am privy to.

Contact the department/institution. If a department is hiring an "Assistant Professor", they have been granted a tenure-track slot (by the Dean or Provost depending on institution). In some cases they may be willing to hire at a higher rank than advertised if the applicant already has tenure elsewhere. Some advertisements are explicit in this offer, but the possibility may be there even if it is not explicitly mentioned.
Otherwise, the person needs to do what makes them happier. If moving closer to family is more important, then the person should apply. If the option to be hired at higher rank is not possible, then the person should probably indicate that he or she is willing to be hired at a lower rank/salary for personal reasons (however, it is unethical for the potential employer to ask what these might be).

Of course the answer to whether you should do this depends on what "should" means, and only you can judge whether it makes sense in your own circumstances.  I see two potential difficulties with getting hired into a lower rank:

The department may not believe you'll be OK with the demotion.  For example, you might try to negotiate for a full professorship after they make a lower offer, which could slow things down and cause them to lose other candidates, or you might accept the associate professorship but feel bitter about it and keep fussing until they promote you.  So you've got a tricky balancing act: you need to make it clear that a demotion is acceptable to you, without seeming desperate or inferior.
Nobody wants to feel like they're exploiting someone by giving them less than they deserve.  In practice, the way people rationalize exploitation is by convincing themselves that it's actually justified (for example, that all people in low-paid adjunct positions are inferior scholars who don't deserve tenure-track jobs), and this rationalization doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual facts.  If you are hired from a full professorship into an associate professorship, some of your new colleagues will probably tell themselves that your promotion at your previous school was premature or based on low standards, and that now you're at the rank you should have had all along.  It can be painful to go down in rank and be told it's what you deserve rather than a sacrifice you are making for personal reasons.  You may decide you're OK with this reaction, but you should be prepared for it.

In Europe I have seen this multiple times. For instance, I know one assistant professor at my old university who was already a full professor at a different (granted, much lower ranked) university. I can only speculate over the reasons for this career move, but it certainly happens at least on occasion.
As for one "should" apply to a lower-ranked position - likely not for career reasons alone. However, oftentimes private reasons are at least as important as career development, and most people understand that. So if a person thinks that moving "down" one or two ranks for private reasons is the right move, he should do it.

Since the title of the question is general, I will mention some other cases in which people apply to academic positions below their current rank:

In some countries, universities hire individuals with only a Masters degree as lecturers (they may even be called professors).  Those individuals may later apply to be doctoral students at a research university (often in another country with a stronger scientific background).
At some universities, assistant professors (who hold a Ph.D.) are given essentially no time to research, due to heavy teaching loads.  It is not unusual for them to apply for postdoctoral positions at research universities, in order to have the opportunity to do more research.

In the second case, I think there is usually some prejudice against the candidate (if you're a good researcher, why didn't you get a research position already?)  But I have hired one extremely good postdoc this way.  In the first case, there is sometimes some prejudice, especially if it has been a long time since you got your MS degree.  But I've seen many excellent students who went this route.

I think, this just does not work in Europe, while I am not sure if they have unwritten rules or maybe even written rules. I know several people who tried to stay in science as post docs because they time-limited position of the "senior researcher" has expired, and I know post docs that were desperate enough to apply for a PhD second time - would be kind of a "dream PhD student", but such applications seem never accepted, same as applications for laboratory technicians where no degree is required.
The European scientific system is one way only. Student, PhD student, post doc, researcher, professor (head of laboratory/department). Each level is progressively more difficult to achieve with many people dropping out to industry rather than making the second step up. It may be exceptions, but I have never seen anybody making a successful step down.


text:
How to approach potential advisor who's going on sabbatical?
I am a Math PhD student at a US university. I have made a decision on who I want to work with for my PhD, but I was made aware that the professor in question is going on a sabbatical next year, to be spent in a different university (not in close proximity). What is the best way to approach a potential advisor in such a situation? I have not yet asked the "question", but have met with the professor in question multiple times on research related issues.

You should probably talk to him about it. Sabbatical for some professors still means coming to the office every day, just not teaching classes.

@AustinHenley: see edit

So work with someone else for a year. What's the problem?

Depending on the situation, you might also have the opportunity for an extended visit with your potential advisor. I did this for a semester during my third year of grad school to great benefit.

@JeffE: I don't think it's that simple.  Many math students will focus on a single problem for their entire thesis.  (Some will do a "stapler" thesis where they solve several smaller problems but this is certainly not universal.)  In that case, a year working with someone else may give independent results but not really help progress towards the thesis; the end result may be "finish a year later."  (And given time and funding limits, that in turn may mean "don't finish at all".)

I think the situation is volatile, depending on the communication skills/inclinations of the faculty person. I.e., do they do email often-and-effectively? If so, there's scant obstacle. But, on the opposite hand, if the only way they communicate effectively is face-to-face, then this would be a bad situation.
And it depends of course equally on your own capacity to communicate effectively by a medium where there're no facial expressions, no body language, and... many people seem to be slow to see this... committing questions or comments to email disallows remarks like "Oh, I don' get it" that seem ok in conversation. Thus, one must exert more effort to compose an email than to make a vague verbal remark in person. This is not at all a bad thing... unless the net effect is significant inhibition of communication, in which case one should re-consider one's mode of operation.
On the whole, some risk here, but, if both parties' communications chops are good, it could be as productive as any.

Face-to-face communication can be very useful, but it can be simulated pretty well with Skype.  I've used Skype to work with Ph.D. students and also with undergraduates doing REU projects.  Admittedly, this was for a two-month period, not for a whole year, but I  imagine it could scale up.

It's not uncommon for professors on sabbatical leave to bring their graduate advisees who are at the thesis writing stage with them for the sabbatical leave.  I've seen this particularly at some of the NSF funded research centers that I've visited.  However, if you haven't yet started working with this professor, and especially if you have significant course work left to complete, then it probably makes more sense for you to stay where you are, take course work and perhaps get started working with your advisor via email, internet teleconferences, etc.
I think you should meet with your prospective advisor and ask him/her whether they would like to take you on as an advisee or not.  If they're willing to take you as an advisee, then they'll probably have some plan for you.
You haven't discussed your funding situation.  If you're currently working as a TA, then you obviously couldn't expect this funding to continue at another university.  If your advisor will fund you as an RA, then it may well be possible to take this funding with you to the other university.  Another possibility is that your advisor might be able to arrange for you to get funding from the other institution.

Adding to what has already been said about communication and funding, from experience, it will strongly depend on at what stage your PhD project is. In my case, my advisor was away during the last 12 months preceding my graduation and it made the collaboration a lot harder resulting in some frustration and delays.
If this situation happens at the beginning of your work, it might be less of an issue. Unless your work includes laboratory experiments for which it's usually critical to have close supervision.
Some of the points you could discuss when you bring up the subject:

is the supervisor willing and capable of using a videoconference software, securing a decent connection and decent hardware to run the thing (don't laugh, you'd be surprised how many highly educated people are clueless when it comes to this)?
is she/he ready to schedule regular calls (eg. once every two weeks)?
Are plans to visit an option? if yes, can funding be secured for that?

One thing I did was to send updates in the form of screencasts, or videos with slides and audio describing the work, or videos of me in front of a white board. That seemed to be appreciated by my supervisor and triggered the most fruitful feedbacks.

Here is a possibility to consider: ask for a coadvisor, or ask for someone on your thesis committee to take a slightly more active role in mentoring your research while your advisor is on sabbatical.  Even if the coadvisor is not strong in your area, they should be able to read the signs of what progress you are making and advise you generally on what to change, even if they cannot make technical comments.  Further, it will prepare them for giving a better critical evaluation of your thesis as you will have spent some time talking to them about it.  (If you do follow this route, it is incumbent on you to make things transparent and as easy as possible for all involved.  In particular let both advisors know what meetings you had, what you discussed, etc.  Having a semi-private blog to record this may be useful.)
Of course, this is very situation dependent, and may not be the best answer for you.  The point is that the doctorate is your responsibility, and if you can't or don't follow your advisor physically, you need to do what you need to do to finish the degree, which can involve a lot of creative thinking and work on your part (and hopefully not much extra on the part of the system:  you can't expect the world to change for you as much as you should expect to change the world).


text:
How to answer question about publication plans in a grant proposal?
How do you answer a question in your application for research grant, where it asks you 'Plans for publication'?
I plan to publish the results of my research in one of three optional scientific journals, and maybe present the results on a conference at the end of the year. But how should I answer this, without sounding too unspecific or 'casual' in the application?

Your publication plans will likely depend on a number of factors including the funding agency, the purpose/aim of the research, number of journals publishing similar research, etc.
Based on my limited experience writing grants and attending grant writing seminars, I believe that funding agencies are likely looking for congruence between your publication plans and the rest of your application. For example, I received feedback from National Institutes of Health reviewers that my publication plans were insufficient, as one or two peer-reviewed publications was not congruent with the amount of money we were requesting ($100,000).
Thus, you might want to mention how the project will be broken into individual publications, when publications will be submitted, and anticipated impact. If you have space it may help to provide examples of journals that publish similar results.
Best of luck with your application!