text:
PhD in financial mathematics compared to masters
This may not be a suitable question for this but I wanted to seek some advice from some of you out there. I came into Florida State University as a PhD student in Financial Mathematics and I am finishing my second year here. I passed my qualification exams and started exploring in areas of Monte Carlo simulation for pricing American options. Although, I have considered putting my PhD on hold and getting some work experience within the field of Quantitative Finance, but I do not have any work experience.
I talked to the director here and he said that I could come back and finish my PhD after if I desired to get some work experience. I am wondering what the difference is in applying as a PhD student or applying as a Masters student since from what I was told working for a 3-5 years coming out of the Masters program would make you just as prepared as a PhD student coming in to the job market depending of course on the experience you get.
Is a PhD really necessary to get a job in the quantitative finance field? Or is a Masters with PhD level training good enough?
I am interested in what you all think. Any comments are greatly appreciated.

From my math profs that have done some pioneering work in the field:
1) back in the days, PhD was required because there weren't MFEs around.  now the PhD is no longer viewed as a "requirement" and many mfe's get hired for roles that used to require a PhD.
2) having said (1), the PhD trains you for a research position in quant-finance.  The MFE will not.  So, different skill sets and different career paths.  Which do you want?  Research / PhD roles, not as many exist today, are very hard to get.  FSU PhD may not open many doors for you to top quant shops or top banks - check this, though.  MFE + programming may be better for you to land at a top place to do quant finance.
3) whatever you do, try to train in lots of numerical methods.  apparently people move up very fast (managing director or similar) because there just aren't enough strong math people in quant-finance.  For instance a prof told me that tons and tons of people at Top Investment Bank X can't actually use optimization correctly.  Strongest math talent go elsewhere - primarily somewhere in academia, so if you claim you're strong in math, you could move up fast.
4) from a head trader on an algorithm trading desk: having interviewed thousands of candidates, he says that there is a stigma attached to PhD candidates, and they are screened, interviewed and assessed more carefully to find out whether he or she even has any relevant skills aside from his PhD thesis work.
5) MFE programs usually have recruitment / networking opportunities
That's all :)

Thanks for your insight. Since I started as a PhD student but most likely just going to walk away with a masters I was trained  as a PhD student (PhD students have a different set of classes they have to take then masters). Anyways thank you for your insight.

I have a master degree in quantitative finance and regularly headhunted for quantitative positions in finance. I should share with you my experience.
No, it's not necessary to be a PhD to get a job in the quantitative space. But that depends on what you want to do and your career path.
If you want to be a researcher or someone doing advanced mathematics, you may need a PhD. Even if you were able to get a job, it'll be difficult to advance your career any further.
As a quantitative researcher, you might be asked to:

Try recently published new methods and algorithms
Develop mathematics for a new financial product
Model validation
Publish papers to high-quality journals

You really need a PhD, possibly good papers to succeed in research environment.
Fortunately, most of the quantitative jobs don't require a PhD. Financial institutions just want someone to help them making more money. They want someone to implement their trading strategy, pricing engine, backend database etc.
Possible job titles:

Quantitative developer
Financial analyst
Product specialist
Quant trader
Quant application support

You should still understand:

Black Scholes and option pricing
Term structure modelling
Fixed-income
Stochastic calculus

What exactly you need to know is job specific, but you are not expected to be a mathematician. It's a high-paid but very competitive field, you will compete with candidates who do have a PhD.
Summary: You don't need a PhD, but it's a good idea.

I have taught graduate courses and done graduate advising for many years at a place that offers MS degrees, but not PhDs. Most of our students go
into pharma/biotech and insurance/finance with an MS degree and maybe 10% go elsewhere to get PhDs. The population of people I'm talking about in this post is probably about 300.
A few of them change jobs now and then because of the company downsizing, etc. But most change every few years deliberately and strategically
to gain experience in a broader range of applications (sometimes, not always, at an increased salary). At some point
employability and salary depend much more on what a person can do than on
whether their highest degree is MS or PhD. People with a history of
success in a broad range of applied work are very much in demand in our
local job market.
Also, there are a few people who have started up their own hugely successful companies, either right out of the MS program, or after several years of employment. Some of these
I might have predicted, and some not. Some mystical combination of a bright
idea, self-confidence, salesmanship, timing, and luck seems to be involved.
'Hugely successful' includes years of making a lot of money, or getting
bought out by one of the tech giants.
There are several situations, particularly in pharma/biotech, in which
a PhD is important. Division leaders, people who make initial contacts with high value clients, and people who may need to testify in
court are usually PhDs. From my perspective, it looks as if this is mostly a matter
of the prestige that may attach to having a PhD.
After several years away from studies, the probability of going on for a PhD falls off greatly. If someone has a family to support, it is really hard to
live on savings and graduate student funding long enough to finish a PhD. There is also a feeling that there is more certainty of success being employed than
in doing thesis research. However, there are a few people who go on for PhDs
even after being away from university life for long time; they have a
specific academic or personal goal that they feel cannot be reached otherwise.


text:
What is the format of a good motivation letter?
I am writing a motivation letter to be used in applying for masters from German or Finnish Universities. I have the following points explained in my motivation letter:

How I see this technical world
Why I chose Computer Science in my undergraduate
What I learned in undergraduate
What are my interests
Why I want to pursue Masters
Why I chose their University

What could be the format of a good motivation letter?
What other points could be included to make it better at explaining myself? And how to arrange those points? How to connect a motivation letter to your CV?

do you perhaps mean that you're writing a  Statement of Purpose ?

Hey! I don't know what your native language is, but in mine, what you want is literally called a Motivation letter, but last year when I had to write one, I realized that a proper English term is a cover letter.

Well, just typing "motivation letter" or "cover letter" into Google seems to spew up links to loads of hints, tips, and how-to-s, so I guess it's not so hard to find materials outside of here.
So, instead, I'll focus on the advice that was given to me last year when I had to write one, since it worked for me :)
An important thing to realize is that a cover letter is supposed to complement your resume, not duplicate the same information. Thus, your qualifications and achievements should mostly stay in the CV.
Also, you should focus mostly on the position you are applying for, what makes you want it and what makes you think you would be good for it, which means that "how I see this technical world" probably does not deserve much elaboration (one sentence should be okay in my opinion). You are trying to convince them that you are the One and show them what makes you different from the bulk of people applying. What makes you more suited, more likely to succeed, or a better fit than other applications they're considering. (I would guess it's easier for a Master studies application since they will be admitting more than one/a handful of students).
Finally, the structure that I used, and will probably use the next time I will have to write something like that, is dividing the letter in to three parts:

you: here's where you'll put information on you. While you're not supposed to list all your achievements here, you should emphasize or elaborate on specific achievements, skills and motivations that make you especially suited for the position you're applying for

them: it is important to "prove" that you're not sending out generic application letters. You demonstrate that you're familiar with the work done in the university/lab/research group you are applying for.
If you're applying as a PhD student to a lab/professor, you might want to mention a specific paper or project and write an intelligible sentence or two about that. If you're applying for a University, you might want to pick some specific of their programme that especially caught your eye.

you and them together: first section is about how awesome you are. The second, how awesome they are. Now (to conclude), you have to show why you thing you would be awesome with them. Why do you think you're a good fit, right there? This section is not only about what they can do for you, you also have to try and convince then of how they can benefit from you.

Finally, the letter should not be longer than one page. Somewhere, you can even find this as a hard limit on an application. In my experience, you should also not have more than 3 sections. I managed to put an introductory sentence and an finishing sentence just fine in the "sections" I mentioned. Also, your writing should be impeccable. If you can, get a native English speaker to check your language. Use a spell checker. Pay attention to details. Getting an address wrong, or a letter in a name, shows sloppiness. Maybe it does not consciously affect the decision, but it might on some level.
And the last advice I got, which I did follow, but you don't have to take it as a hard rule: avoid negative statements. It's supposed to give a better tone to your letter. So, instead of saying, e.g. "Unfortunately, I couldn't find and internship during my last summer", you should write something like "Having a free summer before my last year, it allowed me to spend more time reading upon the areas of my choosing". The positive statements should help you present the facts in a more positive light.

I can talk to you by my own personal experience following a Master´s in a Finnish university (about the German case I am ignorant about that). Anyway Finns are very laconic people, try to submit your motivation letter as concise and direct as possible. I have taken a look at the questions that you are plan to answer in your motivation letter and they are just fine.
In my case I submitted my CV separated from the motivation letter, but a big plus would it be to show that you have some sort of research experience; for example if you have made some research article during your undergraduate or you have been a research assistant. In case that you do not have that, you can express your interest directly to make research in the field that you are applying for your master´s degree (I think that you have covered that part also in your questions stated before)
Good luck!

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Why do journals have limits on the number of references?
I was rather shocked when hearing in a conversation that journals sometimes have explicit limits on the number of references that can be included in one article. I understand that there are space concerns for print publications, and that word/page limits, as well as limits on the numbers of figures and tables are common. But placing limits on the number of references strike me as rather close to impinging on the integrity of the articles themselves (would anyone support a motion to limit the number of authors?).
Question: What are some reasons that have led journals to limit the number of references?
Clarification: I am not asking whether this is a good idea in general. (I think it is silly, but that's just my opinion.) I am not asking whether this can have some potentially good effect on the quality of scientific writing. I am specifically asking whether there was an official explanation ever issued on the part of the publishers explaining this rule, or whether there was some event (say, an abuse in the form of many gratuitous references or an observed trend for the average number of references to keep growing if not otherwise checked) or some strong personality (famous editor-in-chief X) that led to these kinds of policies being formulated.
For example, Applied Physics Letters has limits on number of words (with some conversion factor applied also to figures and tables), but (in my opinion, rightly) excludes the title, the author list, and the list of references from the limit.
For examples of journals (from various publishers) that have limits on number of references:

Nature "strictly enforces" a limit of 50 for articles and 30 for letters. (Science, I note, does not for research articles. For review articles the limit is 100.)
Earth and Planetary Science Letters limits to 50.
Blood "recommends" a limit of 100 references, though I don't know if this is a hard limit or not.
Journal of Clinical Ontology limits to 10 for "correspondences" and a "suggested limit" of 150 for "research articles".
Journal of Genetics (more reasonably, in my opinion), have different limits for different types of articles. But notably for research and review articles there are no limit to references: the reference number limit applies to shorter submissions such as correspondence, commentary, or "research notes".

Some additional information:
(TL;DR: Nature put in their current policy sometime between the years 1986 and 1988, with no reference limits prior. Did something happen in the 80s?)
I went down to the library and looked at the old issues of Nature (not because I want to single them out, but because the library happen to have all the issues since the 20s available on the stacks). After some binary search I found that in December 1986 the instructions to the authors don't mention a limit to references:

GUIDE TO AUTHORS
Authors should be aware of the diversity of Nature's readership and should strive to be as widely understood as possible.
Review articles should be accessible to the whole readership. Most are commissioned, but unsolicited reviews are welcome (in which case prior consultation with the office is desirable).
Scientific articles are research reports whose conclusions are of general interest or which represent substantial advances of understanding. The text should not exceed 3,000 words and six displayed items (figures plus tables). The article should include an italic heading of about 50 words.
Letters to Nature are ordinarily 1,000 words long with no more than four displayed items. The first paragraph (not exceeding 150 words) should say what the letter is about, why the study it reports was undertaken and what the conclusions are.
Matters arising are brief comments (up to 500 words) on articles and letters recently published in Nature. The originator of a Matters Arising contribution should initially send his manuscript to the author of the original paper and both parties should, wherever possible, agree on what is to be submitted.

In October 1988 the guidelines it became almost the same as present day.

GUIDE TO AUTHORS
Please follow these guidelines so that your manuscript may be handled expeditiously.
Nature is an international journal covering all the sciences. [...] Because of the competition for space, many of the papers submitted for publication cannot be accepted. For this reason, and because brevity is a great assistance to readers, papers should be as brief as is consistent with intelligibility. Please note that one printed page of Nature, without diagrams or other interruptions of the text, has fewer than 1,300 words.
CATEGORIES OF PAPER
Review Articles survey recent developments in a field. Most are commissioned, but suggestions are welcome in the form of a one-page synopsis addressed to the Reviews Coordinator. Length is negotiable in advance but must not exceed six pages of Nature.
Articles are research reports whose conclusions are of general interest and which are sufficiently rounded to be a substantial advance in understanding. They should not have more than 3,000 words of text or more than six display items (figures and tables) and should not exceed more than five pages of Nature. [...] There should be fewer than 50 references.
Letters to Nature are short reports of outstanding novel findings whose implications are general and important enough to be of interest to those outside the field. Letters should not have more than 1,000 words of text or more than four display items and should not occupy more than two pages of Nature. The first paragraph should describe, in not more than 150 words, the origins and chief conclusions of the study. Letters should not have subheadings or more than 30 references.

(I don't have the exact date of the switch, since only some of the issues in the library came from the original magazines; others came from bound reprints ordered from the publisher which stripped out pages like these. So in particular I found no "Guides to Authors" in the 1987 issues I had access to.)
Back in the 20s and 30s most of the items in Nature had no references whatsoever. By the 50s and 60s we start seeing articles more in the form of what we expect today, but the number of references are generally not too many. Even in the 70s and the 80s (before the change of rules) the majority of the articles do abide by the modern rules, with occasional exceptions.

would anyone support a motion to limit the number of authors? Yes

In the dark ages, APL had a hard three page limit - it had to fit in three pages so you learned to focus on the necessary, not the nice to have. Similarly, if you need more than 30 references for a Nature letter, frankly, you are doing something wrong. The reason good writing is hard is that you have to throw out everything that is not really really really needed. The journals that have decided on reference limits have done so with a conscious decision for a reason. That you do not agree with it is probably not their concern. From your comments below you do not see their side of it at all.

@JonCuster: "The journals that have decided on reference limits have done so with a conscious decision for a reason... From your comments below you do not see their side of it at all." That's why I asked the question. If you do see their side, educate me, please?

@JonCuster To be more precise: what is accomplished by an explicit limit on references that is not accomplished by strict page limits of the old APL or the strict word limits that are already in place for most of the journals I mentioned above?

By its very nature, a letter should be highly focused. It is not a review article. The previous results of a few papers combined with several techniques lead to some good data with discussion pointing to a solid conclusion. I just looked through a sampling of some old APLs - I never exceeded 20 references.  Why? To get my point across I did not need to. Any more would have been unnecessary, and there just wasn't room to discuss how 30 papers contributed to mine.  And if you don't need to reference a paper, than it is gratuitous. If you do need to, your paper will be longer than a letter.

@JonCuster: why are you so focused on APL and on letters? I note that APL doesn't currently have a limit on number of references at all; I used it as an example of a journal that has a limit on word count but not on reference count. Note also that Nature but not Science have a limit on the number of references for research articles. Clearly not every publisher perceives the reference limit for research articles as a necessity.

In fact, if most authors never exceed 20 references, a limit of 30 references is a solution in search of a non-existent problem. I am inclined to believe the policy was instituted because there actually was once a problem. The question is: what was it? Was there actually an observed upward creep in the number of references before the policy was instituted? Was there a big scandal concerning gratuitous references? Was there a famous complaint about the decline of the state of scientific writing?

Clearly you feel strongly about this.  I'm not sure why.  Also, clearly, certain journals feel the need to specify. The fact that you choose not to see any merit in the aspects I've mentioned indicates, to me, that you prefer to complain rather than attempt to understand.  In the big picture, you should not expect the world to behave as you wish it to. They have their reasons, whether you acknowledge it or not.

@JonCuster: Throughout this whole discussion you have asserted that they have their reasons. I have never disputed that. I don't feel strongly about the fact that journals have reference limits. I have never run against them and probably never will. I do, however, feel strongly about your comments which entirely mischaracterize my question and my motives. I refuse to believe, based on your words and your words alone, that journals instituted this policy just to help us write better. I am more inclined to believe that the journals instituted this policy because of problems of ...

...gratuitous citations. But I have edited my question one hour ago to be extremely specific (in line with the Stack Exchange preference for factual answerable questions): if the worries are gratuitous citations, what led to this worry? I invite you to re-read my previous comment. // As an aside I found your comments highly demeaning, and I thank you to stick to the facts and stop casting aspersions based on imaginary intent.

@JonCuster: Admittedly, I find your reasoning a bit difficult to follow. References that are "not needed" (for understanding the article at hand, I presume) are not automatically something to remove, but something beneficial; they are an opportunity for interested readers to directly retrieve more information related to the article that these readers would otherwise have to search for themselves. Maybe things are somehow different for the letters you mention, but in general, as a reader, it seems contradictory to me that removing topically fitting references could improve a paper.

Fair enough.  I did focus on the lower limits mentioned for, e.g. Nature's letters (30), and Clinical Ontology (10 for correspondence). These types of papers really are different from a full-length research article. The letter journals (APL, PRL, ...) which got split out from their parent journals were supposed to be focused on one single topic which could be presented within the length limits. Clearly, Nature saw they needed to be specific - if you try to cover too much territory as evidenced by lots of references, your letter likely isn't very good by their standards.

There is a limit because they don't want people submitting a research article that looks like the Encyclopædia Britannica.

How exactly does this answer the question? Was there a sudden deluge of people submitting articles that look like encyclopedia entries? Is this something they cannot easily just deal with at the level of the managing editors without having an explicit number?

Where do you get '"strictly enforces" a limit of 50 for articles and 30 for letters' out of the displayed photographs. I must have missed that. All I can read is "should".

@user3697176: the quote "strictly enforces" comes from the current guidelines (see fourth paragraph of section 5.4). The photograph is of the 1988 version which I said is "almost the same" (and not exactly the same) as the present day.

I am extremely frustrated by these kinds of policies, which unfortunately are common in the journals and conferences that I submit to. Typically the limits are enforced as  maximum X page(s) of references. These restrictions serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Gratuitous references would get caught during review and then removed. I have found myself in several situations where citing all relevant literature was simply impossible due to these ridiculous restrictions. Ironically, in most of these cases the reviewers then get mad because their paper happened to get cut from references.

Journals aim to publish an organized set of articles of some approximate length in an attractive format.
Journals set limits on the number of references to shape the form, format, and quality of the submitted articles.
This organization is a good thing, in terms of disseminating scientific information. Given the limited space of one article, there is definitely some appropriate range for the number of essential and useful references that relate to the presented work.
This is less restrictive that it might sound, as these rules set by the journal are seldom hard limits. If you have good reason to include a couple of extra references, you can usually work with the editor to get them included.
Another reason to include limits is to try to encourage authors to examine references more closely, and to be more selective in their choices of what to include. Just as many journals have rules against gratuitous figures and tables (e.g. all figs must be referenced in the text), these limits are meant to discourage gratuitous inclusion of references that are not directly related to the discussion in the manuscript.

In response to the expanded question: "What happened in the 80's?" ...
The Science Citation Index was launched in 1964. With its growth and success, and the addition of other field-specific indices, it became possible to compute statistical journal and author comparisons (e.g. Impact Factor). This concerted effort to index citations made being cited in the work of others more important, and the use of numerous citations became much more common. The benefits of these author and journal metrics were much lauded during the 70's and 80's, but people were also increasingly aware that this arrangement was vulnerable to abuse, i.e. gaming the system by inflating citations. SCI grew to become Web of Knowledge, then Web of Science and along the way (1992) it was acquired by a large media company and today it's run by Thomson-Reuters.
The question posed invites speculation; we can't know exactly what the owners and editors of the various scientific journals were thinking when they started implementing citation limits. However, I would hazard a guess that they realized gratuitous citations might be an issue, probably had a few bad apples, and decided that limits were a good idea to keep the quality of the submissions high.

Plenty of journals makes space recommendations without explicit mention of the number of references. For length considerations a simple "total word count" with references included can suffice.

And whether references are "essential and useful" should be delegated to the referees, and not decided by a computer based on an arbitrary number. Indeed, if the intent is for the quality of the articles, such concerns about the references being "essential" can be both included in the instructions to the authors and the referees in lieu of a numeric count.

@WillieWong : I certainly agree that referees and the editor should determine what should be included, but that doesn't preclude the application of some guidelines for the general form of an article.

+1 however for your last paragraph, even though I think that there are better ways to achieve the same goal.

@WillieWong Putting the onus on the referees to 'enforce a limit of references' is corralling cats after they've walked out the door. Setting out guidelines that (upon justified request can be excepted) guide the product before submission, seems a better way to manage the system. I'm not saying I agree with limits on references, but if there are going to be limits, guidance should be before submission and not after.

@CGCampbell: guidance I agree with, but wording is important. It would be nice if instead just stating matter-of-factly that there is a reference limit, the instruction reads something like: "Please only include scientifically necessary references, typical research articles in this journal have between 10 and 40 citations, while typical letters have between 2 and 25." With the implication that if you are an "outlier", we will scrutinize it; and even if you are within the norm, you don't get carte blanche to fill up the reference section with crap.

@CGCampbell: in any case, the point of my question is something somewhat different.

In the dim past (40+ years ago?), people had no idea how often one was cited... so there was scant motivation to generate gratuitous citations of oneself by trading gratuitous citations of others. There was no "citation index", etc.
From even longer past, there has not been too much tradition of careful acknowledgement of prior art, especially not of competing art, and not of historical antecedents, whether well-known or obscure. That is, "scholarship" has rarely been relevant to publishability or enhanced status. So, no need to have substantial bibliographies, since as much would be ignored as possible.
Maybe time to air out the quotation from a very well-known mathematician, to the effect (and I think it was not a joke) that if one didn't read other peoples' papers, one would not have to ever cite them...
So, in mathematics, the current style has "evolved" to only citing things "logically necessary". Rather unhelpful even to fairly-expert readers, but helping the readers is not the main goal... >:-(

In my (perhaps idealistic) opinion, helping readers (and thereby writing a better article) should be the main goal. Inflated citation counts may have some short-term benefits in terms of impact factor, but relevant high-quality citations are actually quite important leads for connecting research. I'm plenty cynical about some of the practices I see in the literature, but really it's up to all of us who participate in peer-review  and publishing to move these things in a positive direction if they are ever to improve.

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


text:
Is it possible to recover after a career setback such as this?
My husband got a math PhD in 2009, and could not get a research post-doc in his chosen field. We had young children at that point, and he spent two years as a lecturer, applied for hundreds of jobs, and finally took a tenure-track job at a teaching university. Now, he honestly believes that a research position is impossible for him.  He loves to teach, but hates the endless grind of "administrivia", the low pay, and the mental laziness of the students he's required to teach.
I have insisted on him getting counselling, but he refuses to take anyone's encouragement that other jobs are possible, saying things like, "You just don't know the academic world. If I go to the NSA, no one will hire me in an academic position. If I become an actuary (because we do need more money) then all of my time will be sucked into studying for exams, and I still won't be able to do research." In his mind, no one in our circle of loved ones has the authority or experience to give him accurate encouragement. Is a research position possible after spending time at a teaching university? Would he be able to get back into academia if he had to leave to do actuarial work/industry/something that helps pay the bills?

Update.
He spoke with a mentor of his from undergrad, and was given incredibly specific guidance on where to go from here.  His teaching load is so heavy, (4/4 or 4/3) and the mentor gave him a few places to apply to in his field where the teaching load is more conducive to some research, but is not at a research-specific university.  (3/3 or even 3/2!!!) He plans on speaking to his advisor, getting some glowing letters of recommendation, and starting a job search soon.

I am insisting on him getting counseling — Good for you.

What an interesting story! @guestwife Any update? What's his situation now?

The situation you describe is unfortunately common. It is an unfortunate reality that the number of people well qualified for research jobs is greater than the number of jobs.
A few notes:

Hiring committees will be looking for good publications, and for recommendation letters coming from leaders in the field attesting to your husband's impact and further potential. If he continues to do good research, publish it in well-known venues, and speak about it at conferences, then he has a good chance. If not, then unfortunately he is competing with people who are.
Most of the complaints you mention are common at research jobs as well. I teach at a large state university, where we have our share of poorly prepared students, and/or students who are just going through the motions. Indeed a Harvard professor once quipped to me that "we have remedial classes here, too".
I do know people who have successfully moved from one teaching position to a different teaching position, and been much happier afterwards. Some departments have more motivated students, pay better, and/or do a better job of keeping the paperwork down, and your husband could look for one of these.
I know people who have taken a variety of non-academic mathematical jobs, and for the most part they are quite happy with them!

The bottom line is that your husband can probably get a research job if he can sustain a very strong research program during the interim. Otherwise, there are likely to be appealing alternatives as well.
Good luck!

Thank you! This is very helpful, specific, and encouraging.

Is a research position possible after spending time at a teaching university?

Yes, it's possible.  There's a mild stigma to applying from a teaching university, since it advertises lack of success getting a research job in the past.  Because of the high ratio of candidates to positions, academic hiring is often risk averse and the perception that nobody else wants a candidate will worry search committees.  However, this can be overcome.
One thing to keep in mind is that the past difficulties could simply have been bad luck.  Even very strong candidates typically do not get many job offers, and bad luck can easily change "a few" into "zero".
It's possible to strengthen one's application by writing additional papers, but this generally requires better papers or more papers per year, since search committees will normalize for time: if you've spent longer they will expect more.  However, the focus is more on the future than the past.  If you have a productive few years and show signs of maintaining that productivity in the future, it can make up for fallow periods in the past.  If you quit publishing, then the chances of a research job will rapidly drop to zero until you resume publishing.  (There are a lot of people who would like to do research but aren't prepared to actually do it, since they aren't up on the current research literature.  You can't get a research job unless you demonstrate that you aren't one of these people.)
In an ideal world, search committees would also normalize for the applicants' circumstances.  For example, research productivity at a teaching university would be viewed as evidence that the candidate would be even more productive at a research university.  Unfortunately, in practice these effects are often underestimated or not taken into account at all.
One possibility is that there's something wrong with your husband's application.  For example, maybe his research statement is not compelling, or one of his letter writers is insufficiently supportive, or maybe one of them does not know how to write an effective letter of recommendation.  (You'd think that should never happen, but some well-established mathematicians simply do not know how to write effective recommendation letters.  If his thesis advisor is one of them, and the other letter writers are less energetic since they assume the advisor will make a strong case, then it could be really bad for his job search.)  I'd guess that 5-10% of job applicants have something seriously wrong with their application that they seem totally unaware of.  This is a low fraction, so your husband probably isn't one of them, but if possible he should discuss all aspects of his application with a trusted mentor who has guided numerous students to the sort of job your husband would like.  Sadly, he may not have such a mentor, but it's good to keep an eye out for one.  For example, if he strikes up a conversation at a conference with a senior mathematician who seems approachable, it's worth asking for job search advice.

He thought a hiring committee would scoff at the lower output of papers done by someone in a teaching job vs. someone churning out problems in a research post-doc. He even wondered if not having "XYZ Awesome Post-Doc" on his CV would trump any research he did.

Lower productivity because of other duties is a serious factor here.  The CV prestige issue is real but considerably less important: prestige might serve as a tie breaker but won't get anyone a job if their actual accomplishments aren't commensurate.
Letters of recommendation will be by far the most important factor.  What your husband needs is really strong letters that address his circumstances, talk about how impressive his research is and why, and explicitly make the case that he belongs at a research university.  Letter writers generally recycle letters from year to year with some updates to incorporate recent papers.  If his letters are not updated to address the teaching/research university issue, then they will not help him.  In particular, if they don't say in strong terms that he ought to be at a research university, then they'll be viewed as damning him with faint praise.
This is something he can discuss with each letter writer, along these lines: "As you know, I've been working at University X for the last couple of years.  It's great to be in a tenure-track job, but I'd really like to work at a research university.  To move to one, I'll need letters of recommendation that address this issue and make a strong case that I should be at a research university.  Would you be comfortable writing such a letter for me?  Of course I'll understand if you can't write one, since I know I'm asking a lot, but I'd rather ask someone else than waste everyone's time with an application that doesn't have the support it needs."
This is an awkward conversation, but it's much better to ask than to leave it to chance.

Would he be able to get back into academia if he had to leave to do actuarial work/industry/something that helps pay the bills?

It's possible he could get another teaching-oriented job, although it's by no means a sure thing.  It would help a lot if he could spin the other work as informing his teaching.  For example, he could teach actuarial mathematics or incorporate realistic industrial applications.  In that case the non-academic experience could be an advantage; otherwise applying from outside academia would put him at a moderate disadvantage.
Unfortunately, the chances of getting a research-oriented academic job from industry are low (assuming the industrial job is not at a prestigious research lab like Bell Labs).  There are people who have done it, but it's not likely or easy.  Few people can maintain a high-quality research program on the side with no support while holding a full-time job, and this is necessary for returning to a research university.  In particular, there's virtually no chance of returning based solely on having done research in the past, without having actively continued in the meantime.
The way it typically plays out is that you reluctantly go to industry intending to maintain your research and keep applying for academic jobs.  For the first year or two, you complete and write up work you began in academia, and it feels like everything is going well, but your job applications don't do any better than they had before: you've got a more substantial research track record, but your industrial position emphasizes your inability to get a job in the past.  Still, you figure that accumulating more papers will eventually tip the balance in your favor.  Unfortunately, the next few years don't go as well.  It's hard to find the time for research, you have few people to talk to or derive inspiration from, and progress is slow.  However, you're gradually getting somewhere, so you figure it will just take a little longer.  A few years after that, you start to lose your resolve to do research at all.  Even if your applications were successful, would you really want to take a 50% pay cut, give up your job security, and move to another city to restart your career?  And it's hard to keep your focus on an incredibly time-consuming hobby that seems like it may never lead anywhere professionally.  You quit applying to anything but dream jobs you're pretty sure you won't get, and eventually you give up on them as well.
The good news is that this path doesn't generally end in depression, but rather the discovery that there are plenty of fulfilling life paths outside of research universities.  It's by no means a bad outcome.  However, leaving academia for industry can be really stressful if you want to return to a research university, since you have to either give up or work like hell to maintain your research program.

An absolutely fantastic answer!  Everything you write really rings true to me.  The answer is grounded in the hard realities -- but also encouraging.  Anyway, I just wanted to post a note of appreciation for these words of wisdom.

I'm going to disagree a little bit with the other answers.  This is a frustrating situation.  Unfortunately, as Anonymous stated, the number of qualified mathematicians exceeds the number of academic research positions.  This makes a difficult position.
I fear your husband might have accurately assessed the situation.  While I appreciate the suggestion others made of continuing to do research on his own time, this is very difficult.  If you have a full-time non-research position and a family, that doesn't leave a lot of time for research -- so it's very hard to sustain a level of research output that will be competitive with the competition.  Also, others who do have a research faculty position may have students and collaborators, which further boosts their research output; your husband won't have that advantage.  So, while in principle your husband could continue research on his own time to try to build a research portfolio in hopes that this leads to a tenure-track academic research position, in practice your husband is at a disadvantage.  He would be climbing up a steep hill.
My suggestion would be for him to get advice from someone more senior who he respects.  Is it worth his time for him to continue his research on his own time, and continue applying to hundreds of research positions each year for the next few years?  Maybe, or maybe it's a waste of time.
Alternatively, perhaps he might consider other career alternatives.  Rather than being entirely set on an academic research position, maybe he should consider other career paths.  Even if he has his mind set on an academic research position right now, I suspect there are a number of other directions where he could be happy.  Maybe he should consider the actuarial path, or consider a NSA job?  Or consider Wall Street (a job in the financial sector)?  Maybe he could teach himself computer programming on his own time and pursue a job in the computing industry?  Perhaps there are other opportunities.  This kind of change is scary and requires some courage, which is undoubtedly especially difficult when you are depressed: your support will undoubtedly be helpful to him.
A third option is to find things to love in his current teaching position.  I certainly sympathize with the trials; they are real, and a drag, to be sure.  On the other hand, there's a lot to love about teaching, too.  You get to help young students discover the beauty of mathematics: even if it's just one out of a class of 30 students who finds a real passion, that can be very satisfying and rewarding.  Unfortunately, the administrivia and the laziness of students is a constant in academia and would probably be present even if he found a research position; the trick with dealing with them is to find other things in his life that are rewarding and satisfying, and focus on them.  For instance, perhaps he might enjoy doing math research in his own time, not with the goal or any illusions that it will lead to any research position, but entirely for its own sake: for the love and pleasure and beauty of it.  Or maybe he might offer to set up a special enrichment seminar or program for students who do love math to learn more: maybe run a program to prepare for the Putnam exam or Math Olympiad.  If he offers to do this on his own time, as an overload, I imagine his department chair would jump at the opportunity, and it might provide a chance to do something rewarding and fulfilling for him and be a great inspiration to a few students.  Or maybe he might find something else in his job that is rewarding and worth doing.

Very true on this point: administrivia and the laziness of students is a constant in academia - teachers often think it is only the students at this school who are lazy...yet many students are like this.

He actually applied to the NSA and made it through a good deal of the rigor, before being offered a tenure-track job with a teaching university.  The NSA and actuarial work are both options still on the table.  When the post-doc didn't go through, his advisor offered to connect him to someone in the financial sector.  The truth is that he does have lots of options.  I think the worst thing he's had to deal with is a lack of credible information on whether the research option was dead or not.  Thank you.

Yes. It is possible. Because I know this guy who had been in exactly the same situation except that he got his math Ph.D. a few years earlier than your husband, and got a job at a reputable research university. If he's somehow believing that a prestigious postdoc position is necessary, I know a person who ended up in a gratuitous position for a short while and then landed on a very prestigious postdoc job in math. In both cases, they had strong publication records and also convinced other researchers in the same fields that they are something.
Of course, there must be way more math Ph.D.'s who wanted jobs at research universities but got stuck somewhere else than those who succeeded. So, it's true that, statistically speaking, chances are very slim, especially if he himself doesn't think he can make it. But there are things he's in control of, and he can make the probability fatter. Do good research, publish it, and show others what you're made of.
Ah, I almost forgot. If he's looking for a job this year in combinatorics, information theory, coding theory or quantum information science, well, sorry, but he should wait another year. There is a talking duckling in California looking for that sort of job this year, and that duckling should get it. I know your kids are super cute, and they want their dad to be happy, too. But this duckling is even cuter. If your husband's field is different, then no problem. Kick his butt and tell him to apply to as many jobs as possible with his awesome publication list he's going to develop and strong recommendation letters he's going to get (unless his depression needs a professional help. In that case, that should be fixed first, I think). Good luck!

Ah, no, the duckling is definitely safe from competition from my hubby. :)  Completely different fields.  But that's a dadgum cute duckling, and may it find an awesome job.

I've not read other opinions however here is mine,
Since your husband wants to do research in Math, he is lucky, because he does not require high end instruments to do his stuff. So he basically can do research wherever and whenever he wants, meaning, he need not be in a specific place to do his research. In the mean time he can get employed in a place where he can earn money using his skills.
So while his research is done at home, he can work elsewhere till he feels that his research has matured enough to require a lot of attention. Once his work is publicized I'm sure there will be a lot of people to come forward and assist. Some of us developers use and believe in open technology as the future, hence we publish whatever we do for the benefit of the world. He can create a blog to update the world about his research.
He can use social media to find and meet people with similar interests or even conduct teaching sessions to people whom he wants to teach for a fee or for free. Example Google hangouts. Using the internet will give him better exposure than the closed walls of any university.
I help my father with his automobile business and then follow my passion at home, I don't know if any of my work is worthy of being called research but bits  of it I publicize is certainly helping people who wants to learn :) .

Once his work is publicized I'm sure there will be a lot of people to come forward and assist. — I think this is overly optimistic.  Of course, if the work is a truly groundbreaking, then lots of people will come forward to collaborate (not "assist").  But very little research is truly groundbreaking, and people are busy.


text:
"Computers & Security" journal latex template?
The following links explains the "Guide for Authors" for the "Computers & Security" journal:
https://www.elsevier.com/journals/computers-and-security/0167-4048/guide-for-authors
However, I cannot find a latex template for this journal. Does it mean that I can write the paper in any template format ?
Here is an example of a paper that is published in Computers & Security" journal. However, I need a latex template:
Example Paper in PDF

Worth asking Elsevier?

@Solar Mike There is a latex template in sharelatex HERE: https://www.sharelatex.com/templates/journals/elsevier , however its format seems to be different with PDF example. I'm going to ask elsivier by email. Thanks

Following the various links of the Guide for Authors one arrives at the LaTeX Instructions page of Elsevier, which recommends the usage of the class elsarticle.

Thank you, so this template should be acceptable ? link


text:
Poster session includes a "poster" + "article"?
When we are accepted in a poster session, does it mean that we need to provide a "poster" (usually in A0 size) + an "article" which explains the topic in a separate file ? Or both poster and article are included in a single PDF file ?
And also this article must include an "abstract" like usual papers?
I ask this question because I have received a strange email from a workshop as follows :

Posters have to  be formatted in LNCS-style and not exceed 1 page in
  length, with a PDF  draft of the proposed poster included as page 2 of
  the submission (A0 size  in portrait mode,  W 841mm x H 1189 mm, with
  all fonts embedded in the  PDF file). In addition, poster titles
  should always start with the  phrase "Poster Abstract:"

Here is the website of the conference : http://deic.uab.cat/conferences/cbt/cbt2018/
.

It'd the best to ask conference organizers for the clarification. Organizers of conferences are usually very friendly and quite responsive, so there's no harm in asking. And they will be able to give the precise and authoritative answers to your question.

You'd better ask the orgs.
I was a poster's chair and also have published/presented some posters. The typical procedure is that the "paper" (which is rather called a poster abstract and is typically a 2-4 page document) is reviewed. The poster is shown at the conference.
This procedure might be somewhat historical, as communicating posters to the reviewers was previously hard. Also, you need a chance to show not only the poster, but what you are saying, when standing next to it. Hence, the poster abstract.


text:
Is Hindawi journal credible and valuable publication?
I have received several times an email from the Hindawi journal to invite me for submitting my article to this journal. However, I do not know this journal and I afraid if this journal a credible, trust-able and valuable publication? Or I have to ignore it?
Here is the link I received by email: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/scn/si/732327/cfp/
Note: My question is not that if an open access journal, in general, is valuable or not, but also there are some "Fraudulent" peer reviews publications (open access or not). I read an article on this journal from here: Fraudulent peer review strikes another academic publisher; 32 articles questioned which causes I aske this question.

I'll add that Hindawi's Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_Publishing_Corporation) says a bit about the publisher. It was listed on Beall's list at some point, but not when Beall's list was taken down.

Have you looked at the publications produced by that journal? Would you want to be listed with them? Can you afford it? These are all relevant questions that you should answer.

I'll suggest a related heuristic to the one that our friends at Finance.SE use to assess whether a "financial opportunity" is a scam - if you even have to ask the question, it's scam. Don't publish there.

I don't know about this particular journal. However, Advances in High Energy Physics [https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/] is a respectable journal in the high energy physics(although not on top). You can check the editorial board here [https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/editors/] where you can see that most of the editors publish in high impact journals and are very credible scientists.

@NikeyMike I was searching for this question as I am considering submitting to AHEP. I want to add that this particular journal is included in SCOAP3, so no way it is bad.


text:
Copyright for PhD Thesis?
Which of the following copyrights is most suitable for a PhD thesis and how do each of them restrict the use of the ideas presented in the thesis?
1. Copyright © [Year], [My Name]. All Rights Reserved.
2. Copyright © [Year], [My Name]. This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes .
NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Note 1: According to the university, I am free to choose any of the above copyrights for my thesis.
Note 2: The thesis will be published on this public website belonging to the French government : https://theses.hal.science/
Please also let me know for the Copyright © [Year], [My Name]. All Rights Reserved. Which option should I choose from the list in the screenshot below?

If you need additional information please let me know.

Depends upon your universities policies and possibly your funding agency if you have one. Personally, I would not release my thesis or dissertation into the public domain. You risk people publishing it on their own. For example, I have had people take government reports I have written, repackage them, and sell them on Amazon as books implying that I've written something I never wrote. You may also risk not being able to publish chapters in journals if you release the copyright.

@Richard Erickson, But without publishing the thesis in the public domain you are not able to explain precisely what you did in your thesis.

@EarlGrey , According to the university, I am free to choose any of the above copyrights for my thesis. Also, without publishing the thesis in the public domain you are not able to explain precisely what you did in your thesis.

"without publishing the thesis in the public domain you are not able to explain precisely what you did in your thesis."
This is doubtful at best, the "publishing the thesis" condition is neither sufficient (you may have paid someone to complete the writing) nor necessary (I do not need to read your thesis to check if you can do what you say you can do).
On the other hand, the thesis work usually results in some peer-reviewed publication: how precisely you got to these results is either explained in the paper or is part of your knowledge that you can show when inquired about.

@EarlGrey ,"I do not need to read your thesis to check if you can do what you say you can do". If I tell someone what I did, they can use or publish my ideas! So, what is the difference between publicly publishing a thesis and explaining ideas orally to someone?!!

@Questioner Note that public domain has a very specific meaning in copyright law, that is entirely distinct from simply making the document publicly available (i.e. publishing it).

@Anyon, By public domain I mean this public website belongs to the French government : https://theses.hal.science/

@Questioner very few people has the time to go through the whole thesis of a random person, while few people can listen to a 20 mintues talk covering the thesis subject.
If you are worried that someone publish your ideas, why don't you publish them first?

@EarlGrey , Your question is weird. I am disseminating my work among fellow experts in my field to increase its exposure, which naturally benefits me. However, safeguarding my rights is also a priority : Proper attribution is paramount if my ideas are published; my name should always be acknowledged.

@Questioner The French government may own the website, but that does NOT mean that works posted on that site are in the public domain. Works in the public domain do not have any copyright and anyone can use them as they see fit, without having to consult the original author. As best as I can tell, the HAL website does not require you to give up your copyrights when you upload to it, and in fact encourages you to put a licensing statement in your work. So uploading your thesis to that portal is not "putting it in the public domain". It's making it publicly available.

@EarlGrey Field dependent. In the humanities, the best work is a published book. Books are often seen as needed for a faculty position and a thesis often is the basis of one. There is a belief, real or imagined, that widespread dissemination of the work (not the ideas) will lower publisher interest in picking up the book.

"All Rights Reserved" means that rights that you have under copyright law are not granted to people who read your thesis. It's the same as doing nothing at all; you keep the rights you already have by virtue of being a creator of some copyrightable work. They can still read and cite the ideas if they can access it; they can use the material under whatever concepts of "fair use" or "fair dealing" or whatever the equivalent in copyright law is in your jurisdiction (examples might include reproducing for certain purposes like education). Presumably there is still a separate license you are granting to the repository; you should read that and see what it entails.
The CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license is here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.en with a more plain-language summary here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Both of these licenses are appropriate for a thesis; you should read and understand them and decide what makes best sense for you. If you have code or other materials that go along with your thesis, you may want to release those separately under a license appropriate to that material. If you've given other licenses to your work already as part of publishing, posting preprints, etc, then the license (or lack of license) you apply to your thesis does apply to the thesis itself but does not override more permissible licenses you've already granted to those parts.
Also, importantly, licenses cover the concept of copyright. They do not cover the concept of academic ethics. From an ethics perspective, it's necessary to cite when ideas are used regardless of the copyright license on the work.

Also worth noting that most places, the "all rights reserved" one does not actually do anythying, since that is the default for any work without needing a notice.

@TobiasKildetoft Made an edit to clarify that.

More the the point, copyright covers the particular work. Ideas can not be copyrighted.

@Jon Custer, NoDerivatives states: "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material." https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Therefore, it includes ideas, not just words and phrases.

@Questioner That's not what "no derivatives" means; derivatives are narrowly defined as derivatives of the copyrightable work like incorporation into a book of many articles. And it definitely can't include ideas, because ideas are not copyrightable anyways, as Jon pointed out, so you don't need the license to say that you can use the ideas, you can already use the ideas even for work that is "all rights reserved".

@Bryan Krause , So it's: "No rights reserved" ! ...

@Questioner Huh? No. That isn't what I'm saying at all, I don't know how you'd possibly get that impression. A license can't give you extra rights you didn't have in the first place. You can set conditions on rights you give up, but that's it.

So let me know for the Copyright © [Year], [My Name]. All Rights Reserved. Which option should I choose from the list in the screenshot that I have added to my question?

From a comment:

it depends what you want. If you want other people to be able to copy
and distribute your thesis (on condition that they provide full
attribution to you), the CC one is most suitable; if you don't want
people to be able to do that, the "all rights reserved" one is most
suitable.

Attribution of ideas, i.e. whether someone publish your ideas without referencing to you is a completely different topic and it is independent from which copyright form you use: it is their duty to properly cite your work, if it was known to them at the moment of submission.
Proper reference may even be a "Questioner, 2024, notes on a napkin" if it was so.

NoDerivatives states: "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material." https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Therefore, it includes ideas, not just words and phrases.

Ideas are not material

So let me know for the Copyright © [Year], [My Name]. All Rights Reserved. Which option should I choose from the list in the screenshot that I have added to my question?

Choose number 1.  You cannot revoke a Creative Commons license once granted, but you can add a Creative Commons license to all or part of your work later if that becomes useful.
Either license asserts your claim to the work.  See the comments which tell you that attribution is always required and that ideas cannot be copyrighted. Copyright protects the written work.

NoDerivatives states: "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material." https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Therefore, it includes ideas, not just words and phrases.

@Questioner  Nope.  Copyright protects, in this case, the words.  ND says you can't remix, transform, or build upon.  That "build upon" may be the source of confusion.  You can clearly extend and "build upon" an idea, but you do that with your own writing, and with proper citation where the writing of another is used.

So let me know for the Copyright © [Year], [My Name]. All Rights Reserved. Which option should I choose from the list in the screenshot that I have added to my question?

@Questioner I don't know. It depends on the regulation of your university, I guess. Saclay mentions that
"The substantial abstract of the thesis will appear as an appendix to the thesis, for consultation in the library and/or distribution on the Internet. In all cases, the choices made (choice of language for writing the thesis, format of the substantial abstract) must allow the entire French-speaking scientific community to access the research work presented for the doctoral degree." ( https://www.universite-paris-saclay.fr/sites/default/files/2023-02/guide_to_the_doctoral_defense.pdf  )

I meant Copyright © [Year], [My Name]. All Rights Reserved. is related to which licence option listed in the screenshot I added to my question ? Copyright ?

@Questioner I believe the only option that corresponds to choice 1 is  "Copyright."


text:
I want my conservation PhD research to make a difference. What should my career path be?
I'm an early PhD student and one of my research foci is conservation biology. Of the various focal topics of my research, this is the one that I feel most passionate about. (And within conservation biology, habitat loss/disruption is the issue that holds the highest degree of intrinsic interest for me.) However, like many in conservation bio I am somewhat dismayed by what I see as a lack of actual impact stemming from conservation research — that is to say, a lot of research gets done but not a lot actually changes because of it.
I realize that environmental policy is a huge issue that extends way beyond the bounds of academic research, and that the challenges of enacting science-based policy are many and are often seen as being best left to policymakers and policy advocates rather than researchers. However, I am finding that I am increasingly interested in charting a career path that puts me in a place where I can work to bridge the divide between research and policy, where I have a chance of making conservation bio a more effective field in terms of real-world results (even if my part in such an effort is a small one) and where I can ideally be involved both with doing impactful, effective research and also with seeing the results of that research be put into action.
My question is this: what would that career path look like? My goal up to now has been to try for a professorship in academia (as insane as that job market is these days) or else in the statistically likely event that I don't make it there to look for a similar research-oriented job, perhaps with a museum or with the government. I'm still in the first year of my PhD, so this plan is still pretty hazy but that's the general outline of it at the moment. I realize I have a long way to go (at least another four years of PhD work and a postdoc or two) before I'm in a position to take a shot at becoming a PI, but I think it's important to have at least a rough idea of what the ultimate end is. Looking realistically at the PhD program I'm in, I think I have as good a shot as anyone at "making it".
I'm becoming less sure though that that path (what I think of as the "traditional" career path for PhD students in the sciences) is one that will necessarily put me in a position where I can have a hand in conservation policy and in shaping the direction of my field, which are goals that are becoming increasingly important to me. I know that there are ways to do research that is more impactful (I found this article very edifying:  Cook et al 2013, Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge-Action Boundary [PDF]) but I don't feel that impactful research is really incentivized by the systems of reward and prestige that prevail in academic research, such that putting too much of a focus on actionable research can actually be detrimental to one's career.
I'm trying to think outside the box a little bit now, to get a sense of what trajectory I should be putting myself on if I want to do more "meaningful" conservation work while still using the research background that I am developing in my PhD program. I love research. I love doing science, and I even love working in academia as crazy as it sometimes can be. I'm not committed to the idea of a high salary (not that professors normally make a particularly high salary) though I would like to do something that gives me a modicum of financial security at a modest standard of living. I'm not averse to working in academia, or in government, or for an NGO or a private corporation or anywhere else as long as I can be connected to research and have the opportunity to turn conservation research into conservation action. I just want to do research (or at least be involved with research in a way that lets me put my skills to good use) that actually makes a difference out in the world.
Do any of you have any suggestions for career tracks that I should look into? Perhaps you yourself are already in a job that you feel has the characteristics that I am looking for? Maybe you are able to offer me a new perspective on academia that will allay my reservations about a lack of impactfulness in my hypothetical future work there? Or perhaps you see opportunities for researchers of any stripe to make important contributions to the work of conservation management and policymaking from whatever role they may end up in, by being advocates or advisors or activists outside of the lab?
All kinds of advice would be appreciated. Reading material, personal anecdotes, and any resources or tips or insights you have will all be welcome.

I don't know anything about your specific area of interest. But to have impact in your field, it might help to seek out examples of people whose career you'd like to model. What trajectory did they follow, and as far as you can tell how did their choices help with the impact they had ?
One of the advantages of a Ph.D (not necessarily an academic career) is that it acts as a signifier to open doors. For example, in my line of work, there are many people with Ph.Ds who have immense impact on technology from jobs at research labs, or companies. Their Ph.D gave them access to jobs in these venues, and the rest was up to them.
It might be that in your area, a Ph.D is almost a necessity to even be part of the conversation (whether in doing research, or affecting policy). It might also be that the people impacting policy do so from an academic perch (hence the point about searching for role models).

I went through a similar question and considered getting an education in law after my biology education. From the little research I did I noticed that lobby groups and legislative type careers seem to have the most impact in bringing about real change. However, I don't know where that leaves you having already completed a PhD by that point in the future.


text:
What will happen to my IEEE conference paper if the status of the accepted paper is "AAR"
I have been notified by the IEEE organizing committee that my paper has been accepted for their conference and requested to register. and the status of the paper is AAR. Please see the quotation below.

[AAR]This paper need thorough revision to be accepted as a full paper
for the conference.

I have attached an image of their review process.

What will happen to my paper after the submission of the camera-ready paper? Is there any possibility for my paper not to be published in the proceedings and IEEE Xplore? Or is it guaranteed to be published after the submission of camera-ready paper?

If the Journal/Conference editor/chair has accepted your paper, it is guaranteed to be published, given that you make the changes. That is the reason they emphasize the "review" part.
Some papers have only minor revisions, so if the changes are not made, it won't affect that much the quality of the conference. But if the changes are major, it usually indicates that you have to step up the level of the paper following the suggestion of the reviewers.
In conclusion, as long as you make the changes, your paper should be accepted in the conference, but if you neglect to do them, probably it wont.

I think the flowchart in your question is pretty clear as to what happens next. But I'll break down the relevant part of the flowchart into words.
You have to make thorough revisions to your paper, and then resubmit. It will then be reviewed again.  As a result of the review, it may be accepted, and it may be rejected.
AAR: your paper's current status - accepted after revising. It's now up to you to make the thorough revisions, and to then submit the revised paper
REV is the status your paper will have once you have submitted the revised paper.
RVI will be its status when the revised paper has been sent out to review. Judging by the flowchart, it will get sent to the same editor and reviewers as before, because a revised paper does not pass through the WFR stage of waiting for review, where reviewers and editor are assigned.
It may then be accepted (ACC), rejected (REJ), or conceivably, according to that flowchart, get returned to you once more as AAR for further revisions.
The flowchart also suggests that whether it's accepted or rejected, you still prepare a camera-ready version. That would seem to be very unlikely: I find it very hard to believe there's any use for a camera-ready version of a rejected paper; only an accepted paper would need a camera-ready version.