text:
How do I locate the rockstars at my university, so as to establish a relationship and get references from them?
I'm an undergrad with hopes of entering academia. My transcript isn't stellar, and the general sense I get is that I can make up for this with good references. How do I find which professors have the best reputation, so I can try to establish a relationship and hopefully get references from them?
If the subject is relevant, my area is mathematics.

You don't get good references by looking for "rockstars": you get good references by working hard and doing a good job. I suggest you to rethink your strategy and, maybe, also your motivation in entering academia. Academia is more about "rock stairs" than "rock stars".

I think a legitimate question is buried here: suppose someone is looking to do a research project (e.g. an undergraduate summer scholarship) and wishes to work with a 'rockstar' then how to track them down? My answer: most department websites have a 'news' feed which tracks awards won by the department members. Alternatively, pick a field that you're interested in and ask one of your contacts - e.g. your personal tutor - who the university's leading experts are in that field.

Usually by their publication record. I have seen that some very pedagogical professors who are very good at explaining mathematics and physics are not so good at a research level, not having many prestigious publications. The approach would be find a good tutor with a very good publications record.

And I hope you realize that "rockstars" may be very perceptive about the potential/talent of other people, so that being chummy with them in itself may actually result in a net loss if you cannot make a wonderful impression. A very-lukewarm letter from a very well known person is more damning than an ambiguous letter from unknowns. So, that is, there's not "one weird trick" to develop a good reputation out of a vacuum...

Have a look if Brian May is at your university; that's probably your best chance to find a rock star.

@gnasher729: You probably meant Peter May or Brian Conrad

Every university instructor is a potential rockstar in terms of their ability to help you in your studies, and in terms of their ability to influence an admissions committee.
So, how do you find your personal academic rockstars?

Consider the instructor of every single class you take as a potential rockstar.  Visit office hours.  You don't know whether the instructor will give you extra help, or whether the extra help will be targeted to your needs, until you try.
When choosing courses, look for courses where other students say the instructor is highly effective.  Here are some ways of collecting opinions: visit the drop-in homework help room.  There you should be able to find students who are a bit farther along than you, who can talk freely about who are the best instructors in the department.
Try all the tutoring options at your school.  Some are better than others, so don't get too frustrated if your first attempts don't work out very well.  Try any and all options.
Don't be afraid to look at ratemyprofessor.com -- but do take what you read there with a grain of salt.
Sit in on a potential class or instructor one semester ahead.  This will help you in your choice of classes for the following semester.
Make an appointment with your undergraduate dean or advisor.  Ask for recommendations of courses and instructors.

The suggestion made in a comment by @lemon is good too.
I like your attitude.  Everybody has their own rate of development.  Late bloomers are welcome in academia too.
Do make sure you are solid on your foundational math skills.

I, in turn, am not impressed by the OP's request. They are more concerned about building relations and thus the quality of the references than about the quality of their work. The sequence should be the other way round. Relations are important, and so is PR and marketing, but should there not first be a product to sell? If they really come across rockstar profs, these have achieved their status through an astute mixture of exceptional work, and the other aspects. Don't expect them not to see through your strategy. Make sure you have something to sell, or it may backfire.

I like your attitude. Everybody has their own rate of development. Late bloomers are welcome in academia too. - I certainly agree with the latter 2 sentences, but I'm not convinced the OP has the right attitude.  (She may, but it's not clear from the question if her goal is to excel in her studies.)

@Kimball - I'm an optimist.  In gray areas I like to believe the best about people and assist them in proving me right.  But that's just me.

@aparente001 I am an optimist, too, and people get always an initial credit with me. However, some blow parts of it right at the beginning. Still, they can improve credit history by the following steps...

@CaptainEmacs - Yes, I'm listening, the following steps?  Is there more coming, or am I missing something that should be obvious?

@aparente001 Sorry, it's a misunderstanding, the three dots were a "fade out" not a "continuation" - I meant that, once they blew their credit, they have to work hard to regain it. That's the reason I think they should not go to the high-reputation referees before they have work of matching quality. Rebuilding reputation after it has been damaged is even harder than getting to a good reputation level in the first place.

@CaptainEmacs - Thanks for explaining.  At any rate, I think the heavy hitting potential referees can be trusted not to bestow their recommendations lightly.

To me, the way you ask this question sounds very mercenary, OP. I for one would not be willing to put any effort into a student if I had the impression that they were merely after my name on their reference letter rather than genuinely interested in learning from me.
At your stage of your studies, shouldn't you be more interested in learning exciting maths and getting good references because you do good work, rather than whose name will look best on your letter? (Good work does not have to equal good grades in exams; it could be research projects, reading courses, student seminars...)
My advice is also to establish relationships with faculty whose research genuinely interests you and who put effort into mentoring students (ask older students!); that will get you somewhere in terms of making you a better mathematician. Enthusiastic references from any such professors will serve you well.
You need to give someone a reason to actually write you a good reference. Simply approaching whoever has the most citations/ won the most awards/ published in the most high-impact journals will not cut it by itself.

You have two issues: deciding who to approach and then what to do to make them support you. I'll focus mostly on the second part.
But first, the upper level students in your university will have a pretty good idea who the best teachers are. In some (smaller) places that might be all you can hope for. But you can also ask any professor, including your academic advisor, about their own research and a general question about who on the faculty does a lot of effective research. For math, however, you might need to specify a field within math so as to match your own skills.
And a combination of the two approaches (ask students and faculty) might be best. My further suggestions will depend on finding someone who is willing to do actual research with undergraduates. Finding a superstar who won't work with you will bring no benefit. And some such people are too focused on their now research, which is probably above your level anyway, to provide any help.
But once you find someone who does interesting research in a field that also interests you and has some track record of working independently with  undergraduate students, approach them for an independent study research project that they would be willing to guide. You probably don't need a specific topic, but a field (algebra, topology, ...) would probably be essential.
Then, spend a lot of effort on that project. If you do a good job of it, then they will be impressed and will probably be willing to write you good letters of recommendation for further study. But it is your work than matters more than the (international) reputation of the letter writer.
If you can get a publication along the way, even a joint publication, even a modest publication, all the better, but as an undergrad this isn't essential.

Academic "rock-star-ness" is a factor in reference letters, but not that big a factor, especially at your level, for a few reasons.

As others have said, if you had to choose between a letter that could speak in detail about your work written by a less famous professor, and a generic letter by a famous professor, the former letter is much, much more valuable. (After all, the admissions committee will evaluate you, not your letter writers!)

If you do a PhD, you will specialize in a certain subfield. You want to use undergrad to find the subfield(s) that most interest you. Having a letter from someone in or adjacent to the subfield where you want to work, is much more important than having a letter from someone "famous" in abstract terms.

If you are tempted to choose your subfield based on the interests of the professor with the most "rock-star-ness", keep in mind that this is very institution-dependent. You will build a career by going to many different places. If you choose to study X because rock-star professor Y studies it at your undergrad institution, but you don't really love X, then you will be in for a long lifetime of misery when you go to other places where the people who study X are not rock stars. An academic career is long and difficult; a pre-requisite for starting one is that you are genuinely passionate about the subfield you are studying.

Entering graduate school, you will be judged much more on your potential for success in research, as opposed to your previous accomplishments. Of course your grades and undergraduate research experience are important evidence of potential. But, you are not applying for a faculty position, where you would be expected to be well connected in your field. At that point in your career, it does matter what famous and well respected people in your field think of your work. But, you are not at that level yet. No one expects famous people in your field to know who you are at this stage.

Where "rock-star-ness" could matter, is if you are deciding between doing a research internship between two (or, a small number bigger than one) of groups in your area. Then, one factor that weighs into the decision is which group is more successful. However, even then, that is not the only factor. Oftentimes, choosing to work in a "famous" and well-established group over a new and up and coming group can lead to a situation where you get less personal attention from your advisor and need to compete more with others in the group.
Therefore, I would strongly advise focusing on (a) doing quality work and (b) seeking out professors who work on things you find interesting, and not put attempt to do a generic ranking of professors in the abstract that doesn't account for your specific interests.


text:
PhD in Comparative Literature: how much does the University's pedigree matter compared to opportunties for collaboration?
I received an unconditional offer from two universities: one in UK, the other in a little country of Northern Europe. As I am uncertain about where to go, I would like to ask your opinion.
On the one hand, I noticed that students of small departments, after graduation, have a hard time securing themselves a suitable post-doc position elsewhere. (Specifically, I also read on the University's database that most of its past graduates remained there for their post-doc, teaching assistantships, etc). On the other, in the UK PhD students tend to work mostly on their dissertation and teaching duties, leaving aside the publication of their researches.
Another factor is the collaboration with the supervisor. While in the UK professors do not normally co-author articles with their students, many professors in Northern European universities usually not only do publish articles with students but also share projects with them.
I do know that, either case, the path will not be easy. I am just scared of making the wrong choice. My biggest fear is, in fact, not being able to move to other Universities, say, in the US, Germany or UK for a post-doc.
Thank you for your time.

Don't just compare the universities. Compare the cities. For most purposes, London has several excellent libraries, multiple universities, and communities speaking most languages. Estonia may have specialized resources for studying eastern European literature.

I have reworked the question title by valuing selection criteria, rather than universities, and nominate the question for reopening.

I feel like even if this question has been edited to remove the "shopping" characteristic, it now depends heavily on individual circumstances. And although some similar questions have been allowed, they probably qualify as duplicates now.

I know that this forum has its rules, but please don't just look at the form. I really need an advice from more experienced people. And all this red-tape stuff, although necessary, is not helping me. I believe many of you have been in the situation of not being able to find help (and, thus, of not sleeping for days).

@Giorgio I thought your other question was much better. It had a more specific scope, is answerable in a fairly general sense, and has value to other readers of the site. I understand (and I think this applies to the community as a whole, as well) the wanting advice part, but SE isn't just an advice site. The rules are there for a reason, to keep out certain types of questions that otherwise bog down a site like this, and try to make sure the best, most useful questions rise to the top. It certainly isn't an indictment of the importance of your situation.

@Giorgio Do any of the programs you are considering have directories of alumni? If you are wondering about "where do people that graduate with X from Y end up?" those directories can be very useful.

Thank you very much for your understanding and help. I do understand your point and, of course, agree with you, but I did not know really where to ask.
@Bryan Krause As I wrote, I read on the University's database that most of its graduates remained there for their post-doc, teaching assistantships, etc. And this scared me considerably. I was just wondering if that should be considered a general rule for such small departments... Many of the former PhD students had papers published in good journals but, somehow, did not move from the city (none of them).

@Giorgio That sounds to me like a pretty big red flag - if the department isn't creating graduates that have success elsewhere, and you want to eventually find success elsewhere in your career, then they aren't providing you any evidence that their program is going to help you reach your goals. I think that's all the advice I can really give, besides that it's your decision. Best of luck to you.

I'm not convinced that: "UK professors do not normally co-author articles with their students." But, it will certainly depend on the discipline and the department.

Since it looks like this question was voted for reopen, I'll move my comment to an answer.
Partial quote of comment from OP:

...I read on the University's database that most of [the small European country university department's] graduates remained there for their post-doc, teaching assistantships, etc. And this scared me considerably. I was just wondering if that should be considered a general rule for such small departments... Many of the former PhD students had papers published in good journals but, somehow, did not move from the city (none of them).

That sounds to me like a pretty big red flag - if the department isn't creating graduates that have success elsewhere, and you want to eventually find success elsewhere in your career, then they aren't providing you any evidence that their program is going to help you reach your goals. Further, it might be evidence that the department is fairly insular, and doesn't interact as much with scholars from countries like the US, UK, and Germany, which would limit opportunities to form the relationships that lead to future positions.
Of course it is possible that you could be the student to break their tradition, and it's also possible that those previous students are doing exactly what they wanted to do by staying (and it may also depend on a small sample size). Unfortunately you just don't have any evidence that graduates of that program can get positions like the ones you hope to compete for.
I think that's all the advice I can really give, besides that it's your decision and depends on how you personally weigh the various pros and cons. Eventual faculty positions and even post-docs can be quite competitive, so even at a top-ranked institution there are no career guarantees.
Best of luck to you.

Thank you very much Bryan. I really appreciate your help.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Doing research/travel between postdocs (pure mathematics, Europe)
I have just finished a postdoc but will not start a new postdoc for a few months.
In the meantime, I will continue to do my research. The problem is that I registered for a conference while at my former institute and the conference will take place while I'm not officially employed at any institute. I also plan to visit collaborators during this time and will likely need a visa for at least one of the visits.
I'm hoping someone else may have been in this situation and have some advice:
What do I put as my affiliation for that and any other conference I might attend in the meantime? Will not having any affiliation affect my ability to participate in conferences or make research visits?

I've got an EU passport. The conference is in China and I was planning on visiting a colleague in India (the rest are EU, so that's not a problem). I suppose in either case I could apply as a visitor, but I'm worried that could affect the local funding I'd been promised.

I was unaffiliated for a little over a year between postdocs.  I attended two conferences in that time and didn't list any affiliation.  I also made two research visits, for one of which I received some funding from my host's research grant, and being unaffiliated (or 'an independent researcher', as my host put it) was no obstacle.
This might depend somewhat on country and research area, of course.  And I didn't need a visa for either of the research visits, but I'd be quite surprised if not having an affiliation right now would be an obstacle to getting one (again a little depending on the visa-issuing country).

What do I put as my affiliation for that and any other conference I might attend in the meantime?

No one (in any part of academia I have ever had experience with) cares as long as the information is factually correct. Some possibilities, all of which are perfectly valid, include: no affiliation (absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it will make for a good conversation starter when people see your name tag); the name of your current city or country; or, if you are in a humorous mood, "Earth", "Europe", or some more specific name of the region you are traveling through and possibly the means of transportation (e.g., "Biking across France").

Will not having any affiliation affect my ability to participate in conferences or make research visits?

No. Or, to be more precise, it can only affect your ability to participate to the extent that it might make it more difficult to get a visa for certain countries; that you may have no research funding available during your gap period; and that you might get a flat tire on the way to the conference if you are indeed biking across France. (Or you might simply get distracted by the pleasures of traveling and decide that attending conferences isn't your highest priority right now.)

I completely agree that no one cares (I never wear that name tag), and no one looks (maybe only after you start a conversation). But I would personally avoid humorous tags because to some people it would seem childish. I think the best would be to registered as "no current affiliation" and on name tag simply add the name.

At a recent conference, a colleague "between jobs" in the same situation wrote just the name of the city where he lives as an affiliation. It looks like a sensible idea to me: it gives some useful information as to where you are in the world, and it does not require you to put false information on your badge.

Well, that can be a solution if one lives anywhere.  I actually didn't during most of the time I was unaffiliated.  I suppose I could have put "Europe".

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


text:
Obtaining a PhD with an original work
I was wondering if there still exist universities (in the US or in Europe) where one can obtain a PhD in Philosophy by only presenting an original and well-developed work around a subject or an author.

A lot is hidden in the word presenting in your question.
If by presenting, you mean that you just show it to them, they say "wow" and they give you a degree, then I severely doubt any such institution exists.
If by presenting, you mean that you apply to a university that allows degree by prior work and show them that you've published papers of sufficient quality in reputable journals and presses, then yes.
To back this up, look at for instance, Kent, Glasgow, Bradford. It's not that you've got something original you did, it's that you've published enough. At the same time, note that in principle publishing in a journal does not require an advanced degree or institutional affiliation. When full double-blind refereeing is used, no one would even know.
(The same system is also used at times in Japan where it is called ronpaku)

Yes. Many UK Universities have it in their regulations to permit the award of a degree by prior publication.
However, that does not mean you can just submit your publication and expect to receive a doctorate! The regulations permit the university to recognise someone, usually already associated with the institution, who has made some publication of academic merit made by a non-academic that has received some form of public praise to be rewarded and recognised by the university for their work. This is distinct from a degree honoris causa which may be awarded to honour the person who has done some deed that is not  a publication of equivalent worth to a thesis.
An example, of my personal knowledge, is someone who spent their life studying local flora and published a significant catalogue of plants as an amature botanist. The academic nature of the work was recognised by the University with the award of a Phd by prior publication. I have also known it happen to a local playwright for a lifes work.


text:
Cancer when applying for university. Can I still get in?
I'm applying for university and I wonder if my cancer would ruin my chances of getting in? Another thing is it consider a disability? How should I go about mention it?

Can you indicate which country you are talking about, as laws relating to equal opportunities, health and disabilities vary from place to place.

Many countries would not require you to disclose the cancer unless you want to.  Whether you can do all that is needed academically and with possible work requirements for a job -- this is up to you, of course.

Does this help?
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/122576/will-my-cancer-ruin-my-chances-of-going-to-graduate-school-in-math/122581#122581

It will not affect your chances of getting in.
Every cohort of freshmen will, as any other group of humans, include students suffering from chronic disease. Some disclose their medical conditions as a way to show the admissions committee how they overcame adversity. Some don't disclose it. For those that disclose it, I've never heard of any negative comment against the prospective student suffering from a chronic disease, including cancer.
Students suffering from cancer also have, as you'd expect, a diversity of diagnoses and severity of cases. But I've seen the most severe of cases, e.g. stage 4 cancer, being admitted to highly selective universities, even though the student was surely not going to finish his degree, which indeed is what happened. Most cases of cancer patients I've seen admitted to the university are from students whose cancer is in remission. Again, this is to show the range of cases admitted I've seen, although I don't have any data to support this claim, and I don't know of any reliable data publicly available.
It is also common for students suffering from chronic health issues to receive accommodations. For example, students taking chemotherapy need to take a few days off each month, and the university produces a letter to professors requiring that accommodations be given (e.g. deadline extensions.) Professors are not told the nature of the condition nor are they allowed to ask. This is good, as you don't have to explain yourself to each professor every semester. If this is called a "disability", it will depend on the jurisdiction, but at least as it pertains to the professor/student relationship, it does not matter, as accommodations do not require a disability.
I wish you good health.

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


text:
Struggling to gauge progress first year PhD
I'm in my first year of my PhD (first 2 months) in the UK. I’m struggling a bit with knowing what’s expected of me and how much work I’m supposed to have got done by this point. I’m feeling kind of bad about it because I feel like I’ve been dumb and just repeated the same experiment multiple times to make starting material when I didn’t need to do that and I just wasted time when I could have been more efficient. I’m also worried my supervisor thinks I’m not independent enough because I keep asking them lots of questions and reviewing my plan for the week/day. I also feel like I barely know what’s going on half the time. Do you have any advice?

Talk to your advisor.

The first two months are hardly the first year, let alone a significant part of your PhD. Why do you already apply such high standards and pressure to yourself?

What sort of affirmation are you looking for? Start by jotting down a few questions, then discuss them with your advisor. And figure out whom, if anyone, you’re currently comparing yourself to.

State your field for better answers

Do not assume that your supervisor thinks those things. They KNOW those things. They know you are not fully independent. They know that you have no idea what's going on half the time. They know and expect that you will repeat things and make what can be construed as dumb mistakes.
This is part of your training. Keep reading the literature. Keep asking questions (but do start thinking about them more before asking) and keep building your independence. It takes time. Outside of my absolute best PhD students, nobody in my group has ever really been a net positive within the first 6 months (most take a year).

Your supervisor will thank you if you have at least read the wikipedia page before asking that question.

@DDuck "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas", yes a minimal gesture is appreciated. Among my current crop of 3 new PhDs... one feels the need to knock on my door and inform me of every single mundane activity, achievement, task they are doing, and also ask every question imaginable that could be answered by wikipedia, a colleague, a textbook etc.. Is it annoying? At times yes. On busy days, very much so.... but they are a first year student in their first semester, so I smile and nod, help them along, and try to get them to build some of that confidence and independence.

Also make sure to record answers from your advisor so that if you must ask a basic question, you will only need to do so once (for that question at least).

My experience is that asking a lot of questions is a good thing, not a bad one. But the best, perhaps the only, way to get a handle on your position and progress is to have a chat with your supervisor. Ask if they have any concerns. Ask what you might do better.
You don't go to grad school to prove to the world that you don't need to go to grad school.
Relax a bit and have a friendly chat. It is the best students that ask questions. Possibly because they don't occur to some others.

As others said, talk to your advisor. If this is not their first PhD they will have a canned answer along the lines of "you are fine, you are learning, come to me with questions, read this and that, ...". If this is their first PhD, well, you will both learn together :)
The fact that you started a PhD is not some miraculous event that changed you from a student that was more or less on autopilot to a senior researcher. Like everything, the transition takes time.
One of the things you must be aware of is that there will be a gray area in your time (a few months to a year or so) where you will learn what you need to know in order to discover new things. Sure, you can be the kind of student who jumps right away on a discovery and wraps up their PhD in 6 months. I certainly was not one of them (I switched my PhD topic after a year because I discovered something way more interesting).
The other thing is that you cannot gauge your progress yourself. What you think is slow can be OK or fast, and vice-versa. There are some general highlights (in Europe for instance you are usually expected to publish an article, and have another one on the way) but they are general.
Finally research is not manufacturing: you cannot plan to do 2 minor discoveries per week and 1 major every 3 months, preferably in September.
So do not worry, discuss with your advisor and possibly some older colleagues and enjoy the ride. This is a wild ride but, boy, it is great.

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


text:
Someone claim to "independently discovered the same thing (two years after me)"
I emailed an famous professor a paper (say paper B) that corrects a critical mistake in their old, well-received paper (say paper A). I invite them to coauthor. They neither agree nor disagree. They told me that they were not entirely convinced and had me wait. After waiting for more than two months, they come back to me with a new plan written:

They want to completely rewrite paper A, adding many more new materials
They ask me to coauthor with them
They want to add another coauthor, Jason, because Jason independently discovered similar results as mine.

Note that my discovery is partly published on preprint and Jason's claimed contribution is very similar to my published ones. Jason claims to "never seen my preprint".
In my field every coauthor is equal; there is no first author. Their request is different from what I propose. Their email is written in an affirmative tone rather than an “advising/inquiring” tone.
I worked on this problem for 19 months and shared with many researchers. There is a preprint I posted online dated 2021. So I don't believe Jason independently come to the same result.
I don't know if this is normal for academia. I don't know what to do. I haven't agree or disagree with their proposal yet. What's my best actions here?
Clarification: I don't think the famous Professor is lying. I think he is honest in transmitting information. It is possible to me that Jason is not 100% honest here.

Follow-up: I decided to work with Jason's team. The updates are here: In group meeting, one colleague presents my ideas as if they are his original ideas
Side note: I posted a few questions on the (suspected) unfairness I faced in academia. However, by no mean I'd like to conclude that academia is a dark place. In fact, I've been collaborated on more than 20 projects, and 80% of them were very good experience (put technical difficulties aside). 10% of them has some very minor glitches, resolved internally; there is no problem left to be asked here. Only 2 projects I involved with were a bit problematic, so I ask for advises from independent third-party that I trust (i.e. here).

You had the best possible outcome of your efforts and you want to throw them away because your idea is only yours?  Ideas are useful when shared, not when they are owned.

‘… an infamous professor …’ For what reason is this professor infamous?

@Aruralreader Co-editor of one of the top 2 journal in a field. Lots of citation. Sorry there was a spelling mistake. Truly apologize!

To be clear, you don't know whether Jason independently found this result or not. You won't be able to prove to anyone that he didn't, not even to yourself. It may or may not be true, but I think it is generally helpful between people to assume that they are genuine and honest unless you have strong evidence to the opposite, which you don't have.

The idea that since you put out a preprint in 2021, obviously everyone involved must have read it by 2023 and people who claim that they haven't are lying is simply false (and a bit self-centered). You can instead try arguing that Jason should have noticed your preprint, but even that seems a stretch to me if you we are just talking about a random preprint that you uploaded to the arXiv or some similar site. Of course, if you gave multiple talks about your result in a subcommunity that you and Jason belong to, that might be a different story.

@AdamPřenosil Seems like giving talks is important. Many thanks!

While I won't give a full answer, yes, it is literally possible for someone to independently discover something two years, or a century, after that something has been published. That doesn't make it publishable, however. But, nobody knows everything in many fields. It was last possible to know everything in mathematics early in the 20th century and not since. Nor can anyone be expected to have found and read everything. That isn't to say that priority has no value, of course.

@AdamPřenosil I'm certainly not up to date with all preprints in my field, and this is likely true for many people.

@ChristianHennig Does this count as evidence? https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/204538/in-group-meeting-one-colleague-presents-my-ideas-as-if-they-are-his-original-id

For the situations you talk about there, fair enough. Anyway, it's not me you have to convince.

The history of science is full of multiple independent inventions of the same things.  Some historians explain this as "because it's time," meaning that the antecedent discoveries necessary for this discovery have been made, making this discovery inevitable "because it's time."

A few years ago I found a group working on the same problem I worked on. My code had been online for years, and so was theirs. I looked through and was shocked by how similar their code was to mine -- parts were even line-for-line identical!
I didn't think "they stole my code!"
I thought instead "well great minds think alike! Turns out my way of solving those problems was so obvious and right that someone else thought of it too."
I was still very nervous about approaching them and pointing out that we were working on very similar things. Thankfully, they reached out to me and asked if we wanted to work together. I jumped at the opportunity and today continue to collaborate with them on maintaining and upgrading what is now a joint code. Twice as many coders means half the work for each of us!
The benefit of a good collaboration far outweighs any benefits of being a sole author. You should focus on how to keep this collaboration being open, productive and pleasant, and not on some idea of "sole glory".
EDIT: the OP has written a new question with new behaviour by Jason, which goes well past random duplication of work into Jason stealing their ideas. I've written a step-by-step plan there for the OP to protect themselves, accumulate evidence, and ask their supervisor to ask Jason to stop.

Indeed, however, it looks like Jason is trying to claim the idea as well and in another post he says it's his idea and other behaviours of sabotage. There are evil people out there and I'm confined after reading OP's other post that this is one.

I've written a much stronger answer with a step-by-step self-protection plan on that one.

What you are being offered is very reasonable, if you feel like you should publish independently you can go ahead.
But keep in mind that in doing so you will start a race where you can only lose [1] between you and the team "famous professor + Jason". It is quite likely that no one will care about your correction of famous professor work, because they already have a correction for their own work.
[1] if you publish in the same year as them, in the future it will not be clear who published it first, so most likely the professor publication will be judged as "heavier", if you publish the correction before them ... apart from a small burst in interest, then your publication will be superseeded by their own. If you publish after them ... well, good luck in finding someone interested in your work apart from some Master thesis doing literature study.

Much appreciate for your kind advice EarlGrey. I don't want to throw away the professor. What I am uncomfortable is the professor completely throw away my plan and suggest something new.

Since "In my field every coauthor is equal; there is no first author."  I see no problem with the final goal, which is "you will have credit for spotting flaws in original paper" and additional "you will be part of an extended work".
Focus on the goal, not on the road: what is more important to you? to take credit for spotting an error of professor X or being part of a larger collaboration with professor X.

Please consider that professor X publishing a paper simply correcting their errors may be embarassing for their ego, you have to tactically provide a way out to them. Or you publish the correction on your own and say thank to them for their offer.

Excellent suggestions. Seems like I have too much ego for myself to put off. I'll rethink and rethink

I understand that a new paper might make the prof feel better. But as far as I know, even if we write a new paper, the original paper still needs a small piece of correction attach to it on the very same journal.

@HighGPA I am not too aware of formalities and social conventions in the Math world. In principle, yes, now hat you are collaborating with the new paper, you may think about sending a comment to the journal regarding the paper, so then your correction can be cited in the paper under preparation. However there is the cumbersome ego of Jason in this: they may already have published the correction somewhere, surely they will be offended if you do something like this, claiming that you stole their idea. Difficult situation to defuse.

Jason already orally agree with me sending a very small correction of two pages (by myself) for the old paper. Do you think I need his written consent?

@HighGPA Maybe Jason forgot they agreed?

I found his written agreement in writing at a corner of a long email (which I did not carefully read) a few weeks ago

Then you are good to go.

If your preprint already contains parts that are relevant to the new paper you're working on, you can cite it in a new paper. No credit is lost for the work that you've already posted. It's okay if that preprint never becomes its own separate published paper besides the one you coauthor with the professor and Jason, it's still something that can be cited.
I think it's far more likely that you benefit from coauthoring this additional paper versus turning it into a race and contest, not only in terms of the "credit" for the work but also for your reputation in the field for working well with others. It's very reasonable and understandable to anyone that Jason would have come up with what he did on his own, without your preprint.
The professor is doing a good diplomatic job of making the best of the situation for all three of you by suggesting a collective collaboration; imagine if Jason were the one writing this post and said, "I discovered something new and tried to collaborate on it with a professor that the work was building on, but now they're taking my idea and publishing it with some other person they said emailed them before me!"
If the work you had already done on this problem was complete, you could have just published it already. Instead, it will most likely benefit from the extra polish that comes with collaboration. I would recommend setting clear expectations with your collaborators regarding who is responsible for which part of the new manuscript to make sure the remaining work is distributed equitably.

Truly appreciate your teaching! I love what you said. Just one cent, if I were Jason, I won't say "I discovered something new". I'd say I independently discovered something, which I am not sure if it is "new". I will ask around if people had related preprint/publications before. If there are, I'd say I did not discovery anything new.

@HighGPA Indeed, that's basically common courtesy and profesionalism. It's the same with software engineering, I never assume that I invented the wheel and as software engineer you quickly learn that a lot has been written and already debated about online.


text:
Is using other's survey questions verbatim considered a plagiarism
I liked the questions on various surveys I examined. Rather than paraphrasing, I want to copy some of them directly, and use them in my survey, which is required for my dissertation.
What do you suggest to me, should I cite them or put in quotes, which I believe would be too awkward.

What kind of questions are they? If it's a general question then it's fine to use as many surveys use the same questions. If it's specific then it may need a citation.

like "what you read on Facebook" news, friends messages etc.

@tumledrive I don't think anyone can claim intellectual ownership of the question "what do you read on Facebook".

Perhaps, it's somewhat dependent on the field, but, AFAIK, in social sciences this situation is very typical. Nobody places questions in quotes, of course, however, a set of questions (questionnaire), which is usually referred to as an instrument, is cited. Such an approach is usually applied, when researchers use some reasonably well-known or validated instruments, or, at least, the ones from peer-reviewed studies. They are placed in appendices and are cited, based on guidelines of the publication style used in the paper in question.

I think that's a very good question to ask your advisor, in fact I think it's very important that you do so.  If the advisor says it's ok, you can hardly be held up for plagiarism, and if not, then you don't want to do it anyway.


text:
Why should academic institutions not post timestamps of all assignments on cryptocurrency blockchains?
The best way to prove that a file F existed before time t and has not been altered since then would be to post the cryptographic hash h=H(F) of the file F on the Bitcoin blockchain. When the cryptographic hash h=H(F) of the file F has been posted on a blockchain, we say that the file F has been timestamped. Since the cryptographic hash h cannot be changed without altering the file F, and since it will be exceedingly difficult to change the block containing h on the Bitcoin blockchain after time t, one should consider the hash h posted on the Bitcoin blockchain as a proof that the file F existed before time t and has not been altered after time t.
Should academic institutions require faculty to post timestamps of all their students assignments on blockchains? My idea is for the academic institution to require faculty to post a timestamp of each assignment as soon as the assignment is turned in and also after the assignment has been graded. Timestamps are useful for promoting academic integrity. If posting timestamps for every assignment is too rigorous, then should academic institutions require faculty to post timestamps in a more limited context such as for finals, theses, or exit exams only?
I personally think that posting timestamps is a good idea, but there may be some unforeseen consequences to this proposal, so I am looking for reasons why academic institution should not require timestamps of assignments to be posted on blockchains.
Advantages of secure timestamps:

Timestamps are private. The timestamp h by itself gives no information about the file F being timestamped.

Timestamps are inexpensive. The transaction fee for posting something on the Bitcoin blockchain is currently between 2 and 3 dollars. However, it is just as effective to post the timestamps on some other blockchain like the Litecoin blockchain with lower transaction fees since the hash of the Litecoin blockchain will be periodically posted on the Bitcoin blockchain. One can reduce the fees much further by bundling many timestamps together into one transaction using Merkle roots. By using Merkle roots this way, one can post an arbitrary amount of timestamps on the blockchain using only one transaction without compromising the privacy of the data being timestamped. The cost of posting timestamps on blockchains should therefore be negligible.

Timestamps are censorship resistant. Since people will not be able to know the information being timestamped in the first place, it is not possible for people to censor the information being timestamped in any way.

Why secure timestamps are needed for assignments:
Timestamping assignments will create an immutable paper trail that will make it easier for instructors to maintain academic integrity without giving into the students' demands. Consider the following scenarios:

Suppose that students are given an examination, but at the end of class certain students beg for extra time and are quite adamant about needing extra time. If the assignments were not timestamped after being turned in, then the instructor would be more likely to give in and give the few students extra time. If the assignments were timestamped on a blockchain, then the instructor would not be able to give certain students extra time without creating verifiable a paper trail. Similarly, if students ask for an extension for an assignment that is already past due, then such an extension could not be given without creating a timestamped paper trail.

Suppose that a student asks to have a grade for an assignment changed. If the assignment was graded incorrectly, then the grader can change the grade and submit a new timestamp that has a memo stating that the grade was changed as well as the reason why the grade was changed. The same protocol applies in case the task was poorly worded or something that the students did not cover in class. On the other hand, if the assignment was graded correctly but the student simply wants points for an incorrect answer (or more partial credit), then it would be hard to write a timestamped memo that justifies the grade change.

Suppose that some students obtain a copy of the examination before the examination was given. Then students could themselves post a timestamp of this examination before it is given, and this timestamp will prove that students have obtained a copy of the examination early.

There are other scenarios in which secure timestamps would be helpful for ensuring honesty and fairness for everyone. It therefore seems as if timestamping assignments will be a simple solution (though not a perfect solution) for several of these issues.
Possible pitfalls:
Here are a few reasons why it may be a bad idea to post timestamps of assignments on blockchains, but these reasons are unconvincing to me.

Hacks could compromise student's privacy. This is a problem, but I am not convinced that this problem is bad enough for the institutions to abandon the practice of posting timestamps on blockchains. A better solution would be to simply have better cybersecurity.

Posting the timestamps on blockchains will take a little bit of work. I think it is worth the small amount of work in order to help maintain academic integrity.

Institutions may think that they already have enough academic integrity and that this proposal is unnecessary. I am not convinced that this is the case.

Academia.SE is a good place to get specific answers to specific questions about academia; it's not a great place to rant or promote some idea you have. I question whether you have much understanding of what "academic integrity" issue it is you are trying to solve.

@BryanKrause. My intention was not to promote any idea but to investigate the idea to see if it should be used in practice since there may be unintended consequences to posting timestamps on blockchains. In any case, I was not sure if this question would be closed or not.

What problem is this meant to solve? It seems extremely pointless to me.

If there are timestamped records of all assignments, then faculty would be much less likely to inflate the grades, and students would be much less likely to cheat. Furthermore, faculty will be much less likely to alter the grades after the assignment has been graded because the student complained or has gotten really belligerent because any alteration to the grades will be documented. I am pretty sure that faculty members do not want to deal with belligerent students asking for the grades to be changed either since that ruins morale.

"Grade inflation" is about the trend to make assignments/tests/courses more easily passable; it has nothing to do with modifying grades after the fact. Sometimes, grades on assignments do need to be changed because they are incorrect grades; other times, students complain about grades given correctly. A timestamp doesn't help you tell between those circumstances.

This seems like extreme overkill. Mostly we depend on trust. It isn't like a pension system.

The case where students complain about incorrect grades is not a problem. This only requires for faculty members to post a new timestamp in order to overwrite the old grade. In any case, there should be a record of this correction.

If there is a record of the assignments, then institutions and faculty members will be much less likely to get away with inflating the grades. Timestamps will also make it much less likely for professors to give certain students favors over other students if they want to turn an assignment in late.

Grade inflation is not something institutions and faculty members "get away with". You completely misunderstand the problem you claim to solve.

@BryanKrause. I really do not understand the argument that you are attempting to make. I would appreciate it if you would give a detailed answer explaining what you mean?

Grade inflation is a systemic issue; the problem is that if other institutions and courses consider an "A" grade to mean "this student adequately understands the material", instructors and universities are pressured to match this standard. Even if they would like a "C" grade to mean "this student adequately understands the material" and an "A" grade to mean "this is the best student I've ever seen", they cannot do so without fearing that students in their class/institution who get a "C" grade will be incorrectly judged by everyone else's criteria rather than the one they actually applied...

...it's a pressure to not raise standards for a certain grade. It does not mean to fudge individual grades. Grade inflation happens by making assignments easier, by assigning grades of A and B to work that is satisfactory rather than outstanding. It's about labels.

What would be the point of a time stamp?  Generally the assignments have been moderated before they are released to the students (i.e. by someone other than the marker), and once they are on the system they can't be directly changed by faculty.  I am assuming my institution is not unusual in this respect.  Students being able to prove what they wrote and when (if they fail to submit it correctly), that would be far more useful (but we already have solutions for that).

How would a timestamp discourage students from cheating?

Um. There are many ways to cheat, and timestamps discourage some methods of cheating. For example, if one student takes an examination late because he wants to obtain a copy of the examination before taking it, then people who have access to the timestamped files can see that the student who takes the examination late is taking the exact same examination as everyone else.

"Students being able to prove what they wrote and when (if they fail to submit it correctly), that would be far more useful (but we already have solutions for that)."-For this you need blockchains as well.

Well you shouldn't allow the student to hand in their exercise late...

I would rather not enforce the "no late assignments" policies myself since that would put me in an adversarial position against the students. It will be better if this "no late assignments" policy were enforced by the computers.

Sure, the exercise is closed when the time is up. No need for additional technology.

And what if the exercise gets reopened again? What if the exercise is turned in in person at the end of class rather than online? What if a few students beg for additional time at the end of class to complete the examination? Timestamps will prevent students from begging for extra time or asking for an assignment to be reopened again since a timestamped paper trail will be created in each of these scenarios.

"Timestamps will prevent students from begging for extra time or asking for an assignment to be reopened again" - this seems incredibly naïve, and in any event it's up to the instructor anyways what to accept and should be. You also have cases of disability accommodations - should such students be identifiable by having timestamps later than others? Frankly, your comments at this point seem indistinguishable from trolling. If you're a true believer in blockchain I'd really recommend taking a step back because you're probably doing more damage than good to the potential use of the tech.

What if the exercise is turned in in person at the end of class rather than online? How do you hash a stack of paper?

This looks like a solution in search of a problem. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There are tried and tested conventional solutions for all the scenarios you mention. Blockchain(TM) doesn't make everything better. Salted caramel, sure; baby kittens, perhaps; but not blockchain.

"You also have cases of disability accommodations - should such students be identifiable by having timestamps later than others?"-They can start or take the examination early. "How do you hash a stack of paper?"-You use a scanner.

@JosephVanName releasing assessments to some students early creates a significantly bigger risk of academic misconduct than any timestamp could prevent, especially if the assessment itself is electronic.

@origimbo. Please elaborate.

I want to thank everyone here for convincing me that we need to make academic assignments auditable by posting the timestamps on the blockchain and having some record of the assignment. I know that was not anyone's intention, but the people here have been really convincing.

There is existing software (e.g. moodle, gradescope, etc) that can handle timestamps without making people setup a bitcoin wallet, buy bitcoin, and make non-standard transactions ('posting').

If done correctly, a user should be able to submit a timestamp to the Bitcoin blockchain for free without setting up a wallet, buying Bitcoin, or doing anything complicated or even using energy intensive computations.

To have any cryptographic security, one needs to post the timestamps on blockchains.

@JosephVanName I am not sure what you are expecting from us college students. Do you think one of us is going to hack into Gradescope servers and change the timestamps, thereby necessitating a decentralized immutable blockchain to maintain integrity?

How is anyone supposed to verify that the timestamps cannot be changed without hacking the servers? It is easier to just look at timestamps on the blockchain.

I suspect that the main misunderstanding in this question is the assumption that what the student handed in has to change when the grade changes. Changing the material after it has been handed in would be clear fraud and there is no reason for lecturer to go along with that unless there is real bribery. This is pretty rare, mainly because students are way too poor to offer a bribe big enough to compensate for the risk the lecturer is running.
However, it is quite common for grades to change. There is always a bit of room for interpretation, especially when it comes to partial points. Moreover, the key can be adjusted. I do that when I find out that a substantial portion of students misunderstood the question, so the answers to that question no longer measure what I want to test.
So changing to content after it is handed in is not an issue. We don't need some machinery to prevent us from doing that, because too rare and thus a non problem. It won't prevent fraud, because there plenty of other ways to change the grade. If I were planning fraud (and I am not) I would use those other methods anyhow because they are just easier.

There are other ways to put pressure on the lecturers to change grades besides monetary bribes. Students could misbehave in class. They could complain to try to get the professor terminated.

We know, and were are very good at detecting malicious complainers. There are many bureaucratic black holes in which they can disappear. That is not a real thread. If you want better grades, then misbehaving in class or threatening me is not a winning strategy... Remember, members of a department talk to one another.

The institutions that I have taught at have dealt with malicious complainers against me extremely poorly. For this reason, I will only trust the institution at all if it has a system in place that makes it impossible to change a grade or anything without leaving a paper trail that has been timestamped on the blockchain. Keep in mind that nobody is familiar with the practices at all institutions, so to ensure that people trust such institutions it is best to have a system in place that promotes honesty.

I am sorry you had such a bad experience. However, I still don't see the problem that your proposal solves. Exercises are never changed after they are handed in, so a block chain "solves" a complete non-issue. I guess the main feedback you got thus far is that you need to do more work on presenting what the advantages are of your solution. I am done with this question.

"Exercises are never changed after they are handed in"-You will need to use blockchains to back up this statement. And no, I am not going to be convinced by the 'integrity' of the institutions at all. But why make this statement unless someone is keeping records of all assignments in the first place?

"misbehaving in class or threatening me is not a winning strategy"-So does this mean that students all behave well in class now? Does this mean that colleges know how to handle malicious students properly?

I am not making any claims about the integrity of the institutions. All I am saying is that it is much easier and safer for a dishonest teacher to change the grade without changing what the student handed in. I am not saying that all teachers are honest, all I am saying is that even dishonest teachers won't change the exercise, because there is an easier way to commit fraud... I know you are really really really really fond of blockchains, but it is not the solution here.

"So does this mean that students all behave well in class now? Does this mean that colleges know how to handle malicious students properly?" I did not say that. If you are really interested in what I had to say you can read my comment again.

I am only in favor of using blockchains when there is a chance that blockchains can be used to solve important problems. Since dishonest teachers may simply give students points for no reason at all or they discriminate in favor of some students (which is why we need double blind grading for most assignments as well as timestamps), there needs to be a record of the completed assignments and grades so that such dishonesty does not go unnoticed and so that nobody can cover up such dishonesty.

Ok. Let me read your statement again. "We know, and were are very good at detecting malicious complainers."-And from my experience, these institutions cannot deal with malicious complainers and hostile students properly. It does not make sense to talk to about whether hostility is a winning strategy since not all students are rational, and college tend to be irrational as well (at least in my experience).

If you want to move forwards with this, then the take-away message from this discussion is that your presentation has not convinced this audience. Shouting harder and calling people dishonest, is not going to work. So you need something else.

I would try to convince one institution, or probably one department within an institution to start a pilot project. You need to be very specific about the exact problem you solve and how your method will solve that. Once the pilot study is a success (document the criteria for declaring a success before the pilot on a blockchain!), you will have an easier time to find supporters. Right now, you are not getting anywhere.

A pilot project is a good idea. "Right now, you are not getting anywhere."-My goal was not to convince people of anything; I simply wanted to know what others think about timestamping assignments.

"I simply wanted to know what others think about timestamping assignments." This is the wrong forum for that purpose. This is why your question was closed. We are here to help people find their way in academia. I think that is where most of the misunderstandings in the comments came from: People were trying to coach you into turning your proposal into something workable and you did not want to be coached or expected to be coached.

"This is why your question was closed. . . . People were trying to coach you into turning your proposal into something workable and you did not want to be coached or expected to be coached."-This is not true at all. I was looking for actual reasons
(with justification) why it may not be a good idea to timestamp assignments, and I did not find any that are satisfactory here. It is certainly not good to leave a bad impression even if that was not anyone's intentions.

Let's just say that our perceptions of the exchanges in this thread differ fundamentally.


text:
My professor did not cite my article in a review on the same topic
I was surprised to see a review on a topic where I have published an original article, where my article was not cited. My surprise was even bigger because this review was issued from the same department where my original article was issued and it was concerning the same topic. The first author was somebody I don't know personally, but the corresponding author is my professor, who was also a co-author in my original article. I must also say that my original article has many international citations, and it saddened me a lot to realize that my own department and my own professor, forgot to cite my (their) own published work.
I emailed my professor the fact that I felt forgotten and that this was not academically correct but the answer I received did not make things better. He said that

many other articles aren't included, because this review was covering
  many topics and that the main topic was "A". The part of the topic B
  (my topic) was not included in the aim of the review but was asked by
  a reviewer so it was added later.

But I'm not happy with this answer, because the topic B is even included in the main title of the review. But even the topic A could be enough for a citation of my original article. Later he said that in a review article they can cite only the recent 2 years original articles and that he was not obliged to cite my (our) original article.
I have obtained my PhD from this department, 5 years ago, and my original article was published 5 years ago. The review was published last month.
Do you believe that this was academically correct?

"Later he said that in a review article they can cite only the recent 2 years original articles." And is that actually the case: i.e., did someone write a review article on a topic in which the only citations were to papers published within the last two years?  (I would find that amazing.)  This seems like a definitive question: if this is indeed the practice, then the practice might be weird but that's a reason he didn't cite a ton of other work.  If it isn't...well, he's a big fat liar.

Anyway: maybe what he did was not academically correct, but it's himself he's not citing as well as you, so he must have had some reasons for it.  Moreover, given that your paper was published five years ago and has "many international citations," it seems that you have already won -- i.e., this work of yours was widely read and appreciated.  So this is not a lack of citation that causes you to lose priority or academic credit or anything like that.  If you pursue the point further, the only outcome I can see is to further fray your relationship with your former thesis advisor.

I have never heard in my life the story that a review paper must contain only papers of the last 2 years. This is not science. It seems as an excuse. I am disappointed because the truth is that he just forgot my work and this is not acceptable by a professor, who is also friend, as I thought.

You are making a fuss about nothing. Let it go. You can't force anyone to write the way you want. For some reason, he does not seem to think the work is relevant to his goals at this particular survey. It does not say anything about the quality of your reasearch and your friendship with him.

@Adriana: "I have never heard in my life the story that a review paper must contain only papers of the last 2 years." Me neither.  But you didn't answer my question: is it actually the case that all the references cited were published within the last two years?  If so, the chance that would happen by accident seems tiny.  "the truth is that he just forgot my work" How do you know the truth?  But if it is: he also forgot about his work, so he certainly made a mistake.  If you actually think he just made a mistake, what's your goal: to get him to admit it?...

Assuming all that: you gave him a chance to admit his mistake, and instead of doing so he's given some weird-sounding excuses.  So he's probably not feeling comfortable about it.  My experience in dealing with human beings (admittedly I'm a mathematician...) tells me that if you press the point now you'll just make things worse.  But if you can sincerely get over this rather small slight, then you have a good chance of continuing to have good dealings with him in the future.  Maybe five years from now he will apologize and you can laugh about it.

@Pete L. Clark Sorry I did not answer your question: so, no, the references cited are not from the last 2 years. I saw even references from 1975. Concerning what you say that he also forgot his work, my answer is yes, but still this isn't academically incorrect as well?? How can somebody be a respectable professor and forget his work, even if he participated by 10%? How can I trust him and continue work with him?

Is it possible the first author of the review paper wasn't aware of your work, or that it related so tangentially to his/her paper that adding your work would actually muddy the waters? Not every paper published on a  topic needs (or should) be added, unless the author wants to just to bolster the reference list - sometimes a picture is clearer with fewer brush strokes.

@Adriana: Thank you for providing that additional information; knowing that, I agree that your former advisor's response sounds completely ridiculous.  Concerning forgetting his own work: well, I imagine that for a review paper it's the first author who makes the list of references.  (I have to "imagine" because we don't have review papers in my field.)  As for the rest of what you're saying: again, we agree that this guy is in the wrong, but you seem to want to press for more than that.

You can continue to work with him if you think that this oversight is small compared to the advantages of future collaborations with him.  I really disagree that forgetting a reference to related work (i.e., a helpful reference rather than a necessary reference) is evidence that someone is not a "respectable professor," but it's up to you to judge.  The fact that he is giving you ridiculous excuses is much more of a concern.  Ultimately you have to decide whether you want to keep working with him, but even if you don't, pushing too hard on this is likely to be disadvantageous to both of you.

As I understand it, he is also a coauthor on the paper he has not cited? He might have written many more papers on a similar subject and hence decided that he would only cite his own articles from the last 2 years, to not come off as someone using a review to only showcase his own publication record. And as we do not have the original wording of his answers, but only a reproduction of what OP read into it (not to be offending, this is psychology and is what all people automatically do) I would be careful to say they are ridiculous excuses.

(1) When writing a review, there are always way more articles that could be cited than ones that in the end are actually cited. (2) Was the review article supposed to focus on recent developments (with a little backstory explaining the earlier references)? This is not uncommon in fast-moving fields. (3) How broadly cited is your article, and is it actually worthy of being cited in a review compared with other citations on your sub-topic? This is a tough one to swallow, but following up on item 1, you can['t cite every single article ever published.

"I am disappointed because the truth is that he just forgot my work and this is not acceptable by a professor, who is also friend, as I thought." to err is human; it is probably not a good idea to require such high standards from your friends and colleagues.  I agree with Pete that the response given by the prof was more of a concern, but then again it could be that he/she doesn't think the paper is worth citing, but doesn't want to tell you that explicitly.  Nepotism (unduly citing your students) would be far less what is expected of a "respectable professor".  Sometimes you just can't win!

Agreeing with @PeteL.Clark: define precisely what you want as outcome of the interaction, and act following this outcome.
My experience of priority issues and fighting "not being cited" that, unless your work is so promising that a priority/citation fight warrants all-out war to gain or not lose visibility, the loss of concord is usually not worth it; as unfair as that may seem, the one complaining about being ignored is often seen as the one "disturbing the peace". It shouldn't be like that, but this is an empirical observation I made, even in blatant cases of intentional ignoring. Maybe it has something to do that quite a few times it's the ones with the most aggressive "nostrification" tendency who battle the issue of being ignored in the most forceful manner.
Now, there are indeed cases where all-out priority wars may be war-ranted (pun intended) to ensure that one is at least etched in the community's minds, but keep in mind, even then, the outcome is all but assured.
Lots of unfairness happens, to all of us, but it is usually the long-term that counts. Given that your old article attracted a lot of citations, you probably are better off just ignoring the matter, but only you can judge whether entering the war-ring (yes, pun intended again) as response to your latest slight is worth it.


text:
Publication from PhD thesis
my PhD thesis is very comprehensive and contains a lot of data.
My advisor says that we need to publish this thesis in 2 parts. (two interconnected articles, different findings but the same material).
In this case, would it be a problem to publish it as 2 different papers? There will be different findings in both but there is the same material as it is produced from the same thesis.
Would it be more advantageous to send both articles to the same journal or to different journals?

Have you asked your advisor these questions?

This is not so unusual. Authors usually like this option because it can improve h-index and similar metrics, considering also that you should cite the first article in the second one, having used the same data.

Totally normal - two papers came out of my thesis, published in different journals because they were rather different, and each was a better fit in a different place.

What a journal will publish is up to them. So, whether is is a problem is up to the editor(s). There is an advantage to readers if the two articles are in the same journal, but also if you just publish a single long article. I doubt that it matters much for your reputation whether the two articles are in the same or different journals. Having two papers instead of one is good, but having a longer, highly significant, single paper is also good.
But, let me point out that you may be building in a problem for yourself with two papers. It is possible (likely?) that the novelty and impact of each of the two papers is lower than that of a single paper. If that is the case, then you lessen the likelihood of either getting published. But you know the material and you may be fine here.
I would proceed strategically, however. First outline the two articles and get a good sense that both would pass the threshold of publish-ability. Your advisor can give good advice here. Then, develop one of the papers completely (rather than both) and get it off to the most appropriate journal. While that paper is in progress with the journal, develop the second paper. Make a decision about whether and where to send it based on what you hear about the first paper.
This gets you into the process earlier than if you spend the time to complete both papers and also gives you feedback.
In the worst case that the first paper is rejected or requires a lot of revision, you can then submit the other to the same or another journal, or, potentially, make a further strategic decision about how to proceed.
This seems, to me, to be a better option than spending time to develop both to the same level and sending them both together. But that is only an opinion.

Thank you for your valuable comments. The findings of both articles are different. However, in order to enrich the discussion sections, we made small quotes from each of the results of the two articles. And at the end of the second we wrote a common result. Now I doubt if there is an ethical problem in this situation. Also, is it a problem to publish in different journals since there are two different articles merged in the conclusion?

There aren't any ethical concerns as long as you cite your other work as necessary. There is a danger of self plagiarism that you avoid by cross citation. Your common result should probably be cross cited also, just to be clear.


text:
Stipend vs Fee for Australian PhD
I am thinking to apply for a PhD Programme in Australia. But having a look at the websites of almost all the universities, I got to know that the amount of stipend per year a PhD candidate gets is quite low in comparison to the fee.
Is it with the whole world, or its just the case with Australia?

Fees are waived in US for doctoral students with teaching assistantships. I don't know if this is true in Australia.

@Buffy Or any other assistantship or fellowship most often; US PhD programs have a listed tuition cost but no one should ever pay it unless they are independently wealthy.

More precisely, STEM PhDs should never pay tuition. Other fields, not to mention medical or law school, are different.

@JonCuster Honestly I'd extend it to all fields for PhD; medical and law school are not PhDs.

@BryanKrause - For better or worse, many of the liberal arts PhDs get minimal support from their program. Many end up working part time to keep afloat. They may get a tuition break, but often no stipend. Whether that is right or wrong, or why people apply and attend is a different question.

@Buffy "Tuition" is, I pay "fees" every semester.

According to this University of Sydney page, the Research Training Program scholarship includes a stipend and pays the tuition fees.

From a European perspective, fees for PhDs are uncommon in most major countries. You either get a stipend or a salary, but generally PhD students do not pay to do their PhD. Keep in mind, however, that the height of stipends and salaries varies widely (e.g. Germany >> Italy, STEM >> humanities and so on).

I'm not sure I fully agree to this. If you count the UK as part of the "European perspective"; it is true that paying tuition fees is uncommon -- those would be covered by the PhD bursary, which would also pay a monthly stipend for the students' living expenses. During my PhD in France, I was a salaried employee, but actually, I had to pay the tuition fees myself, out-of-pocket. Fortunately, these were only about €400/year, so while it felt like a massive hit on my student finances, it was definitely manageable.

I agree that it's not quite correct, however, tuition fees in the European, without the Anglosaxen, system are not the same as tuition fees in the latter. Another example from Switzerland: PhD Salary ~ 45K/y, tuition fee for PhD 400/y.


text:
Obligations of Scottish Universities in regards to assessments for dyslexia and dyspraxia
Dyslexia and dyspraxia can be an issue for students in academic or practical aspects of their course. Sometimes it is undiagnosed, for example because the student cannot afford the cost of a professional assessment for dyslexia or dyspraxia. Undiagnosed students are not eligible for reasonable adjustments for their condition.
Do Universities in Scotland have any obligations to maintain a system of funding/subsidies for Dyslexia and Dyspraxia assessments as part of their student support regime?

So many conditions can affect learning, why would there be ones for dyslexia/dyspraxia specifically? I am asking because I am not familiar with the UK context so maybe I am missing something.

From a quick Google, many UK universities appear to offer free Dyslexia screening. What happens after that, I don't know.

It usually comes down to funding. Generally in the UK universities receive absolutely no money to help diagnosing these conditions. The official policy on how dyslexia should be diagnosed is outlined here: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/dyslexia/diagnosis/

Scottish universities have certain positive obligations in law, but they are bit more abstract than this. It is not a matter of whether a university must fund dyslexia assessments in a specific way - the obligations are to the effect that when universities make and apply policy of any kind, they have to take the needs of disabled students into account. On this basis, suppose a university has a particular support system for students with dyslexia, which they decide to stop. That decision is not inherently unlawful, because the law only requires that the university have "due regard" to particular defined needs. They might have properly considered the effects but still decided to withdraw funding based on the overall context of their operations. Or they might not have considered them, which is a problem. But they are not positively obliged to run a particular programme; their statutory duty is at a higher level of abstraction.
These requirements are part of the "public sector equality duty" (PSED), which apply to Scottish universities as well as many other bodies. They are in addition to the general equality law on non-discrimination. Scottish universities also have so-called "specified duties" to periodically come up with "equality outcomes" and report on their progress towards them. The PSED does not only apply to disability, nor only to the education sector - it binds a wide variety of public bodies on several axes of potential discrimination.
You can learn more about the PSED from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, or by reading its definition in the Equality Act 2010 s.149. For a specific university, searching on the web for [name of university] "equality outcomes", or similar, should show their statutory report about how they are trying to achieve the PSED requirements. In earlier years, there was an effort to produce a statutory code of practice for equality duties in the higher education sector (which might have included material about disability support services), but the current government has backed away from taking that forwards.
There are not many avenues for challenging university policy. Outwith the structures of the university itself, the only legal route is by petitioning for a judicial review in the Court of Session, which is a serious business. The expectation is that people who object to university policy should, in the first instance, address themselves to the university's governing body.
Beyond policy, a specific aggrieved student has other possible actions, because regardless of the university's general policy, they are still not allowed to discriminate against disabled people in specific ways. So, a student who has experienced hardship due to their dyslexia or dyspraxia has various courses to take, even if university policymaking is hard to challenge in itself. They can point to the discrimination they actually suffered.


text:
In mathematical essays, is "at x=a", "for x=a", "when x=a", "if x=a", or even "with x=a", a better choice?
Which one of the following sentences sounds better to a native ear?

At $x=a$, $f(x,t)$ is an even function of $t$.
For $x=a$, $f(x,t)$ is an even function of $t$.
When $x=a$, $f(x,t)$ is an even function of $t$.
If $x=a$, (then) $f(x,t)$ is an even function of $t$.
With $x=a$, $f(x,t)$ is an even function of $t$.
Given (that) $x=a$, $f(x,t)$ is an even function of $t$.
Provided (that) $x=a$, $f(x,t)$ is an even function of $t$.

I’m voting to close this question because this would be a better fit on a Mathematics or English SE site.

This seems to be a question about the basic conventions of writing within your research field. You should have the idea of what the standard is from all the papers you've read so far. If still unsure how to chose between the standards, talk to your advisor.

If a value for a has already been specified, I'd probably write "f(a,t) is an even function of t."

Focusing on “native ear”; 6. Given (that) $x=a$, $f(x,t)$ is an even function of $t$. sounds the best to me.

There is no standard for such things, and some variety it phrasing makes reading more pleasant generally, especially in essays. The only one I haven't seen used (frequently) is the first, but that might depend on context. If your writing is too formulaic it becomes stilted and pedantic, so a good choice is one you haven't used just now. All are basically alternate phrasings of 4, which would be a symbolic-logic like formulation. In extremely formal writing 4 might be preferred.


text:
Which endorsing body should I pick for a global talent endorsement? (UK, computer science lecturer/assistant prof)
I'm a UK academic wanting to switch from a skilled worker visa to a global talent visa.
I completed the first step, which was to get a Statement of Guarantee from my university.
Next, I need to apply for an endorsement from an approved endorsing body.
Two of these support CS academics: The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, and I need to pick one.

How should I choose the endorser? Are there any pros/cons to either in terms of response time or chance of obtaining the endorsement?

This will depend upon your exact sub-field of CS academics. According to the UK global talent endorsing bodies page:
Royal Academy of Engineering

Algorithms
Artificial intelligence
Computer vision
Data science
H-CI/C-HI
Image processing
Imaging
Informatics
Signal processing
Software engineering
Telecommunications
Web and data science

The Royal Society

Artificial Intelligence
Databases
Human-computing interaction
Machine Learning
New computational paradigms (quantum, biological)
Numerical Computing
Programming Languages and Verification
Security and privacy
Systems, including networking
Vision

As you can see, there is a bit of overlap here. But my understanding is that if most of your research leans heavily into applied CS, the Royal Academy of Engineering would likely be a better fit.
Another metric you can use is to look at who else is publishing in the same journals as you, and see which of the two affiliations is the most common.

There's more than a bit of overlap, I do AI :).
My point is that I think both could potentially endorse, and I wonder how I should pick which one to ask.

AI is the hardest one for sure, but what specifically do you do within AI? Are you working on gradient boosted trees, natural language processing, general neural networks, llms, etc...
Narrowing it down will help.


text:
How do I cite correctly when the magazine has lots of authors?
I want to cite from this paper(link goes directly to the page I need).
I only want this short article there from the Author "M.E.Proth".
As I have seen, I can download a bib-file, but I guess it's not for my purpose, since they don't know which part I want to cite.
So I created the bib file:
@book{comptes_rendus,
    title = {Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences  },
    volume = {87 (1878)},
    url = {https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/24818},
    adress = {Paris},
    publisher = {Gauthier-Villards, Imprimeur-Libraire},
    author = {François Proth},
    year = {1878},
    pages = {926},
    keywords = {Periodicals|Science|Societies, etc|},
}

but I am not sure, whether "Francois Proth" as author is correctly chosen, since it only says "note de M.E.Proth".
So it could be that another author (of the whole book maybe) just cites Proth itself.

I think the 'M' stands for Monsieur. Note that the rest of the name is in bold. Whether "E. Proth" is Francois Proth is not immediately clear to me.

Where does the name Francois come from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Proth is fairly brief, but does list this paper as one of his. One might look at the other papers referenced there to see how the name is given.

Normally you'd cite only the paper you're interested in, not the entire journal volume. This is the same logic as in your other question. (And if, for some reason, you were to cite the entire volume, it doesn't make much sense to list as author(s) only the author of a single article within it. Listing the editors would make more sense, just like is done for edited volumes with chapters written by multiple authors.) A bibTeX entry might look something like
@article{proth1878theoremes,
title={Th{\'e}oremes sur les nombres premiers},
author={Proth, E.},
journal={Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des s{\'e}ances de l'Acad{\'e}mie des sciences},
volume={87},
pages={926},
year={1878},
url={https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/24818#page/932/mode/1up}
}

The journal in question has seen many names, splits into sections and abbreviations over the years. A reasonable abbreviation for this iteration might be "C. R. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci.", but there is also the less specific "C. R. Acad. Sci.". Sometimes "C. R." is expanded to "Comp. Rend.". This might be useful to know if you intend to publish somewhere that insists on using journal abbreviations in the reference list.
In the bibTeX entry above, I've listed the author as "E. Proth". I'm pretty sure the 'M' in "M. E. Proth" means the honorific 'Monsieur' and isn't part of the name. You'll find the same 'M' in many other entries in the volume, and in some cases also 'MM' for the plural (Messieurs).
Finally, there's the question of the 'E' in "E. Proth". Certainly, the theorem has since been attributed to François Proth, and cited as if published under "F. Proth". Perhaps the 'E' is a typo, or maybe Proth published under multiple initials names? In general, I think it's clearest to cite it as originally published, and add a note if you can find more historical details.

Thank you for helpful answer. My problem is that the article in the book says "Note de M.E.Proth". So maybe an author of the whole book used a note from Proth to write this short article.

@Lereu I would interpret "Note de M. E. Proth" as meaning "Note by E. Proth". Maybe someone more familiar with how the journal operated at the time could weigh in on this, but it is a venue that has been known for publishing many short articles and announcements of research that were to be published in full elsewhere. In light of a case where the self-taught Proth called something a theorem apparently without offering a proof, I wouldn't necessarily expect there to be more to this paper.

@Lereu There is no "author of the whole book". This is clearly an article by a Monsieur E. Proth published in this journal.

Thank you. I also guess that "E. Proth" is a typo, or "E" is the abbreviation for another form of his name, though I can't think of another form of "Francois".

@Lereu A different form of Francois seems less likely than someone publishing a paper under a middle name to me (but then again, I haven't seen a second name listed anywhere). And typo seems likelier still. Who knows, maybe the situation is clearer to historians of French mathematics...


text:
Managing council work while working full-time as a PhD student
I want to know what are the few planning and management ways that one can use while being a full-time doctoral student (research, collaboration meetings, some coursework and teaching) and also holding a position as the head of a student council (mostly emails, meetings and coordination with other councils and university administration).
The work as a council head is also about collaborating with other student bodies where they have full-time employees, so keeping up with their emails and discussions is somewhat taxing, given we have to manage our entire workload as a doctoral student as well.
I do know some ways - like earmarking an hour a day to reply to such emails and a few hours a week to manage other council work, but there are some things that need attention right away. Are there effective (de-stressing and anxiety-reducing) techniques for both council work and life as a Ph.D. student that can help to get done with things and contribute to a better work-life balance?

What benefit are you getting from serving as head of a student council?  My impression is that most people refuse to accept such positions.  Why isn't the answer to resign from the council?

We get prolongation for these work and also helps to keep a plan B in case anyone plans to quit academia after PhD.

What's prolonged?  I don't see how this council will help you quit academia.

We get prolongation in our doctoral employment for these work and also helps to keep a plan B in case anyone plans to quit academia after Ph.D. Leading entire doctoral council and handling questions regarding research education and in recent times, doing research in the covid19 scenario might actually boost employment opportunities in the private sector, given we have skills pertaining to our research as well.

Prolongation of your doctoral employment is often bad because your postdoctoral employment will be better.  I am very skeptical of the boost to employment opportunities.  If you don't like it, resign.

I agree with Anonymous Physicist that the advantages of being on this council are unclear (either because you are not stating them clearly, or because there aren't any). But regardless, your question was about time management -- note, we have an entire tag about time management in academia; you may wish to review those and, if necessary, specify why none of the answers there are suitable for your situation.

In my experience doing a PhD you often have some much free time (between experiments waiting on committee members). I would image you should have no trouble! I managed to work a full-time job during the latter half of my PhD. It was tough, but manageable.

@Shinobii part of the reason why I took this position is that I can channel some of my energy into something productive rather than worrying about my projects when they go slow. It helps me, I am sure different people have different ways to de-stress.


text:
What are some typical questions one might be asked in a Computer Science PhD Viva?
I know that you are likely to suggest "Ask your supervisor. He/She will know best.".
While that is obviously true, I would like to know from your personal experience either as the PhD candidate or as the examiner: What should I expect in my viva?
For example:

Should I expect to be asked about the history of my topic?
About the research cited in my thesis (i.e references - will they ask me about them? I have over 100...)?
About methods used?
About justifications for my conclusions?
etc

What should one expect, in general, to be asked? I am PhD student in the UK.

I think it is a well written. You can check this out. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/113996/how-to-nail-a-ph-d-interview

@everyone Thank you so much for the valuable feedback!

There is one critical question that is asked in every Phd viva, be it either directly or indirectly, that is "what is the original contribution of your thesis to knowledge". To be awarded a Phd the result of the research must be to contribute something new to the planetary or disciplines store of knowledge. You must have done something new and know what that thing is.
It is the very purpose of a viva to discover if you know that. Saying "I do not know" to this question can result in a Phd failure.
Other questions will seek to discover if you really understand the works you are citing in your bibliography; have you actually read and understood them and do you know how they relate to your work.
The third aspect of a viva is to resolve any ambiguity that the examiners read into your writing. Which of the possible interpretations of the words and conclusions did you actually mean. You might not have realised that your thesis contained ambiguity but the examiners will certainly find it. They will also seek to expand on or explore elements that are not clearly explained and get you to clarify them.
The answers to all these questions will determine if you have to make corrections to the thesis to resolve these ambiguities or make clarification, or even conduct more research to resolve those matters.
This is written from the perspective of a Phd examiner, both internal and external and experience as an independent chair of such vivas.

I recently (2-3 months ago) passed my PhD viva in Computer Science at a UK institution in the top 100. I will relay the useful points from my viva experience, but I preface this by saying that yours may differ. Ultimately the viva is a product of the examiners, and different examiners have different priorities. To reply to your questions point by point:

I was not asked about the history of the topic at all.
I was not asked to discuss any particular reference in detail.
We did have some very in depth conversation about methods used (specifically my use of Principal Components Analysis), but in a visual sense, not in the sense of having to recall the formulae. This demonstrated that I knew why I was using it, how it applied to my problem and what the novelty of my approach was.
Some of my stated conclusions were not specific enough. This was brought up and narrowing their scope was part of minor corrections.

Whether those are of any use to you is unclear. However, the best pieces of advice I received in hindsight were:

Focus on what you wrote, not excruciating detail on the methods you used and the papers you cited. Read through the thesis in its entirety, and if there is any written or implied detail that you do not feel 100% confident explaining, then go and revise that. My colleagues tell me that their vivas were all focused on the thesis claims and content, and mine was no exception. Don't lose sight of the big picture of the thesis amid the minutiae.
Don't defend the indefensible. If you get caught out on some detail and what you put is wrong, just concede the point, suck it up and move on. It will go into corrections, no big deal. Flogging a dead horse will just make things worse.
As a side to the last point, you should still be robust. The examiners may play devil's advocate, and if they pick up on something that you know is right, this is the time to commit to discussing it. Perhaps concede that it could be explained better in the text if you are struggling to conclude the argument.
Don't burn yourself out. Assuming of course that you wrote the thesis entirely, a week of good revision before the viva should be plenty to get you through.

I hope these are of some help to you.

What should I expect in my viva?

Every viva is unique, but the first question will likely be standard in your department, ask a fellow student (and post the reply in a comment below).
Regarding your specific questions, you may be asked about each of them:

Should I expect to be asked about the history of my topic?

You may be asked to contextualise your research within the broader field.

About the research cited in my thesis?

You may be asked about any citation. For any particularly closely related citation, you may be asked to explain the differences between your work and the cited works.

About methods used?

You may be asked to explain the methods (to demonstrate that you understand them), to justify the appropriateness of the methods, and to explain alternative methods.

About justifications for my conclusions?

I'm not sure I understand the question, could you clarify in a comment below?