text:
How to validate and submit for publication a paper as a graduate student?
While attending a graduate course on an engineering subject (reliability of complex systems) I had an idea about a different approach to a known problem. The application of this different method to a known topic would simply require to build a model of the physical system under study and to do a few simulations. I have already done a test to see if this approach makes sense at all on basic problems (the one you would see in an introductory course on subject). After a quick search, I found that there is no literature that covers this aspect in our field of application (electrical engineering).
I told my idea to a colleague student that has "real world experience" on the subject and he was very enthusiast. Our cooperation would involve him bringing his experience (to evaluate the process and the quality of the results) and I would bring the computational skills (set up the simulation etc...). The paper would be about 5-6 pages plus results (and scripts if they can be attached).
Now I'm asking you: what is the correct iter we could follow to see if this paper is worth publishing? And then, assuming it is, where do we submit the paper for publishing? I'd be happy to publish it on my blog anyway but I think there is some potential for "more than a blog work" (if you can allow me the use of this bad description) and would like to know what are the options.
Also, I would like to add that I came up with the idea of a publication of this work because I came across a lot of short papers in this format (new solution/method to old problem). While I think our idea is not revolutionary, it might add some useful perspective.
TLDR:

We are 2 graduate students that have an idea for a new approach to a relatively old problem.
We already did some tests and the idea seems sound.
The paper would be approx 5-6 pages plus results.
The subject is related to realiability calculation in electrical engineering applications.

Where do we go after having written the paper for "proper" validation and publishing request?

what is the correct iter we could follow to see if this paper is worth publishing?
Convince yourselves, then convince your supervisors. And then, assuming it is, where do we submit the paper for publishing? That's a shopping question, hence, off-topic.

Relevant, if not duplicate: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/60350/how-to-select-a-journal-for-publishing

Your situation is just like that of any other researcher. Work out your ideas. Write them up with proper citations of past and related work and submit to a journal that might be interested. The journal may be one of those you have found in your work and have cited.
Your advisor will give you initial feedback on your idea I hope and the editor and referees of the journal will also provide some validation. Your advisors likely have more experience and perspective than either of you, so take their advice about originality and possible importance. But, basically, in order to publish, you just do it and wait for feedback from the journal. Expect, as a minimum to have to rewrite based on reviewer comments.

Write it up clearly and submit it.  If you have never done this before, I recommend to do a little research (figure out what the most appropriate journal is, read some articles there, FOLLOW the notice to authors on formatting or other issues).
Also recommend to look at one or two simple books or articles on how to write a science paper.  I quite like a couple of older references:

Katzoff Technical Writing (short and sweet)
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/media-arts-and-sciences/mas-111-introduction-to-doing-research-in-media-arts-and-sciences-spring-2011/readings/MITMAS_111S11_read_ses5.pdf
And the relevant chapters of E. Bright Wilson An Introduction to Scientific Research (library will have it).

You do not need to have an "advisor" to submit a paper.  After all lots of scientists in business or government work without professor advisors.  Just submit paper.
Practical advice:  try to get into a decent, but lower prestige journal.  Not some predatory fly by night thing.  But also not Science or Nature.  In EE, it may be easier since there is such a fragment of journals.  Probably pick the closest IEEE journal.

I published a paper as a second year undergraduate student as a result of a project course, at the end of the project the teacher figured we had enough to write a paper. We wrote this under his and a PhD student's guidance. I am positive that we could not have done it on our own, as we were only second year's students, and this was our first paper ever. In my opinion it would really benefit you to have a supervisor of some sort.
You mention you don't have an advisor, which makes me think you're a European student (?), like me. European graduate degrees don't involve advisors until you are writing a thesis. So my advice would be the following: approach professors you have worked with in the past, who are in the area of expertise as your paper's subject, and ask them to supervise you and your colleague in writing this paper. Helping you bring structure to your paper, reviewing your draft, and helping you select a good conference or journal to submit to (and just guiding you a bit through the process), greatly increases your chances of getting your work published. Moreover, you also build a connection with this professor, and considering it is likely you might want to do your thesis in their area of expertise, this can only help you in the future.
Let me also mention that our supervisor/teacher at the time helped us secure a grant (and even personally put in money) to cover a large portion of the conference attendance fees and travel costs, so we could travel there and present our work.

While attending a graduate course

Does this mean that you are not a full time student?  Normally, when I hear people talk about graduate courses, I assume they are a full time student with an advisor.
This is exactly why you should have an advisor at grad school.  Hopefully an advisor can help you pick an appropriate publication.
Another thing to mention is costs.  Some publications require a fee.  Some publications require that at least one of the authors present at a conference.  Between publication fees, conference fees, and travel expenses, these costs can be thousands of dollars.  This is often paid by grants.  (It is possible that your school has put aside some funds to help grad students deal with these costs.)
If you don't have an advisor, I would suggest you look for a professor in your school who works in this field and contact them.  It may require you to put a third author on the paper, but that may not be a bad thing.  Who knows, a third author my have insights that can improve your paper.

+1. I'll note that some (high quality) publications will waive publication fees in some situations rather than have the actual authors pay them. Or, at least, that used to be true. I'm not happy about non-contributors becoming authors just because they can demand it, but it does happen. More in some fields than others. Don't be too rigid if it is demanded of you. You won't be a student forever.

We are full time students. We do not have an advisor (it's not usual in our university to have one) but only professors who teach their specific course. I will try to get in touch with our professors after completing a draft of the work.

@mickkk Then I will add (echoing others): there are predatory journals out there that will publish anything without doing a real review; they just want your money.  I have seen journals use the reputation of a researcher without the consent of said research to make themselves look legitimate.  In addition to your professors adding insight and/or grant money, they should be able to help you avoid the predators out there.

It sounds like you're not in too much of a hurry to publish your results. This is wonderful news for you, since this means you have a lot more options!
The main downside to submitting to a journal is that it may take a very long time before you hear anything, and much longer to get a final accepted work. If you have no experience submitting journal papers, then your work may be buried in the review process for well over a year (reviewers asking for corrections, extensions, extra citations...), or just rejected outright, which means you're a few months down the line having to look for an additional journal to submit to. The next journal you submit to has to be different from the first one, and would put you through the same process.
If you're looking for an painless way to get your publication out there and receive feedback before you submit it to a refereed venue, why not put it up on a free online repository (e.g. ArXiv)? This carries several benefits:

You get some practice in writing an actual paper: while ArXiv is not refereed, it would be a bad idea to upload something completely embarrassing.
You can 'safely' disseminate your work and elicit feedback from experts, without worrying about them using your work without any credit.

Another option is submitting your work to a workshop. In CS at least (engineering too I would imagine), workshops tend to be more forgiving than conferences/journals, and would plausibly accept a 5-6 page paper (which sounds more like a note than a complete journal paper unless there's something very profound in your results) that contains some nice ideas that would lead to a discussion. Most decent workshops are at least lightly refereed, which means you'll get some meaningful feedback on your work, and much sooner than you would if you submit to a journal right away. Papers that are accepted to workshops are not excluded from being published in journals, which means that if you have written something amazing, then you can still definitely submit to a journal later on.
EDIT
In addition to the above, as others have mentioned: if you don't have a formal advisor then you need to be extra careful of predatory journals (ones who will publish anything for the right price), and of ensuring your results are original.
Good luck!

I'm not sure what you mean by "validate" but a common pitfall of junior (or even senior) researchers is that they "rediscover" some known result.  It is always a good exercise to write a manuscript but, to avoid this going to waste, you might want to talk to the instructor (or a specialist in the area) to see if she/he knows of literature on this topic: "a quick search" is hardly enough and you should make a thorough search if only to be sure your bibliography on this topic is up-to-date.  Once you have convinced yourself that your calculation and idea is really new, you can send for submission.


text:
I proved a theorem I heard from another researcher. Can I publish my results?
Some time ago I heard a talk in which the speaker mentioned some theorem. I needed this theorem for another paper I wrote. I looked for this theorem in the relevant literature (which I know quite well), but did not find it. I emailed a question to the speaker, he confirmed that the theorem is correct, but did not supply a proof. I also looked at the speaker's working papers, but it was not there. So, I proved the theorem myself.
Now, I think this theorem is interesting and would like to publish it as a stand-alone short paper (maybe in a 'letters' journal). The problem is, I believe the speaker has some proof of this theorem unpublished, so I might be "stealing" his result.
Obviously, the optimal solution is to contact the speaker, but he does not seem to reply. What can I do?

Your question is unclear to me. the speaker mentioned some theorem To me, a theorem is an already proved statement. What exactly did he say when he mentioned it? A theorem? Or a conjecture?

Did the Lemma require more space than the margin of Arithmetica?

He mentioned the theorem and you publish a month later ... bad.  After 3 years he has still not published it, then go ahead...

"Corollary": when giving a talk and mentioning a theorem, indicate the proper way to cite it or do not mention the theorem at all. Exception: very famous or "classic" theorems. Prime example: when the theorem is yours, the audience may not know it, and the date of its acceptance for publication is close in the past or the future.

I can swear i've seen the same question in math.se a few months ago.

This is not related, but may I ask how difficult it was to find a proof ? I would be pretty intimidated if I was looking at a theorem never proved before.

"Dear sir, I have proved the theorem you discussed at your lecture.  If you are about to publish a proof yourself, I will hold off.  If not, or if I do not hear back from you, I will publish."  Even if he already published his proof somewhere, you may have proved it in a different way, and your way of proving it may give someone else an important insight.  If you find this to be important, chances are others will too.  Give all the necessary credit and acknowledgements of course.

I would also make sure that the person you heard the theorem from is indeed the first person to make that claim. Maybe they heard that theorem from someone else. I think it would be important to make sure you go back to the original person.

If the proof is yours then of course you can publish it. And it is your duty to do it, because the literature is incomplete without it.
Basically you say (but in more formal language):

at the Holcombe Colloquium (August 2015), R.J. Blenkinsop asserted the following, without giving a proof: insert theorem here.
no proof was given at Holcombe and there appears to be none in the literature.
this theorem is interesting and useful, for instance in the context of… insert description of & reference to your paper
here is a proof

You have thus acknowledged Blenkinsop as the source of the idea and asserted the originality of your own contribution. Both halves of this action are true and ethically sound.
Of course a referee may contact Blenkinsop who, now that fame and glory are involved, may take the trouble to look up his own proof. But unless it's already published ("see my Simple Sums for Simple Minds, page 2"), you still have priority.

There isn't a "duty" to publish a proof of any theorem, only of sufficiently interesting ones. In fact, I would argue (if only there was a chance anyone would listen to me) that there is a duty not to pollute the literature with junk papers containing uninteresting proofs of uninteresting theorems. So, it all depends on how interesting the theorem is and how nontrivial the proof is. If the proof is not especially difficult and could be found by anyone with expertise in the field, then it's probably not worth a standalone paper. See my answer for additional thoughts.

How did Andrew Wiles deal with it?

@DanRomik yes, but aaaahhh Publish or Perish

@DanRomik The question claims that the theorem is sufficiently interesting.

Cite your correspondence as well, so that there is no mistake in the fact that you tried to contact the individual to obtain their proof for the theorem, could not find it (from the other works you cited), and so made your own.

If the speaker didn't just claim the proposition was true, but also implied or claimed explicitly that he had a proof, does that change how OP might write this up?

@DanRomik: The first proof is never unnecessary, you know...

I strongly disagree with this advice, and think that it could get a young academic in real trouble.

@NoahSnyder, as a young academic, I'd really like to know in what kinds of trouble this might bring me, since I'm in a similar situation (coincidentally related to your work).

@DanRomik, in my field, there are a few people who claim all kinds of wondrous theorems without proving them (even in published articles), and it's extremely annoying and a hindrance exactly because I don't know whether a rigorous proof would give me credit or problems.

@NoahSnyder, after scrolling to the bottom, I found your answer adressing both my comments. Thanks.

@Turion:  I also think AnonymousMathematician's answer is very good and lays out some of the problems.

@Turion I don't disagree, I have seen the same thing many times and it is indeed annoying. If the theorem is indeed wondrous in the sense that a proof you find is a major intellectual contribution, then that would certainly be publishable and would give you a good amount of credit. My own answer spells out the considerations involved, but note that I started it by saying as well that OP is free to try to publish his proof, although he would need to acknowledge the statement of the theorem by someone else. TLDR: we are all judged precisely for our contributions, nothing more or less.

@DanRomik who is to say what is sufficiently interesting? You? Or the world at large? What may not seem sufficiently interesting right now might be incredibly interesting to some one 50 or 100 years from now.

@RubberDuck Ultimately it's OP who decides what paper seems sufficiently interesting to him to put his name on and try to publish. I can only offer generalized advice based on my experience. And the problem with your argument about 50-100 years in the future etc is that it applies to anything one might imagine writing about, most of which will not interest anyone in the future. If you don't apply some healthy critical thinking and filter what you try to publish, you won't get very far in academia.

@DanRomik you're right. The vast majority of everything gets lost in time, but we've no way of knowing which things will stick, which won't, and which ones won't have a use for decades or even centuries. If OP thinks they have something worth sharing with the world, then they should not be discouraged from doing so. But that's just this lay man's two cents...

Obviously, the optimal solution is to contact the speaker, but he does not seem to reply. What can I do?

You certainly can try to get your proof published as a stand-alone paper, but unless your proof is by itself a major intellectual achievement, I would advise against it.
The problem is that you'll need to acknowledge in your paper that the result has been claimed as a theorem by someone else and you're publishing the proof because you could not locate a proof in the literature. That means you're acknowledging that you're probably not the first person to prove the result, and that will greatly undermine the publishability of your paper. Probably the result is of a kind that any person with sufficient expertise in your area who learns of its existence would be able to prove it. So, despite the fact that quite possibly you'd be making a useful contribution by writing up the proof that someone else hasn't bothered to write, the credit you would get for doing so probably isn't enough to make for a paper you should be proud to put your name to and that would be good for your reputation (it may be publishable in some lousy journal, but I consider that to be much too low of a threshold to aim for).
It's worth noting that there certainly have been many cases (e.g., Fermat's last theorem) where someone claimed a theorem without providing a proof and it turned out later they didn't actually know how to prove it, or the proof was a lot more difficult or interesting than they had let on, and other people had to work very hard to fill the gap. If this is such a case and your proof is something that would be genuinely very interesting by itself even with the knowledge that someone else had already (either erroneously or correctly) claimed the result, then my advice above doesn't apply and your proof could well be worth trying to publish as a stand-alone paper.
Finally, another suggestion is that your proof might be useful to include in a paper you end up writing that includes additional original results that are truly your own. Then the proof doesn't have to carry the weight of the entire paper, and it could serve a useful purpose in making your paper more valuable and potentially increasing its chances to be accepted in a good journal.

The last paragraph seems like a very good option here, given that the OP even stated that he needed this theorem in connection with another paper (so it seems fitting to include it in that paper).

Look at it from everyone else's perspective: Someone claimed there is a theorem, and that they have a proof. That's it. That means nobody can use this theorem. It has no value whatsoever. What's worse, you say a proof cannot be published. Whether the proof is hard or not: Everyone else doesn't know this, so trying to prove it yourself might lead to real headache. Publication of the proof, even if it isn't that difficult, solves the problem.

"Probably the result is of a kind that any person with sufficient expertise in your area who learns of its existence would be able to prove it."  This seems uncharitable.  Might not 'perhaps' work as well as 'probably', absent any more concrete evidence of the nature of the result or the difficulty of its proof?

@LSpice I'm sorry you find a completely subjective assessment of probabilities to be uncharitable. By the same logic someone else might find your "perhaps" to be uncharitable, and will suggest that I say instead "perhaps there is a slight possibility that maybe the result might be ...". See my point - where does it end? Since when is "concrete evidence" required to merely suggest that something appears probable to me?

The question doesn't say that the fellow knew how to prove it. Just that he confirmed it was right. Just like Euler stated regarding Goldbach's conjecture that it was "completely certain theorem" without being able to prove it.

The last paragraph was what I finally did - I put the proof in a larger paper that contained more original results. It worked quite well.

First, I would try discussing this with a couple other people in the area, just to make sure (1) it indeed seems not to be in the literature, and (2) it is worth trying to publish this.  (If you want, you can "discuss" with them by sending a preprint and asking for their opinion.)
Then, I would write this up, with part of the introduction being something like "I learned of this theorem from A, but was not able to find a proof in the literature."  I can't tell (and I guess you can't either) if A is considering this to be his own theorem or if this is just one of these theorems that experts are aware of but no one has bothered to write up.
Before submitting, I would send this preprint to A to ask if he has any comments, particularly on the attribution of credit to who first discovered the results.

This is a delicate situation, which you should handle as carefully as you can.  In particular, I strongly advise against publishing this paper without first discussing it with seniors mentors who know all the details of the situation, and then having a (possibly awkward but necessary) discussion with the speaker if your mentors think publishing could be the right idea.
The problem is that there's a tricky balancing act:

If the speaker plans to publish within a reasonable time period, then trying to scoop him by publishing first would be somewhere between incredibly unfriendly and unethical (even if you give him full credit for the theorem statement itself and anything else you learned in the talk).  It's not dishonest, but it's still a violation of the usual norms of professional behavior.  It would be a major blow to your reputation, and you'd be much better off not trying to publish.
If the speaker doesn't plan to publish it, or at least not without unreasonable delay, then it's OK for you to publish a proof while explaining the situation and giving appropriate credit.  But in the case of unreasonable delay there's an implied criticism of the speaker, which makes the situation extra contentious.  (Don't do this unless you're confident that the community will side with you.)

Unfortunately, nobody can say with any certainty where to draw the line for reasonable delay.  I think it's safe to say nobody would consider ten years reasonable, while many mathematicians would consider one year reasonable.  (It's common to give talks on work that you plan to write up for publication only after completing a few more things.)  A several year delay in writing something up is long but not unheard of.  There are also personal factors that can affect what's reasonable: you'll look really bad if the speaker goes around telling people "I intended to write up my proof of this theorem as part of a longer paper, but I got delayed due to my cancer treatments.  After 18 months someone who had been in the audience of my talk sent me his own write-up and threatened to publish it himself if I didn't quickly produce a paper of my own."
Maybe none of this matters.  It could be that the speaker doesn't care or has no intention of publishing this result, and would be happy to give you his blessing to publish it yourself.  It could be that he would be happy to write a joint paper (although you should be very reluctant to propose this, since it too involves awkward issues).  The only way to find out what he has in mind is to talk.

the optimal solution is to contact the speaker, but he does not seem to reply

Even if the speaker is reluctant to correspond in general, it seems likely that he would discuss this issue.  If you send a reasonable e-mail outlining your perspective and asking what his plans are, and you still hear nothing, then you can try to get in touch by other means.  For example, maybe a mutual acquaintance could put you in touch (such as an organizer of the seminar/conference at which he spoke).  Of course you need to handle this tactfully, but if you'd like to publish then you shouldn't give up on talking with the speaker if your first attempt fails, since there's too much at stake.

advise against publishing this paper with first discussing it with seniors .. I have to feeling you were going for without here?

@Ghanima, in cases like this I encourage you to suggest an edit to correct obvious errors, by clicking the "edit" button underneath the post.  Thank you for noting it!

@D.W. I am very reluctant with edits that change the intent of the original author (be it perceived or otherwise). I am also working under the assumption that edits <6 characters are not permitted for low rep users. Anyways, thanks for editing it :)

"After 18 months someone who had been in the audience of my talk sent me his own write-up and threatened to publish it himself if I didn't quickly produce a paper of my own." But in this case, what holds the speaker from quickly replying "I'm working on the paper, it should be out in a year, if you could be patient please."?

@Turion Assuming the email got through to him, he might be uncertain how to answer or try to answer more properly—not answering at all is bad but common (I'm afraid I'm guilty myself in other scenarios).

Make a collaborative paper with the speaker! Both of you will be stating this theorem and its proof.
UPDATE: The reasons behind this simple proposal are:

IMHO science and research are a team sport: the primary goal is knowledge, and as an old verse says: "two heads are better than one"
He's mentioned a theorem in an open/public speaking and his report papers, so basically by the international Bern's convention it is an actual claim, so he definitely has established an authorship right for that theorem if he's the first one speaking about it and formulating it
But since there's no proof supplied in any report, nor in papers - it leaves the proof claim all yours. Why don't you guys just join your forces and make the world better by opening a proven theorem to the whole world?
And - as far as I understand - you've proven it while doing your research, so it can be a very fruitful collaboration start for both of you - give it a try!

This is more of a comment than an answer.

@jakebeal May be, but in my point of view the full resolution of this situation is that simple

Can you please explain your reasoning, then?

@jakebeal updated with my main reasons of proposing the resolution

I agree with your suggestion, not with your Berne convention justification. When I tell you in a conference that P != NP I don't get any rights to anything (even if I've got a proof stashed in my drawer).

@jakebeal: It is an answer, because with the speaker as a collaborator, OP has (mostly) saved himself from any antagonistic action from the speaker's side. Also, the speaker will need to "sign his name" to whatever explanation the both of them give to where they got the proof from and what they know about another proof.

@einpoklum the Berne convention is applicable here only if this particular theorem was not known to people before and it was never published before, so that will be "the author's name sign claim". If it's well-known - of course, no claims are re-appearing.

@AlexeyVesnin: Even then, please provide a link to some text explaining why stating an abstract mathematical theorem gives you intellectual property rights according to the convention.

@einpoklum the Berne convention itself states: "As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires."

Mathematical theorems are not copyrightable, so I fail to see the relevance of the Berne convention.

Also, if two people independently discover a proof, one is not a derivative work of the other. (I think just stating a theorem does not really constitute a piece of work.)

I like this answer and the contained advice a lot. But in OP's situation, it seems the other author does not respond properly, so a joint paper seems out of the question.

@TobiasKildetoft In terms of "copyrighting" appicable to mathematical theorems the right to be called an author is the only one right, as far as I know - and that is the matter I'm talking about in my answer.

In game theory there are folk theorems, that is theorems that were discussed but for which no written proof was ever published. Then it turned out there were several ways to prove them. Eventually proofs were published: some buried in books and some as short papers, something like "A New Proof of the Folk Theorem". Could be a way to go in your case.

Here are the main situations where it's ethically ok to write up a result that someone else has already announced.  (Of course, even in these scenarios you should be extremely generous in giving the other person credit.)

The author has explicitly told you that it's ok for you to write it up.
It's a lemma that's not the main interesting part of their work, and you need this lemma as a part of something else interesting that you're working on.
The author is being completely irresponsible in terms of announcing results and never writing them up, to the point that it's causing major delays in the development of the field.

The situation you're discussing doesn't sound like it's anywhere close to justifying trying to publish someone else's result.

OP might have been justified including a proof in his other paper, but if the result is good enough on its own to be a standalone paper, then it's too good for 2.

But the other author should really answer "I'll soon publish this" and actually do it soon (unlike some of our colleagues ;-) ) to avoid 3.

@Turion: I totally agree!  But not replying to email, and taking a year or two longer to publish than you should are such utterly common venial sins.  3 is really for people who are being totally irresponsible, not just a normal slightly irresponsible.  (Though we should all strive to be more responsible.)

Depending on the complexity of the proof and the theorem, you need to consider a couple of things:

Is the theorem original to the speaker?
Is its validity intuitive?
Would the speaker have reason not to publish their own proof?
Does the proof add value to the theorem?

In essence, what it boils down to is that there may be solid reasons you have not been able to find a proof. In fact, this should at least give you enough pause to question the validity of your own proof. Otherwise, if the theorem is only in support of a model, the validity of the model verifies the validity of the theorem without required explicit proof.

Does the proof add value? Well, if there is no proof, then it isn't a theorem.

I probably should have said 'knowing the proof'. Some are so trivial that the knowing doesn't truly add value.

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: Михаил Горбунов-Посадов

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the downsides of using DOIs in reference sections of publications?
Few papers use DOIs in the reference section (example below). What are the downsides of using DOIs when listing references?

A typical example from one of the main conferences in the natural language processing field showing no DOI:

What field are you in? In my experience, most papers use DOIs in the reference section... as the addresses on hyperlinks, where they belong. If you are talking about explicit DOIs on the page, please say so explicitly. If you're talking about any DOI use at all, please specify your field.

@E.P. computer science, but curious about other fields as well.

And you're saying that few papers have linked references in the pdf? Or that the links in those references do not use DOIs?

@E.P. Papers have on average a low number of DOIs in the reference section. It's based on my experience, I don't have any statistics.

That still doesn't answer the question. Are you saying that you explicitly looked at the targets of the hyperlinks on the average pdf you're exposed to, and found them to link elsewhere (e.g. an explicit journal url)? Or that even journal-produced pdfs don't have hyperlinks?

As an example of what I mean, try for example any paper in Phys Rev X or New J Phys (example, example). Would you describe this as "uses DOIs" or not?

@E.P. they typically have neither hyperlinks nor DOI. I added one example in the question.

OK, fair enough - that really feels backwards. No physics journal I know of does that - they all follow the model I linked to.

@E.P. Well, that's good for you :) On my side I am resorting to look for programs to add links to a reference list as mentioned in a PDF, which is a pretty much a lost cause. Maybe something built on top of http://labs.crossref.org/pdfextract/ Though the link is just one issue, the lack of DOIs is a bit different.

To me, the primary reason for not including DOIs in the bibliography is the length restriction of the paper1. The DOI on its own doesn't work as a bibliographical entry, together with the human-readable information, it is redundant, and it adds roughly one line to the paper per entry. Therefore, a bibliography with DOIs is (by removing the DOIs) a welcome source of extra space for content that would otherwise have no space left.
1: In my field, length restrictions are typically tight (8 to 12 pages in two-column formats for "full papers") and to be taken seriously, and additionally aggravated by the fact that papers in my field typically include plenty of figures. Moreover, in my field, bibliographies are normally included in the length restriction or subject to their own length restriction (I have come across rules like "up to 8 pages, or up to 9 pages, if the last page only contains bibliography items").

This is absolutely the case for me.  When it's time to trim paper length, the DOIs are the first thing to go because removing them is "free."

DOIs are useful when it's a digital document and the link is clickable.  Quick and easy way to check a reference.  For printed media it's not particularly important.  But I expect that to be an issue for the journal to handle when doing the final formatting, and not so much for me, though it tends to be an extremely easy thing to remove since it's usually just a package option or inclusion.

@zibadawatimmy: Indeed - and for that purpose, I'd prefer if the LaTeX style to use either simply made the reference or the enumeration symbol a DOI-based link (without printing the full DOI), or if it put the link encoded as a clickable QR code on the margin next to each bibliography item (like that, the DOI link would even still be useful in printed versions). Unfortunately, no conference/journal styleguide in my field that I know of has bothered to introduce such a concept so far.

@O.R.Mapper  I think the most natural anchor for a DOI-based link is the title (or the journal info (journal, volume, pages, year) if the style omits titles).  This feature is actually fairly easy to add to any bibtex style.

@JeffE: That is true - so, while it is not something that a single set of authors can do for their papers, maybe such a feature could indeed be introduced rather easily, at least by some workshop organizers.

There's no downside for me, but finding them can be challenging. I just looked at several recent downloaded articles, and I don't see a DOI on the front page. So, I'd say my personal inertia keeps me from digging around on the Internet looking for a DOI to add to my BibTeX entries for each paper I want to cite. I try to add them when they're immediately presented on the papers I cite, since they do have to be found. But having to go look to find them makes them less likely for me to use. Not every paper has a DOI that is readily found. There's no step in my workflow when writing where I go through all my DOI-less citations and try to find one. Maybe that's a bad habit, but it is my habit. I suspect that's true for many authors, but I think you have a bad assumption that there's some downside to DOIs that prevents people from using them. It's not enough of a requirement yet that people do it because journals or the community demand having them on every citation so that people get over their inertia and go find them or figure out if every citation even has one.

Thanks, no assumption on my side :) Your answer is pretty much what I had in mind (more than the length restriction as in my field reference space is quite often unlimited), I wanted to know whether they are downsides I might not be aware of. Empty set is a valid answer.

@FranckDernoncourt, sorry, I smelled an assumption in your question, i.e. that there must be some bad reason that people don't use DOIs more since you ask about a "downside". My response was that I'm too lazy to always go find them not that there's necessarily a downside.

I can speak for mathematics, where virtually no papers are cited with DOIs. Indeed, I confess to only a vague understanding of what they are (and I suspect most mathematicians would say the same).
The only downsides of which I'm aware are that they would take some effort to look up, and take a little bit of space. I think the reason they aren't used is because mathematicians don't see any obvious need or benefit. At any rate, I glanced through the DOI FAQ just now and didn't see any compelling use case.
Perhaps this is because we have MathSciNet (Mathematical Reviews), a searchable database of essentially every modern math paper that has been published in a reputable journal, with reviews and links to online versions (when available). Indeed, sometimes citations include the "review number" from this database. I don't bother, because it is just as easy to look up papers by author name and title, but some people do.

One remark: if you get your bibtex entries from Mathscinet (and you should, because they are much better than any other source), then they already include a DOI. It's just a matter of changing your preamble to use a bibliography style that supports them, and they will be displayed.

And a second remark to explain the use case for DOIs: they are essentially permalinks for papers. That's all there is to say, basically. They are guaranteed not to become deadlinks, and they are shorter than the ones you see in your browser's bar.

They occupy precious space on a page.  For journals that publish in print, this costs money.  In other cases, papers are subject to page limits, and adding DOIs would take away from space that could be used to describe results.

Many venues (conferences especially) I've published in exclude the references in the page length, though they may limit the number of references you may have. I don't like this any more than a hard page limit, b/c I think the references are the references. Which one should I remove?

@BillBarth Absolutely not the reviewers' papers!

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


text:
Why did my advisor criticize my work for the first time at my Master's Thesis defense?
I had two advisors for my master thesis. One, as my first advisor would take the theoretical part to guide me. I have been meeting with my first advisor once every two week and he has been examining each part of the text. During these meetings, he continued to tell me how good I am doing and I should keep writing in this way. There were never real feedback, which could be pointing out my mistakes.
So I developed a full confident in myself and in the work. He offered me that I should consider starting a PhD with him.  In short, during the time I have been writing my masters thesis, he gave me all signs that he approves and likes my work.
My presentation took place a week ago, and was pretty much successful in my opinion and in the opinions of other people who came to listen. But at the end of the presentation, I received a totally different attitude from my first advisor. He started to criticize the work in a way he has never done in our meetings.
I was shocked about how my first advisor could not defend me and his own ideas in front of the committee and I am incredibly disappointed. Not only have I lost my belief in him and his judgments but also, I am now doubting my own skill of writing.
I am going to meet my first advisor next week and planning to talk about his twist of judgment and criticism. In this talk, I will question the PhD idea. I'm not sure though, how to put my anger, disappointment in right words, without making him feel that I am attacking to his personality. Also, when I asked him if we can meet earlier than next week, he refused. I have the feeling that he knows what i am going to say and now trying to construct a distance.
I know that trust is a very important issue in between the advisor and the advisee. If we will continue work together, I have to ask him an explanation but as I said, I'm afraid of my own frustration and if I cannot express myself in a right way.
My question is, would it be wise to express my disappointment in him, especially now that we will start to focus on my PhD? On the other hand, I need him to justify his inconsistency, which is quite crucial for me to keep working with him.

First: calm down. Second: please condense this question, you'll get better answers when you cut to the chase quicker.

Also: "any insights" isn't a good question for this site. Please try to identify which concrete question you want answered, and re-write your post accordingly.

Was his criticism actual disagreement or just playing the devil's advocate, and making you justify yourself? A defense is the place to, well... defend your work and show that you know what you were doing and why you were doing it.

It's not your advisor's job to defend you or your work at your defense.  It's your defense, which means it's your job to defend your work. On the other hand, it is your advisor's job to make sure you're prepared for the defense before you walk in.

Given that you speak of starting a PhD, I'm assuming you passed the defense - is that right? Did your critical first advisor sign off in the end?

@JeffE: You are right about the part that defense is a place to defense my work, but isn't it also a place for the advisor to defend or/and stand up for his actual judgements (which were always positive) about my work?

@NateEldredge: Yes, i passed the defense and my first advisor did not sign off in the end.

I see.  So Advisor 1 did not vote to pass your thesis?  That is definitely more serious than playing devil's advocate or asking tough questions for their own sake.

@NateEldredge: Advisor 1 was not fair at the end of my defense. According to his previous comments and judgements (during the time of processing my thesis) i could have get a higher grade. I know that Advisor 1 and 2 should decide together about the grade, but as i have written, the second was almost out/never cared to even read the whole thing. I fear this is an issue in between them.

I fear this is an issue in between them — This is exactly my read on your situation. Advisor 2 found something they did not like, and Advisor 1 decided to take Advisor 2's "side." The reason why Advisor 1 did this, however, cannot be determined: some possibilities could include 1) a valid point brought up by Advisor 2 that Advisor 1 agrees is a serious flaw in the work, or 2) Advisor 2's objection is baseless but Advisor 1 does not want to make waves.

@MadJack: Or simply, Advisor 1 is a doctor who is about to become a professor and Advisor 2 is already a professor? If thats the case, there is literally nothing i can do. And the fact that Advisor 1 already has exposed his hypocrisy to me, i am clueless how he would justify his behaviour when we meet and when i confront him.

I must be missing something.  If Advisor 1 didn't sign off on the thesis because he was taking Advisor 2's side, then presumably Advisor 2 also did not sign off on the thesis, either.  (I agree with Nate that his is significantly more serious than your original wording suggests.)  But then how did you pass the defense?

@JeffE: I'm sorry, im not a native english speaker, i am guessing i could not get what 'sign off' means; I passed the thesis and the defense, i'm graduated. The problem is a low grade and a poor, inconsistent explanation for it.

You'd be crazy to start a PhD with someone who behaved like this regardless of whether his last-minute criticisms were legitimate or not.

You cannot go after him for asking questions, that's his prerogative. You can choose to work on your PhD with him, or without him. That's what the conversation ought to be about.
Check out Crucial Confrontations:
http://www.frumi.com/images/uploads/CrucialConfrontations.pdf
With a crucial discussions like that, it is always good to give yourself a pep talk and imagine why would a rational being do something like that. Was is really that bad? Were you his first student, and was he nervous? Could he have had some personal issues to deal with? Perhaps he feels embarrassed for his behavior?
That will help you develop compassion and temper your anger (regardless how justifiable it might be). The goal is really to channel your emotions.
Then you are ready to develop a focus for your discussion. You can pose it as the discussion about your concerns about doing PhD with that advisor. Let's face it, you were not going to do PhD with him, there wouldn't be need for the conversation. Ask questions, at this point.
For example, I was surprised with the level of question received during the defense. I was left doubting the quality of my work, and now I am concerned about proceeding with PhD because my work is not as good as I thought it would be. What is your take? That should be enough to start the conversation without accusations.
Keep in mind, they are supposed to ask you hard questions at the defense, it is an exam. It might even be a compliment - he wouldn't have asked you these questions, if he didn't think you can handle them.  My advsor holds practice defenses. The labmates and the adviser ask hard questions then. For my defense practice, I was answering questions for an hour! If it wasn't for the practice, these questions would have come at the defense time.

+1 for "they are supposed to ask you hard questions at the defense". You can always tell that a candidate is weak when the questions are clearly meant to make her/him look better.

@afaust: Thank you very much for your response. My defense was quite good. I cannot say that the questions were difficult and my answers were precise. The problem was, his extremely polarized comments at the end. During our meetings within these 6 months, he had told me how well-organized the sections are, it is a very rare ability to connect different ideas as i have been doing. Then at the end of the defense, in front of the committee, he stated that i made both of them (himself and the second advisor) struggle to understand the work.

@afaust: It is as black and white; the first comments were beyond positive, almost flattering, and afterwards a complete different statement.
It was his request to be my first advisor, just as
it was his decision to meet frequently and examine each step of the work, which is why i never doubted his care/interest. Now i'm so puzzled by his contradictory statements, more than the grade.

@confused I see, it was the comments, not the questions that were the issue. And I understand how that can hurt. Still, you have to make the decision if you want to work with that person again. And the question to ask him was that you were surprised with the comments at the end, which left your doubting your work and ability to proceed with PhD. Was there something that prompted his new awareness of the weak writing that he was not aware before? See what he says.

@afaust: thank you for taking your time to respond.I'm pondering this on and on, its overwhelming. i cannot find an answer and its so damn difficult to calm down.

@confused I saw you other comments - it seems like a more junior adviser did not want to contradict a more senior one. You have the right to be hurt and outraged. This might be a learning experience for him, though. However, if I were you, I would run away from that adviser. PhD is more involved, with more twists and turns. You need to know that your adviser has your back. If that is the decision, speak with him to inform him that you would be pursuing PhD elsewhere. At that point, there isn't much sense in venting your stream at him. Ask him for letter of reference, leave on a high note.

Concurring with the comments above, I would suggest you:

Calm down
Consider (on your own, at first) whether you want to do the PhD with this supervisor given how the defence went (do you feel that the questions were valid and having them asked earlier would have made your research MUCH stronger and hence your PI should have asked them before, or were they more tough questions to show how good a student you really are).
Prepare for a polite but emotionally challenging meeting. DO NOT criticize or in any way express your "disappointment" in your supervisor - ask him why the questions he brought up were not asked during practice runs. Then consider (again) whether you want to commit to a PhD with him/her, depending on the answer.

Most importantly - understand that a Masters (and especially a PhD) is YOUR project, it's not your supervisors job to defend your ideas and results - it's YOURS...

It is also possible that your advisor felt inspired during your talk. You might have had discussions before, but seeing your work as a whole might have inspired an idea and the whole line of questions stem from that. That is actually what you want in the defense. And again, as draining as it is, it is a compliment.

@dvanic: Thank you for your answer. I'm afraid i could not make it clear within my post, the defense was good and the questions were not difficult or because i internalized the theme so good that i had no problems in answering them. On the contrary, i love to talk about this work and i was enjoying to present it. The problem was his statements at the end, as if, he was not there to approve and guide each step before. He told me on and on that the text is clear enough (each time we met/this would be almost 15 meetings) and right after the defense, he said it is not clear enough.

@confused Perhaps this just meant that when he got to see your work presented he saw things which needed criticism he hadn't noticed before when he was looking at the granular details of your work???

@dvanic thats kind of impossible, because they gave me a full grade for the defense.

I feel you, I had the exact same experience at larger level, at my PhD proposal defense.
I spoke with most of them individually to understand the issue. My advisor and my chair were very supportive before the defense and all of a sudden they acted as if they have never seen it before. No question wise but suggesting totally something different with unreasonable justification.
The fact that you are considering a PhD may have contributed to their response or else they wouldn't care much about a master thesis. That is probably because they are trying to shape the direction of your future work to particular area in their mind.
What I found out is that a Lot of office politics were involved in my committee. My advisor and chair didn't like each other much and my chair is more senior so she cared less to what he think nor he were able to stand for me or risk having a conflict with her for some student.
On the other hand, the PI who wanted something else were very influential (I didn't know at the beginning since he is from a different department). My chair listen to everything he says and after the meeting her suggestion was as if it was coming out of his mouth.
Observe them carefully so see what work or grants they are heading to and how they interact with each other. Who is more respected and who have more power in the department structure? Once you find out, I think everything will make sense. Bear in mind that your goal at the meeting is to know, not to complain or express emotions.

thank you for your response and understanding. as you have mentioned, i also have came to the conclusion that i was at the middle of a power game in between the members of my faculty.
well, the damage is done. what i sincerely would advise to all, be mindful of the combination of the advisors you chose. Do they get along? Are their disciplines paralel? Chose two professors, instead of a doctor and a professor combination. Do not underestimate your own ability, always seek for the opinions of other professors who are wise enough to spare themselves from these ugly power games.


text:
Is there a standard medical fitness certificate format for applicants to European universities?
I am from Southeast Asia and am applying to a university in Europe for a scholarship for a post graduate degree in management. The university is asking for a medical fitness certificate as part of this application.
The problem is that the university doesn't provide any kind of format for the medical fitness certificate. When I visited my doctor; as I am applying to a foreign university he recommended some kind of format.
I emailed the university to ask about this, but they did not respond yet.
So my question is, is there any kind of internationally recognized medical certificate format for this purpose? (If so, please provide a link.) Or can I have a simple letter on my doctor's letterhead stating my fitness of health?

It would probably also be helpful if you specify what you intend to study. Never heard of such a thing for engineering. If you want to study sports, it is much more understandable why they would ask for it. If the aim of the certificate is to make sure that scholarships are only handed to individuals with >=10 years of life expectence, a medical test result for professional vehicle steering may be suitable. The university will know best.

@DCTLib i am applying for a post graduate degree in management. Even i am confused why the university asked for a medical certificate but may be they want a guarantee that a student can complete their courses as higher education tends to increase stress.

I suspect that the right people to ask here are the staff at your local embassy. Certificates of good health, particularly in relation to European institutions, are more likely related to immigration requirements than university requirements. That will mean the embassy will be your best source of information about format. (In fact, there may only be specific doctors authorized to produce such certificates, and you may need to schedule an appointment with one of them, rather than obtain one from your personal primary care physician.)

In the US, universities in many (most?) states are bound by law to ensure that students meet specific immunization requirements, and so they require (at least) vaccination records from all students (both domestic and international). Some universities also require a basic medical history and/or a physical exam for incoming students.

Interesting point. I never had such inside the EU, but immigration did ask me for my medical insurance, so they can pass on the bills to my home country.


text:
How is it possible to get a masters in electrical engineering in one year?
I was asked this question, and did not think it was possible. Is it possible without an integrated degree (i.e., after a bachelor's)? I do not really know. If so, how?
I mean for the US, but don't take that as limiting your answer (if from the UK or elsewhere).

Indeed it is, and I did just that - though I spent the 3 years prior doing a BEng.

@Dave Tweed Yes, I thought that was obvious.

Though unless integrated, a masters in the UK at least is usually a 1.5 or 2 year course if done seperately.

Questions of the form "What universities offer programs meeting criteria X, Y, Z" are out of scope on Academia.SE (see the [help/on-topic]). So I've taken the liberty of removing that part of your question, as well as the link to EE meta.

By fulfilling the degree requirements in one year.

Only by careful planning, for someone just starting a B.S., or at latest, early in the second year.
Basically, the mind set has to be that of taking a B.S. and an M.S. in five years. The first year will consist of getting the basic and elective courses out of the way (which is why you need to start planning in that first year). Then take Electrical Engineering or related courses such as Physics in the next three years, followed by one year's worth of master courses.
An actual Master's degree has one year of "foundation" courses and one year of
courses needed to complete the degree. You can fulfill the foundation requirements by careful planning in your last three undergraduate years. Then the final (fifth) year "tops off" the M.S.

How is it possible to get a masters in 1 year? Simple, sign up for a course which offers a masters degree in 1 year. Perhaps not so simple.
In the UK, we have something called an integrated masters degree offered on many engineering courses. This typically follows a 3 year bachelors degree. The theory being that if you have just spent the last 3 years studying the same subject, you can then simply continue on using that as the foundation to build on to get a masters.
The reason a masters degree, which is not integrated, is usually (again from a UK perspective) 2 years, is that the first year is intended as almost a foundation year to get everyone up to speed with the more specialised skills that they may be missing. For example if you do a BSc in physics, you could then do an MSc in EE, but you wouldn't have the same electronics knowledge that somebody who was coming off a BEng in EE would have. In fact at the Uni I went to, during our third (final) bachelors year, we would frequently share modules with those doing the first year of their MSc for this very reason.
Now it may be possible if you have the relevant skills (e.g. if you have a good bachelors degree in the same subject) to be able to skip a year of a 2 year masters degree, and just do the final year. However this would be very much dependent on finding a Uni which would allow that, and probably also would require some form of aptitude test to ensure that you have the skills to do so. I doubt this would be a common offering though.
Again, this is a very UK centric answer. I'm not familiar with other countries systems. As far as I know, in the US, bachelors degrees are typically more like 4 years because the US education system ends high school at a level more equivalent to the GCSE (or possibly AS) level from a UK perspective. So the first year of Uni in the US is more like an A-level equivalent in the UK.


text:
Pros and cons of teaching assistantship as a masters student intending to go on to industry job
Background:
In the final year of my masters. Not seeking to apply for a PhD program in the future.
Situation:
I have a potential opportunity to TA a grad level course. Highly confused about taking it up. The opportunity is good however along with the 2 courses that I have to take for graduation, I also wanted to take up another extra course to gain new skills for use in the industry.
Ideally I would want to do both - the extra course and also the TA work. However since I have not taken up a TA opportunity before, I fear balancing 3 courses + the TA work would be a potential overload. However once I leave grad school, I won't be able to have a TA opportunity nor will I be able to take the extra course that is offered here. The TA work would be around 15-20 hours per week. I also have to pay for the extra course I take up.
Any ideas/suggestions would really help. Answers from an industry standpoint would really help.

What kind of TA job is it? Mostly grading? How much teaching will it be involved?

@scaaahu Creating new assignments, grading them, holding office hours for students (clarifying doubts class material and assignments) and grading exams.

I can't really comment on the financial side, that all depends on your own financial situation. The main advantage of TAing, besides the money, is that if you want to teach in the future in any capacity then getting some experience teaching is vital. If you don't plan to teach in the future, then the work experience is probably negligible. There are probably some "soft" benefits that could be useful in industry, such as learning to effectively condense and explain material in your field, but I doubt they would be very helpful in terms of getting hired.
In terms of balancing work, that also mostly depends on the courses and your own productivity. I will say that at many PhD programs, 3 courses + a 15-20 hour TAship is a pretty standard workload for the first couple years (assuming you don't do significant research your first year or so), so it's probably doable.

The biggest, and really only, con of being a TA is the time. This can have knock on effects on the number of credits you can register for and your research and learning.
There are a number of pros. They are usually paid and a great way to learn the material in the class. The level of understanding you need to teach is much higher than what you need to pass a class. This can both be usueful and look good on a CV. It is an easy way to gain teaching experience, although this is not particularly useful for industry jobs. It also often provides another person who can write a reference letter.

Good point about the reference letter. I can write much stronger letters for my TAs than I ever could for someone who was just a student in my class.

Being a teaching assistant takes up a lot of time, and can be excruciatingly tedious and repetitive (but you often can't do the work on autopilot).
If you don't need the tuition remission or the stipend, skip it.
Most TAships don't involve being an instructor of a course.  So just having TA experience, in general terms, on your CV doesn't necessarily help you when you're in the job search.


text:
Can someone who works in tech industry still publish research unrelated to their main job function?
It seems to be a common trend nowadays that high paying jobs in the tech industry tend to have both a combination of employees from STEM related fields and non-STEM related fields. Also, I know that companies like Google allow employees to spend 20% of their time to do tasks of their own interest. Given these two facts can an employee, say someone with a Ph.D in astrophysics who works at Google, still publish in journals such as Physical Review, Journal of Physics, etc? This would alleviate a lot of problems, since the difficulties to transition from industry to academia is quite troublesome. Thoughts?

As I understand it, the 20% time at Google was time to do work-related projects of your choice, rather than to do things unrelated to working at Google, so it's not relevant for pursuing side interests.  But nobody will stop you from doing research as a hobby and publishing it, as long as it's unrelated to your job and doesn't use your employer's resources.

Anecdotally, from looking at some profiles on Google Scholar, some people appear to have done it without problem.

The answer is rather specific to policy and intellectual property rules of given companies. Several tech companies are very strict about what their employees can do and publish. So I don't think it make much sense to "answer" the question here.

@user8001 can you give me some names, I'm interested to see what type of "outside" research they are doing?

@user119264 Mykola Kulishov (https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=0P84EIYAAAAJ) and his buddy Bernard Kress have been publishing theoretical papers in photonics together since at least 2012, with both working at different companies (and one currently at Google).

The path to publication at a company strongly depends on whether the employment contract includes a "we own your dreams and family photographs" clause.  Some technology companies insert such a clause, essentially claiming rights over anything that their employees do that could possibly create intellectual property.
If you are faced with an employment contract of this sort, there is generally a possibility of specifically exempting certain activities as a sort of "pre-existing condition."  If you exempt your research area or if you have a more liberal employment contract, then you can generally do whatever scientific research and publication you like outside of work, as long as you do not claim endorsement of the company in any way (e.g., you may not be able to list them as your official affiliation in the publications: check with your supervisor or company legal).
Alternatively, tech companies with broader interests may be entirely fine with you working on projects unrelated to your responsibilities while acting as a company employee, as long as it does not interfere with your ordinary job duties.  This is often particularly true for companies that have a consulting or contracting business model, since for such companies "unrelated research" can often turn into "new line of business."  Likewise for companies whose product line serves the R&D community.  Companies that have a tight focus on a non-R&D-related product line, however, are less likely to be receptive to such "side-project" work.


text:
Including unpublished manuscript with CV?
Should I attach my soon-to-be-published manuscript when submitting my CV?
I've just recently submitted my first paper to a scientific journal and want to apply for an internship at a certain institution. I'm pretty confident that my paper will be accepted but I know the review process is long. Should add it to my CV and write "under review" and attach the manuscript along with it? I feel as if them reading the manuscript will better my chances at my getting it.

If your field has a culture of using preprint servers, uploading the paper to a such and putting a reference to that on your CV is probably better (note that "under review by journal X" does not actually count for anything for the people reading the CV).

@TobiasKildetoft But if the paper is under review and not  yet accepted, won't the journal have second thoughts about accepting it if a 'free' version exists online.

In mathematics, the standard practice is to post preprints to the math arxiv, and list it on the CV as 'submitted' with a link to the arxiv copy. A few people seem to also include the name of the journal to which the paper has been submitted, but personally I find that somewhat tacky (the fact that I have chosen to submit to (say) the Annals of Mathematics does not mean it will/should be accepted there).

@user119264 Note the clause "If your field has a culture of using preprint servers." For instance, if you're working in math, physics, etc. where it's totally ok to disseminate preprints before publication, there's no reason not to list your manuscript on your CV with an active link to it. But if it's against the culture in your field or the policy of the particular journal you want to publish it in, you don't want to upload it. So, whether uploading a preprint is a good idea depends on the culture in your field (or, more importantly, the policy of that particular journal).

Related (possible duplicate): Should I post publications in preparation (or just submitted) on my CV?

As others have said, it depends on the culture of the discipline you are in.
I also think it is important where you are in your career. If you are an undergraduate, for example, with a manuscript on which you are an author, I would be impressed even without the acceptance yet. Most undergraduates in my field (biology) have not done much (or any) hands-on research so this would be a big CV booster! Since you say this is your first manuscript, I assume you are early in your career so it may help you stand out from your peers. I have seen graduate students and even professors include submitted manuscripts on CVs and personally have not found it tacky.

When you submit an application, you will usually be told what to include. Follow those rules first. If there is room to submit other materials then, providing your manuscript seems like a good idea. The usefulness of providing the manuscript will of course vary depending on the role of the position you seek. Posting the manuscript somewhere can be useful for several reasons but when applying for a post, people evaluating an application (one of probably many) will not want to have to spend time gathering the materials themselves, they want it provided with the application (unless clearly stated otherwise).
What you need to ask yourself if the manuscript will reflect well on you? From your answer, apparently so, but a poor manuscript should probably be avoided. An assessment of the future publishing of the manuscript is not something I generally would rely on.
The person or committee evaluating applications will chose to judge your manuscript as they see fit. Usually, a written thesis or manuscript can help to assess important aspects of a person's capability. A person evaluating the application will of course also try to judge if you are the sole originator or if others have a large imprint on the work. It is therefore important to provide a good account for what is truly yours and what can be attribute to others, i.e. list the contributorship to the work. If you want to see  discussions on such issues, please search the tag authorship on on contributorship here on academia.sx.

This is only for a 2-4 month summer internship. Will they  really spend that much time on reviewing my manuscript when they possibly have 1000s of other applications?

Post it on a preprint site such as arXiv for the physics / maths / Comp Sci folk or in Research Gate for us other mortals or even an institutional repository. Then list it is "in review", "submitted", "in-press" or whatever stage it is as in your CV. Link the item in your CV to the preprint at arXiv, RG, institution. This way you give them the choice. Visit the link or not. When published just change the link to the DOI in your CV.


text:
How should I start Undergraduate Research in Mathematics?
I am a college sophomore in US with double majors in mathematics and microbiology. My algorithmic biology research got me passionate about number theory and analysis. I started pursuing a mathematics major this Spring semester. I have been independently self-studying the number theory textbooks written by Niven/Zuckerman/Montgomery, Apostol, and Ireland/Rosen during this semester. As this semester progressed, I discovered that I am more interested in pure mathematics than applied aspects (computational biology, cryptography, etc.). I want to pursue a career as analytic number theorist and prove the Collatz conjecture and Erdos-Straus conjecture.
I have been thinking about doing number-theory research in my university (research university; huge mathematics department). I have been self-studying NT by myself and also regularly attending professional and graduate seminars on number theory. But, I did not do any pure mathematics research as an undergraduate. Should I visit NT professors in my university and ask them if I can do undergraduate research under them? If research is not possible (perhaps due to me lacking maturity), should I request to do independent reading under them and later proceed with research? How should I ask them? What should I address? If even independent reading is not desirable to them, what should I ask them or do by myself?
As for my mathematical background, I have been taking Calculus II (computational) and discrete mathematics. I will be taking Calculus III (vector calc.) over Summer, followed by Analysis I, Probability, Theoretical Linear Algebra in Fall 2015. As for my self-studying on this semester, I have been studying NT textbooks (mentioned above), proof methodologies, and basic linear algebra.

You are in a  research university with a huge math department. Do they offer "Introduction to Number Theory" course? If so, take it as soon as possible.

The responses to this MSE question may help: Undergraduate Mathematics Research.

While it is possible for a highly competent mathematician to dole out a doable problem for an undergraduate to solve over the summer, empirical data has proven otherwise - i.e., it's rather hard for an undergrad to prove anything original in number theory if only given a few weeks during the summer.
For an REU in NT, it might be more realistic to expect to read some interesting topics in number theory or perform some numerical analysis. Take it as a bonus if you obtain any original result.
Number theory is known to be a very difficult topic to get into. Before you decide to commit, take courses in complex analysis and abstract algebra. They are crucial if you want to read more advanced texts in number theory.
Good luck!

This depends a bit on where you are. You mention that you are at a large research university, presumably with a large graduate program - in these places I expect that it is pretty rare for an undergraduate to do research directly with a faculty member unless they are exceptionally talented. Faculty members have their own research programs and their own graduate students to direct, and coming up with interesting yet tractable problems is hard! However, it can't hurt to ask. Since you've been regularly attending seminars, you should know who the regular attendees are - send an email to someone to set up a meeting to chat (or drop by an open office hour), tell them what you've told us, and ask if they have any suggestions for what you should do next. Sending the email first gives them the chance to think about your meeting ahead of time, and if they're not interested they could just send an email back saying so. As for what exactly to ask, I would recommend just asking for suggestions and see what they come up with. If they don't seem inclined to do so, asking for suggestions on what to read/which courses to take is a good plan.
In a smaller liberal arts place, perhaps surprisingly, there are more opportunities for undergraduate research, and just generally more opportunities for interacting with faculty members.
However, there are other opportunities to get into research other than working directly with faculty. In a large research university, there are probably lots of graduate students and postdocs (who probably also attend the same seminars as you). They, particularly if they are interested in a more teaching-focused direction, might be willing to talk to you on some regular basis about your readings. (I recently heard of the University of Chicago Directed Reading program, which sounds pretty cool.)
Lastly, I know that you mentioned you wanted to do research at your own institution, but I'd like to ask you to reconsider. There are several summer research opportunities in mathematics, and they are a fantastic opportunity not only to learn math and get the experience of tackling a problem on your own (or in a small group), it's also good to just meet other people at your stage in life with similar interests, as well as mathematicians from other universities. If you're curious, here is a list of summer REUs (REU stands for Research Experiences for Undergraduates).

Should I visit NT professors in my university and ask them about if I can do undergraduate research under them? If research is not possible (perhaps due to my lacking maturity), should I request of doing independent reading under them and later proceed with the research? How should I ask them? What should I address? If even independent reading is not desirable to them, what should I ask to them or do in my own?

Don't be shy.  Go talk to some professors!  You can start the conversation by telling them what books you've been working with, and ask for some academic advising.  This means the professor will go over your plan (which courses to take, when, and in what order) with you.  The professor will likely confirm the wisdom of the tentative plan you came up with -- and then the conversation will blossom from there.  A professor may make some specific suggestions for coursework and/or independent study.  But maybe you should wait until you've got more coursework under your belt before proposing a research project.  (Still, someone may surprise you!)
You can start with a short email saying that you have fallen in love with number theory, and would like to make an appointment for some academic advising.
It is always a pleasure when two people who love the same thing get together for a chat.  You have nothing to fear.

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


text:
Deferring Admission to reapply for some PhD programs next year
This question is related to one of my previous questions:
Changing University in First year of Phd
I just completed my senior year. I have been accepted to a grad school (say University X).
I want to reapply for some PhD programs next year (fall). But, at the same time, I don't want to lose the only PhD seat I've got.
So, I was thinking about deferring the admission to University X in order to apply to few other universities for next fall.
I have 2 questions regarding this:

Should I mention about my deferred admission to Uni X in the Phd applications for next fall ? If I don't, Would it be treated as academic cheating ?
How much deferring should be enough ? (Next Spring, Next Summer or Next Fall)

What does X's web site etc. say about deferral? Is it permitted arbitrarily? Or only with a stated reason? Does it guarantee admission, or just let you skip filing a new application and paying fees?

Sometimes admission letters mention some details about whether or not deferrals are allowed. From what I've heard, deferrals are usually easily granted, however, any funding packages offered as part of the admission would generally be lost and you would have to reapply for them (unless you have a good reason).

@PatriciaShanahan......Yes it is permitted. I talked with the director of grad studies there and......nope I won't lose my financial support.

Deferring admission is not an automatic privilege at most universities at the doctoral level. You will typically need to justify why you want the deferral, and explain what you would do with the time. For instance, a Fulbright fellowship or a "service payback" on a fellowship might be valid justifications to a deferral; applying to other grad schools most certainly is not. If you are found to be deferring at one school to apply to another, you may lose out on admission to both, as the first school may retract their offer, and the second would likely not want to accept someone who might try and hold out on them.

"If you are found to be deferring at one school to apply to another, you may lose out on admission to both, as the first school may retract their offer, and the second would likely not want to accept someone who might try and hold out on them."  I'm not sure whether that's true.  I think it depends on the mutual understanding of the deferral.  In my experience a lot of students defer because they are not sure whether they want to enroll in the program, and a deferral would be granted if the admissions committee knows that they would admit the student if they applied the next year.

Thus it is not clear that a deferred offer is an accepted offer.  It might just be an "early admission" which the candidate can accept or decline later.

Of course if the university that has made an offer asks why the student wants to defer, they should be honest about their motivation.  If they get a deferral under those conditions, okay.

Let me also say that I would much rather a student who was strong enough on paper but unsure whether they wanted to commit to my graduate program take a year to think it over and explore other options and then let us know either way than enroll in the program and be half-hearted about it, later to drop out or transfer elsewhere.

I think the amount of leniency shown depends on the funding mechanisms within departments. If students are supported primarily by PI grants, allowing deferrals could make planning and scheduling more difficult.

@aiesmail: Yes, I agree and I had thought along similar lines.  In the kind of admissions I'm used to, we admit almost entirely based on general strength, which carries over to the following year with near perfect fidelity.  If you want to admit someone specifically to work with Professor A and who has specific skills and training B needed to know upon entry how to run the equipment necessary for project C: well, you probably want exactly one such student.

@aeismail......my funding over the first year will be through TA. And, I have been allowed for deferral, I just need to confirm it.

Ok....now I am really terrified after this answer. Am i really gonna lose my admission at Uni X ??

@zzz: Maybe.  The only way to find out is to discuss with them what sort of deferral they will allow.  They might be fine with it, or they might say that under these circumstances you should reapply to them next year (but have a good chance of being admitted).  The latter is how we handle it in my department: you can defer if you are definitely coming but are doing something else worthwhile for a year (which we have approved in advance), or you can reapply with the understanding that being admitted this year means your chances are good next year (but with no guarantee).

@PeteL.Clark: It's more like "we have X new funded projects that require students, so we need to admit at least X new students." That doesn't work if people can defer for whatever reason they like.

"If you are found to be deferring at one school to apply to another" - Programs should not and do not spy on students this way. At the end of the day, the enrollment to any program is at-will. Wanting to apply for another PhD program is not different from wanting to apply for jobs outside of academia. Students should be allowed to pursue their own best interests.

My understanding of a deferral is a bit different.  It is more like getting an early offer of admission for the following year.  Thus if you defer for a year you are not obligated to enroll in the program the following year.  Well really you are never obligated to enroll in a program until you sign paperwork to that effect -- which, for many PhD programs, takes place when the student actually enrolls in the program.  I also think that the most common reason for deferral is the OP's: that the student is just not fully committed to the PhD program she has been admitted to, and she hopes that the intervening year will clarify whether or not she should enroll.  I think that a student should be pursuing other options during that year...assuming that the student and the program are on the same page about this.
As others have said, of course there is nothing like a right of deferral: if the application was not solidly strong then presumably the answer will be "No" or "Not without a good, specific reason" (e.g. health or visa issues).  But I think that in many cases, an admissions committee can look at an application and say -- sure, we are confident that we would admit the student next year if they submitted the same application.  By telling the student that now, we make their eventual enrollment in our program the path of least resistance.
Anyway, what's for sure is that in order to defer admission you need to have a serious conversation with the faculty of the program in order to make sure that you both understand each other and your commitments.  In a comment on a previous answer I wrote that without mention to the contrary the understanding of deferral should be as in the first paragraph.  Especially in light of Prof. Ismail's answer I now think that was a mistake.  Sorry for giving bad advice in that regard.

@Peter L. Clark......Can you tell again what was your bad advice ??

@zzz: I wrote as a comment on my other answer: "@zzz: My understanding of deferment is that the student has the option, but not the obligation, to enroll in the following year. I think the expectation is that a student who defers admission is not fully committed but is contemplating other plans. So: yes, I think so, unless there is any specific information to the contrary." This suggests that you should assume a certain favorable understanding about deferral.  It has now become clear that you should not assume anything, but rather get an explicit understanding.

@zzz, you appear to be feeling rather stuck.  You've been accepted to a school you don't feel a real commitment to.  Do you attend and then transfer?  Do you tell them you want to wait a year, and hope you catch a better fish?  Do you just forget all about this school that accepted you, and spend a year feeling anxious?  None of these solutions seem to fit very well, so you go around and around.
I am going to suggest that you consider the following:

forget all about this school that you feel so lukewarm (or even
doubtful) about;
take this year to do something worthwhile.  Here are some examples:

enroll in a one-year master's program in a closely related field
take some undergraduate courses at the same institution you are about to graduate from (in a related field)
volunteer in an organization you deeply admire
get a job and build up some savings
audit some graduate level courses at a university you have a high opinion of (auditing costs a fraction of what it costs to enroll for credit)


text:
Accepting organizing duties in a year...but waiting for a new position
This question is strongly linked to a previous question of mine:
Tenured position to be started very soon…what to do with the old affiliation
Roughly speaking, my situation is the following: I am a non-tenured track researcher who had applied for permanent positions abroad and now I am waiting for notifications (to be known mid-July the latest).
In my present institution we are assumed to make lot of organization duties, and now the head of my research group is pushing me to organize a big conference in July 2016 (big for me means more than 300 people). This means that we should start preparing applications for grants as soon as possible, webdesign, and things like this that take a lot of time.
The organization of this conference is possibly one of the main examples to my current situation: it seems to me that the only talks we have with my boss are concerning the teaching and organizing things during 2016-2017 (which is definitely very far away of my expectations to be in my present institution).
I know, due to the really good advices in the previous post I linked, that I should keep prudent saying things about my application abroad (namely, do not say a word until something is clearer), but now every day he is coming with this type of questions, and this starts being mentally tiring.
How should I manage this?
A more general question (that would contribute in more general sense to the forum) is the following: while having a non-tenured position (3-5 years), which is the horizon that one may have in order to compromise himself/herself with certain duties (organization, applying for research projects that cannot be moved from a country to another, student advising, teaching duties,...)?
Thank you in advances for the suggestions

It's not so uncommon for a "local" conference organizer to have moved to another institution by the time of the conference, but it's good if there are some actual local conference organizers.  Since you are part of a research group, it seems reasonable that you will not need to be a sole organizer (this wasn't 100% clear from your question).  If you are being asked to be the "primary" organizer, you can still do that remotely, but it also makes sense to ask to instead co-organize it with other people.
So I think the main thing you should consider is: how much do you want to be involved with such a conference, regardless of where you'll be?
Note organizing duties usually count as "professional service" rather than "university service," and organizing conferences can have positive benefits for your career.  If you are doing this as "professional service" rather than as part of your job duties (and it sounds like this is the case since you are getting asked to do it, rather than told to do it), once you make a committment, you should typically follow through.  However, if you do move, then co-organizers are generally pretty understanding that certain aspects are harder for you to do remotely.

I would tell the head of the research group that you are honored that he has selected you to play an important role in the organizing of the conference, and that you would be happy to accept this role, and will do your very best to perform to the best of your abilities in this role, but that you cannot take sole responsibility for this role, in other words, you can only fulfill this duty if you can share the responsibility with a co-organizer.  If necessary, make a vague, hand-waving excuse having to do with whatever reason you think might go over best (elder care, new baby, health problems, dealing with several deadlines, New Year's resolution to find a better work-life balance, etc.).
If you have one or two names to suggest for sharing the "honor", so much the better.
Basically, your approach to the organizing role needs to be to document, document, document, to make it easier for someone else to step in if you leave.
Yes, it is emotionally tiring to have to lead a double life, but that is the price you have to pay to make your desired move.  I admire your courage.