text:
What is the route to a postdoc without a PhD supervisor?
I really like my PhD! I'm a 3rd year and need to begin thinking about next steps.
I've found the area of physics I can truly get behind (and I've engaged with a lot of different topics, in and out of physics). The catch? I have no scientific supervision.
My funding arrangements 'changed' somewhat; my funding is no longer tied to a national laboratory and the associated horrors. This left only one supervisor - a busy professor who runs many things. I used the opportunity to radically change the focus of the PhD and I'm exploring methods that my supervisor has no clue about whatsoever. My supervisor doesn't try to direct me/the work, instead choosing to review any additions to my thesis. We get on okay, and I like this arrangement. I feel that I'm producing new results (truthfully not so much of that before), and I feel sure I want to continue in physics (not necessarily in the exact area I'm in; just so long as it uses the methods I'm becoming involved with).
With a view to postdocs, I feel I'm nailing the independent research skills - from setting the research question to its execution, I'm a one-man-research team. However, I cannot escape the concerns that I could be a better researcher if I had an expert guide me. On a purely practical level, I also need references to apply for a postdoc. Where is that going to come from now? Most of the group are spread out in various (external) labs, so I don't interact with anyone except my supervisor now.
What path should I consider taking if I want to remain in research given little-to-no supervisor input?

Offhand... I'd worry that you're orphan-izing yourself. No one will be able to give you substantive letters of recommendation, comments on your work, etc. Eventually, sure, we all do want to be independent of "judgement", but, to my perception, you are trying this far toooo early.

"I don't interact with anyone except my supervisor now." This is the core of the problem, the rest of your concerns are consequences of this. Obtain travel funding, visit other groups working on your topic. In particular, visit the groups where you would potentially like to do a postdoc. Work on establishing in-person relationships with significant researchers in your subfield.

What university are you at that they think this is OK? You should never have fallen between the cracks like this if you're at a reputable university. You should definitely voice your concerns to the department head or the ombudsman if you have one. You should be assigned an advisor that is able to guide you through your PhD.

@CrisLuengo falling through the cracks is a surviving strategy that may bring you very far. It allows you to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and things "you absolutely must do according to the program/plan/project" which 99% of the time turns out stupid useless byzantinism, instead focusing on things you absoultely need to do for your own progress. Let all PhD get fully funded and fall through the cracks, finding their way their own way!

which field are you in?

@EarlGrey That is the most bizarre statement I have seen in a long time. A PHD advisor is not going to have you fill out forms, they’re going to teach you how to do research. Without an advisor you still have to do all the same paperwork to get your PHD, but without any help. Imagine spending 4 years writing a thesis, and then the reviewers are like “no, this is shite, this is not a PHD.”

@CrisLuengo we are talking about falling through the cracks, not becoming an heremit, i.e. still participating to conferences and publishing papers ... just without a supervisor fully understanding of the topic: PhD is therefore facing the "crowd" with their own ideas and no backing: what could be a possibly better gym for ideas?

@CrisLuengo It's strange to respond to "I used the opportunity to radically change the focus of the PhD" with "What university are you at that they think this is OK?". How is it the university's fault that the OP proactively decided that they want to change the topic of their PhD? Or is the university somehow obliged to provide supervision for whatever topics a PhD student decides to pursue on their own in the middle of their PhD studies?

@Adam from what you’re saying I’m guessing this is not true everywhere, but yes, I expect the university to be responsible for the education of their students.

@CrisLuengo Me too, but to repeat myself: how is it the university's fault that the OP unilaterally decided to change the topic of their PhD in the middle of their PhD studies? If I get accepted to do a PhD in black hole physics but suddenly in the middle of my PhD I decide to start working on fluid dynamics, how is it the university's responsibility to provide me with an advisor on the new topic?

@AdamPřenosil That is not something a PhD program should accept, the research program should be set by the student together with the advisor (or advisory team in some places). But anyway that is not what happened here. "Funding arrangements changed", OP's research was with a national laboratory (a 3rd party outside the university), and that collaboration was terminated. The university should now pick up this student and help them with a new supervisory team and probably a new research plan, not let them fend for themselves.

@AdamPřenosil At the university where I worked at, this situation would not have been allowed at all. When a student had a fallout with their advisor, when a student wanted to do something totally different, when an external research partner disappeared out of the equation, a solution was always found, with a new advisory team, a new research direction, whatever. But there I had never seen a student in a situation without proper advisors. You simply couldn't graduate that way, because the advisors direct the studies.

@CrisLuengo I think you are missing the part where, although the change in funding arrangements was due to circumstances beyond the student's control, the decision to "use the opportunity to radically change the focus of their PhD" came from the student. They were not left hanging, they were assigned a different advisor on a presumably related topic, but instead they "took the opportunity" to do something else. The university might be to blame for the funding issue, but I find it unreasonable to blame the university for the consequences of the OP's decision to change topics.

In what area of physics are you working? How soon is your defense? Are you looking for a postdoc in Europe or in the US?

@AdamPřenosil after the lab pulled their involvement, my supervisor asked me "now what's the plan?". I don't know if that was rhetorical, but as it happened I did. He could have said "actually, I'm your supervisor and I want you to do X". However, this guy has never given me scientific supervision - that was always the national lab supervisor. I'm used to being invited to lunch to tell him what I have been doing, but not to expect any actual guidance. So frankly I'm not surprised that A) he asked me what to do next B) didn't stop me when I said I had an idea.

@Michael_1812 I've got 1.5-2 years before I have submit my thesis. I probably don't mind whether the US or Europe. In terms of what I do, whilst I don't want to go into specifics as I'm now concerned my situation is so different (ergo identifyiable) that I'll just say that I'm working in a computational area. Although I wouldn't describe myself as a theorist (to me that's pen & paper), I think in practise a lot of computational (computing-based) physics research is hosted under the auspicses of theory groups. Does make me worry - they're not exactly known to be fountains of funding!

@RealDisinformation The area of quantum computing is now developing at such a pace, and is funded so generously on both sides of the pond, that almost anyone who is proficient in computing and acquainted with quantum physics has their chance in that area. Some food for thought...

I think you're in a dangerous spot. A PhD is a research apprenticeship. If an electrician apprentice told you that they don't actually have anyone guiding them but they're doing a real good job connecting wires together and feeling really confident they found electricity because they're seeing sparks creating lots of light and everything and that seems like most of the job, I think you'd be worried.
Lots of people come here with problems finding a letter of recommendation after their PhD because their advisor suddenly turned evil when the student wanted something reasonable like to graduate, or stopped responding, or died. You may have the same problem as them or your token advisor may write some brilliant letter for you despite their lack of involvement, who knows. I'm more worried that you aren't getting the day to day research mentorship. I'm worried when your thesis is done you'll find it's not actually as good as you thought it was, for reasons you could never have been expected to grasp on your own. Research isn't easy. PhD programs wouldn't exist if everyone could just automatically do research on their own without guidance.
I don't know how you should move to find a real advisor, but I think it's something you should consider necessary and act accordingly. Maybe collaboration is the way to go, and maybe your advisor can help you find collaborators that you can work with more directly. This might disrupt your preferred workflow but I don't think that workflow is sustainable at the career stage you're at. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm right I'd hate for you to have lost the chance to move on.

There are many instances of bad or very light supervision of PhDs, several of the students are good and well qualified  anyway and some will make their way into an academic career (personally I had a supervisor who did what he could and did it well, however due to illness he was basically absent 80% of the time I did my PhD). I think this answer is too negative on the possibility of doing good work and learning well without much supervision.

@ChristianHennig I worry a bit about survivorship bias in that sort of thing. For every one that continues on academia how many don't even finish the PhD? It's possible of course but I don't believe it's the best path for someone early enough in the process to adjust.

@BryanKrause Well, some people also fail despite having good supervisors. I agree that the probability for success is lower without; what I write isn't meant to dispute that, but here we apparently have somebody with ambition and drive. Nobody here can assess their abilities and the quality of their work, so I don't see much reason for discouraging them, given that positive examples exist.

Generally I'm rather wary of the mindset according to which the quality of a young researcher is mainly a product of the quality of their supervisor. I am aware that some people in admission commissions look at the names of the recommendation letter writers in the first place in order to assess an applicant. I think that this is very bad for academia and part of why some fields are rightly accused of being old (white) boy networks.Of course being realistic I have to acknowledge that it happens in some places, but good luck to everyone who gets in using a more self guided approach!

@ChristianHennig It's not just lack of supervision, they're not interacting regularly with anyone who can give them feedback.

I'll add that a lot can go wrong in research that makes it hard to publish, whether that's fair or not (unless you're willing to make stuff up). It's not that I think supervisors should have as much weight in assessment as they do, but sometimes that's all you've got.

I also did a PhD in a group where there was no expertise in what I did, only tangential one, making me a bit of a scientific orphan.
I am still in academia and I think doing OK, so it is possible to get a postdoc after a PhD like that. I will describe my experience, which may be generalizable, or may be I was lucky, take it with a grain of salt.
What I did after my PhD is find a postdoc in exactly the field I did my PhD in. This helped because even with little interaction with researchers on my field, I still had 4 years of work experience on it, so you learn something. Using @Bryan's allegory, I would actually trust an electrician that learned everything by themselves, if they have been learning for 4 years and can show successful completed projects (papers). That said, moving into a group doing the same thing I had been working on for 4 years helped me pick up a ton of things that I should have learned in my PhD, but hadn't, so with a bit of hard work, (I think) I got myself into the expected level of a supervised PhD+postoc by the end of my postdoc, i.e. I used the postdoc opportunity to catch up with everyone else.
While your concerns for finding a postdoc are completely valid, it will indeed be much easier to find one if you already show expertise on the exact field of the job, rather than a tangential one. Reference letters are super important, but proven experience doing the actual job counts more, I think.
Good luck!

My experience resonates with yours, although I did less of the catch-up during the postdoc, because I was already thinking what to do next, so I skipped the catch up and I worked on the part "how to optimize complementary knowledge to get fundings".
To add another anedoctal point: I got a professorship afterwards.

In my view a major thing is that you need to make yourself known. Particularly go to conferences, present your work, and talk with people who do related things. If at all possible it is also good to do visits or even internships at research groups that do related works. Also always look for funding opportunities. Contacts are needed for moving forward in Academia, as is initiative in aspects other than just doing good research and learning, particularly when it comes to securing funding. A supervisor who helps you to get to the right places and know the right people can help a lot. If you don't have such a supervisor, you've got to try a bit harder, but for sure it can work out.

I would add to "talk to people who do related things" the sentence "and try to arrange a visit at their group of some weeks/months. OP is a bit late to do so, but it is very helpful for OP to spend some time in a group doing what OP is doing, to learn some "tricks of the field" and even  to get a possible reference (I stress the helpful, not necessary).

@EarlGrey Good point, added.

Get in touch with the people in physics that would care about your work. If your work is on arxiv, send a link around. Go to small conferences where you can network with people who might be potential postdoc advisors. If they find you smart and personable in face to face interactions, then a letter becomes less important.

I think it is important to be aware that your current perception of your situation is just that, your perception. It may or may not be what your advisor views you as (nor is it true that their perception of you is accurate).
I can give you some anecdotal experience from my end as both a graduate student and an advisor.
As a graduate student I was very independent, though I had a great relationship with my Ph.D. advisor. I managed to publish prolifically with his help, but my projects were tangential to his (in my fields, this is less common, you work as a lab group not as individual researchers). I was frustrated things would take longer because "he had no clue about all these advanced things I knew". In reality he was focused on other items which were more germane to his interests, and as I look back now, equally if not more interesting to what I came up with. So while I did learn independence, I likely could have benefited more from his direct expertise. It's been a long time since I graduated now, but I still keep in touch with my advisor - as a friend. We email back and forth, we text, ask each other for advice etc. I can truly appreciate how absolutely brilliant this man is beneath his soft-spoken and easy-going demeanor. I wish I took more advantage of that as a student. I think at this stage of my career I am more successful than he was (numbers wise), but I don't think I will ever have his deep insight, which I lost out on because I was just too smart to humble myself and learn from him.
As an advisor, I have had brilliant independent students, and I have also had un-coachable students. I have had more of the latter than the former. You may think you are a brilliant independent researcher, but you may just be perceived as un-coachable, but smart enough to get through a PhD (which is your case? I have no clue, that's between you and your advisor). Do not fall into the latter trap. Take advantage of the support structure inherent to being a student and learn from it, and harness it so you can grow into a well-rounded researcher.
People tend to repeat situations, and you may just find yourself as a postdoc with an advisor who also has "no clue whatsoever" about all the brilliant things you do. Maybe the role of the advisor is not to know every minutiae of your approach, but rather help guide you towards becoming a better independent researcher - part of that is you actively and openly engaging with them towards that goal.

Find co-authors in your field
Others have pointed out the precariousness of your approach. However, if you intend to pursue this course, there are tactics to minimize the risk, and this is one of them.
A senior co-author can provide many (though not all) of the things an absent supervisor can. They can teach you certain tricks of the publication process, put you in touch with other people in the field, and provide tailored advice. More importantly, they can support you in your search for the next job.
This isn't easy to do at first. It helps if you have some results (pre)-published already. After that, you just need to be bold. Go to conferences and workshops. If there's budget for it, an internship/research visit at a lab in your field might be a good idea (and your supervisor is likely to see the benefit of it).


text:
If a reference is no longer publicly available, should you include the proofs of the results you cite from it?
I am writing a math paper and planning to cite 1-2 results from a non-published preprint article that I had found online a couple years ago. The original link to the document no longer works, since it was hosted on a private webpage, not published on a server such as arXiv. However, I have a PDF copy of the article and could reproduce the proofs verbatim.
For a normal journal article, I would usually just include the reference without including the proof. However, since this document has become no longer openly accessible, should I reproduce the proofs in my paper?

Did you try to contact the author(s) of that paper?

@MoisheKohan Yes, the email included in the note gives a bounce-back error, and I couldn't find any other contact info online.

(As a no-longer academic) it seems to me more important than normal to double-check the validity of these results... it might be that the reason the paper never made it beyond a private server is that the author, or a reviewer, found problems with it.

What do modern papers that cite proofs from the 1800's do?  A link to an article is not the only way to get an article.  My personal line for whether something is available to a typical academic is whether it's possible to get it via interlibrary loan.

If the article you're talking about is new-ish, @TripeHound's warning about verifying it's correctness before relying on it is vey valid.

@ScottSeidman There's a slight difference in that said proofs published in the 1800's are part of the formal "academic record", and some archive somewhere likely has a copy and can vouch for its provenance, even if you would need to make an appointment and travel internationally to actually see it. (Or if the manuscript is no longer extant, there's an official record of its prior existence & contents.) This contrasts with some random personal website which never previously was included in the academic conversation, and where the only record of it is "trust me, bro, it totally used to exist".

@ScottSeidman the historically minded will try to cite the original article, but it's much easier to reference a recent textbook with the result.

@R.M. -- oops -- I missed "preprint".  That does change things.  Frankly, if a preprint disappears, without a final version appearing someplace, I'd just run away from it.

Yes. If you claim a mathematical result, you must provide readers of your paper a means to establish the correctness of the result. If your proof relies on other people’s work, the details of that work must be accessible to your readers, and if they aren’t, you need to include them.
If I were the referee of your paper I would insist that those proof details be made available. As @JoshuaZ suggests, it would be fine to include them in an appendix in the arXiv version of your paper but not in the journal version. (But including them in the journal version may perhaps serve the readers better in some circumstances.)
Of course, you have the duty to cite the original author and give them credit for their results and proofs even if their paper is not publicly available.
You should also respect the author’s copyright. I’d be careful with quoting the proofs verbatim unless they are very short or are really lacking in any distinctive expressiveness. Also, stylistically it may be preferable to write the proofs in your own words, as that would give your paper a more coherent and consistent feel. But I don’t see the copyright issue as very important here. The needs of the scientific community you are trying to serve appear to me to be a more compelling consideration (and in one or two occasions when I had to choose between strict adherence to copyright and the needs of my community, I chose the latter).
Finally, I should add that even citing results from a preprint that is publicly available warrants some caution. Again, if I’m the referee of a paper claiming that X is true because it follows from Y, where Y is a result claimed in a preprint Y that’s not yet accepted to a peer-reviewed journal, that would give me some cause for concern. This should be judged on a case by case basis (depending on the complexity of the results claimed and their proofs, and other factors), but at the very least it’s not automatically acceptable to ask your readers to trust that everything stated in an unpublished preprint is correct, whether the preprint is available or not. There have even been situations where I cited results from a published paper, and because the proofs in that paper lacked what I considered to be sufficient detail, I felt compelled to add those details in to my own paper. (This was no easy feat, and in at least one case it also made my paper much longer and probably more difficult to get published in a good journal as a result. But I felt it was important to do, and I’m glad I did it; so are others, I believe.)

Plus, if the results in question are particularly useful, you'd be doing other people a real service by providing an easily accessible and citable account (to be cited in addition to the original source, of course). Dubious or missing proofs in the literature can be a real hindrance to progress.

You don't have to do this, but it is not a bad idea. My suggestion would be to include rewritten proofs of what you need in your own paper, or at least the version on the arxiv, and include them there. Citing something that is not accessible anymore is essentially akin to the classic proof by citing to private communication, which is really not helpful. (Worse; sometimes the proofs sketched this way are just wrong.) Edit to add since there is apparently some confusion about this answer in the comments: you still absolutely have to cite where the proofs came from originally even when including your own rewrites of them.
Depending on the context and the journal your own work is going in, you may want to just include those proofs in an appendix which is only on the arxiv version.
Note that you cannot upload the paper itself or segments of it to the arxiv, for both copyright and intellectual honesty issues.

Citing is giving properly credit to people who did their work. Without proper citation, you would plagiarize.

@usr1234567 Citing is important for giving proper credit. But in math that's very much not the only thing it is doing. It is epistemologically that people can trace any claimed proof.

Unhelpful citation: "A proof of this is given in [inaccessible], so we don't include it."  Very helpful citation: "We reproduce here the proof the proof of [inaccessible]."  (Although be careful of copyright issues in the latter.)

I second @usr1234567 -- I think it is a major violation of research ethics to include proofs in your paper that are rewriting material from another work without correctly attributing them to said work. Even if the work in question is obscure and no longer available.

@a3nm It seems like there's some confusion here. No one is saying here that the original author should not be credited! I'll edit the answer to make that clear.

Sounds good. I was confused by "Citing something that is not accessible anymore is essentially akin to the classic proof by citing to private communication, which is really not helpful." It's clearer now thanks

Can you clarify what “this” refers to in your sentence “You don’t have to do this”? If “this” refers to OP finding a way to make available to readers of their paper the proofs from the inaccessible paper, your claim that OP doesn’t have to do it is demonstrably false (since as I said, as a referee I cannot imagine being okay with those proofs not being available, and will literally require it as a condition to recommending publication).

@DanRomik I probably would as a referee also, but others will not. And there are some prominent mathematical works that have gotten repeated circulation but were never formally published. For example, many of the works of Glenn Stevens on automorphic forms have only been circulated in manuscript form. Another issue that might weigh is whether any of one's own claims depend on the claims in question directly. Citing result X as a Lemma one needs would make me be more concerned than if they cite an unavailable result X in part of their into for a broader context of what is known about a problem.

Take care in what you include. Even though the original can't be found, someone, probably the original author, holds copyright to what you have. If you publish it verbatim it will be a copyright violation and if you don't credit it, it will also be plagiarism.
You should treat it as you would any source that you use with only limited quotations and full citation. You can paraphrase the contents with citation. You can publish independent proofs, though it is a judgement call what is "independent". You can say that such and such was proved by so and so and note any essential steps in the proof that would permit others to verify the validity.
For a citation, you can list the original link and a notation that it is unavailable. You might also check to see if it was captured by the Wayback Machine before it disappeared.
But take care. Don't violate copyright even if there is no chance of it being discovered. You need an author's permission to republish their work, even with citation.

I think this is a special case. It is in the public interest and fair use that such a proof be presented, as long as OP gives proper credit to the original source. I do not think it would be right to - say - let Galois' results disappear in Nirvana (even if properly credited) even if they had been formally copyrighted. It's bad enough that things like that happen to movies. The Wayback machine is of course, the best solution if it works.

@CaptainEmacs, are you saying that if you have an old but still in copyright paper and can't find any currently available source for it, that you should be allowed to republish it without permission? You surprise me, actually. Things do disappear. Things are independently rediscovered. Évariste Galois is out of copyright, by the way.

Not to republish it, but restate it - I do not think it was the purpose of OP to just plain republishing it? Seriously, I cannot believe that one should knowingly throw away knowledge, just because of copyright. That would amount to legal vandalism. And Galois was an example - had they modern copyright then, would his results have to be just buried by law? This just doesn't make sense to me. I would think that restating the results and proofs falls under fair use. The library of Alexandria was burnt down 3 times, and it took millenia to rediscover some results; rediscovery is not trivial.

Yes, keyword restating (with citation, such as it may be). (Constantly thinking in terms of "scoring points by publication [sic]" is a corruptive way of thinking about making collective progress in understanding...)

@CaptainEmacs It's ironic; the Library of Alexandria is both a good and bad example here? Contrary to popular belief, there wasn't anything lost specifically by the burning of the Library of Alexandria, because there were no documents whose only copies were in that library. That's because it worked like all its contemporary libraries did: back then, each library would have scribes that would receive books either from their authors or from other libraries, copy them, and return the originals, just as you're arguing for (which I also agree with).

@Idran The whole point of the library was that the knowledge was concentrated and organized. Of course, fragments were flying around all over the place, but, until recent times, you never knew what was there, and where, what was lost, or what just had disappeared somewhere into an obscure monastery. Knowledge is worth much more when it is catalogued, and mapped. So, I stand by the example. An excellent case in point is given in "The Archimedes Codex". Highly recommended if you are interested in the question. A real-life Indiana Jones story.

@Idran "There wasn't anything lost specifically" - to add to my last point, we know of many lost works of Greek authors. They must have been in the Library. Maybe elsewhere, but there is absolutely no chance to find them, except by sheer luck (see my book recommendation).

@CaptainEmacs No, there were dozens of libraries in the same era as the Library of Alexandria; it wasn't the only one or even the first one, just the largest one and most famous one today. You're right that it must have had copies of those documents, but many other libraries that weren't burnt also likely had copies of them that were also lost just from pure time. There's essentially no original documents from that time period that survive to today because papyrus and paper simply don't last that long under normal conditions; the only ones we still have at all are copies of copies of copies.

@CaptainEmacs I'll look into that book, though; thanks for the recommendation!

I am not sure what the issue is here.  Anything can be referenced as long as you cite correctly (and, of course, don't plagiarize). For example, I have cited redacted papers in the past to highlight the error - even though such articles have subsequently become 'unavailable'. There is no privilege that prevents any work from being cited for advancing knowledge. That freedom is a fundamental tenet of what underlies the contribution to literature that academia so treasures.
In your specific example, I would cite as correctly as possible and then add a footnote that the reference is now unavailable but you acquired a copy when it was available (or words to that effect).

The main question is whether to include the proof in the OP's article or not. It was less about how to cite.

If you have a clear recollection of what was done in that non-published article, you can try to find similar work out there as alternatives.
Or you can specifically look for the works of the same author, as he could have published it under another name or on another platform. Better yet, if you know the author and have their contact information, ask for the article directly, or maybe its pre-print.
If the proofs are not too lengthy, you can try to reproduce them in your paper. Or, you could write a separate document for the proofs yourself and post it online, then reference it in your main paper.

For clarity, my last point means that the document online is meant as a write-up of the proofs, this helps if the proofs are just too long to include

Perhaps my post was unclear, but I have a PDF copy of the document.

I don't think you can post someone else's work to arXiv, but the other options might work.

I agree that arXiv and institute's repo is basically impossible without the permission of the author, so you would need to contact the author anyway.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why is my arXiv paper not generating an arXiv watermark?
The paper I submitted was automatically processed by arXiv without a watermark. All other normal papers have the arXiv watermark on the left side of the first page.

See the question Why doesn't my paper have the arXiv id stamped on the side of the page? from arXiv's FAQ. Stamping is not supported for submissions in PDF, docx or HTML format. For the typical case of TeX submissions, they offer two possible reasons:

TeX (and latex etc.) submissions

The stamping may have been explicitly disabled. This facility is provided for journals using arXiv that wish the output to look as similar as possible to the journal version.
There may be commands in the TeX source or an included macro package that write over the stamp making it invisible. This could be the result of a figure that goes to the edge of the page, or something that "clears the page". For example, using the color package and setting the pagecolor will erase the page (even if the color is white). To fix, simply comment out the \pagecolor command.

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


text:
Detect cheating in Microsoft Excel submissions
I have a homework assignment where I require students to create a set of pivot charts in Microsoft Excel. I know that I can reduce cheating by changing datasets or chart specifications around, but because of the complexity of the assignments and my practical constraints in not being able to mark more than five or so different versions, this does not prevent students from finding those who have the same specifications as themselves and copying among themselves. (I am coordinating a course with over 700 students, so I can only do so much as far as alternate versions go. The students are well connected to each other by Facebook, so communicating among each is quite feasible for those who want to cheat.)
On one hand, in my situation, creating alternate versions is difficult because of the complexity of the assignment, and its effectiveness is limited because hard-working cheaters can cheat anyways. On the other hand, I believe that if I can effectively detect cheating after the fact, then giving a strong warning to students about this could serve as an effective deterrent that should greatly reduce the incidence of cheating.
Are there features in Microsoft Excel that make it easy to detect cheating by copying between students? I don't expect to easily detect if a student copies elements like pivot tables from one file to another, but perhaps at least I might be able to detect if a student copied someone else's file altogether. I'm not necessarily looking for anything foolproof--I expect that the cheaters in this assignment would be those who don't even know basic things like how to manually change author information in an Excel file.
Speaking of which, unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Excel overwrites author information with the last person to save the file, so I couldn't even use that to tell if someone has copied a file created by someone else.
I would appreciate any suggestions.
EDIT:
Some answers have suggested asking students to submit a written explanation of their reasoning. Although I mentioned that there are over 700 students, let me be more explicit: I do not consider solutions that require reading and marking additional textual submissions to be feasible for my context. On one hand, there are multiple instructors, so any instructor would only have to mark a few dozen assignments. On the other hand, if there is cheating across sections, then reading text submissions is not a feasible verification technique. Thus, I was looking for a solution that could easily indicate that a student's submission contained undeniable traces of some other student's work.

I used to open the files in something like programmers file editor and search for the string with name etc - amazing what is there... Found 1 student who had "created" the file under a different name 2 years prior... And that student was also one of my students...

For what it's worth: the traditional way to make sure students understand what they did is to ask them to produce a report where they explain their work in their own words. Alternatively there can be a quick evaluation in lab where they would be asked a few questions to test their understanding.

I seem to be assessing students for similar things in excel, charts etc frequency() etc and I use a quiz with 10 questions, each question having a category of 10 questions... So, questions ask things like ctrl+shift then enter is used for what type of function... Grades seem to be going as i would expect...

@Erwan, please see my edit to understand why I don't consider this feasible in my situation.

Are you giving the students Excel files to work with, or handing them data sets and letting them build their own Excel files?

@asgallant, the former: I give students the Excel files with nothing but the data in one sheet.

Oh, hey, I've written scripts to deal with this problem, on a similar scale (about 800 students each semester). We create new "starting point" workbooks each semester.
The first step is to check the metadata. This can be automatically extracted by the command-line tool exiftool, the Python package openpyxl, or by just parsing the XML.
Then, if the creation date is older than your provided file, you know they downloaded a file from a previous semester. On the other hand, if the creation date is newer and the creator is the student rather than you, that means they created a new workbook from scratch and copied & pasted the contents in. There is little reason to do this unless they are trying to cover up cheating (but of course the student should get a chance to explain themselves).
Then there is the modified date—you can check that this is in a reasonable range (the days before the due date)—and lastModifiedBy. In our case, students turn in about a dozen workbooks over the semester, so it's worth it to keep track of their username and flag differences. If you're just getting one workbook, that might not make sense. I also check if the username seems to match the student's name; I have some automated checks which approve most of them, and prompt me for the remainder. If the name in the metadata is clearly a different person's name, we ask the student why that is.
Another thing which can be found is links. It's possible in Excel to refer to values in a different file, which creates a "link". When the workbook is uploaded without the corresponding linked file, the values can't be updated. Students often inadvertently create links when copying and pasting. The name of the file they copied from is stored in the workbook, which might be enough to make it clear it's from an illicit source. You can detect the presence of links by listing the files in the zip (every .xlsx file is really a zip file): if 'xl/externalLinks/externalLink1.xml' is present, then there are links.
I find the target of the link using openpyxl; in the workbook object, all links are in workbook._external_links. Given a link object link, the filename is in link.file_link.Target. If you want to do it on a lower level, the name of the linked file is in 'xl/externalLinks/_rels/externalLink1.xml.rels'.
I also compute a hash of each file in order to find exact duplicates (generally only students who re-upload the starting file).
A more time-consuming step is to extract all the cell contents (including formulas). A hash of those will find duplicates, but ignoring metadata, formatting and colors, any graphs, filters, and pivot tables; it only takes into account the actual cell contents. (So if the main thing your students are doing is creating a pivot table, this won't be helpful).
I also feed these cell contents to simhash to find "near-duplicates". I've used a command-line tool by Bart Massey as well as a Python package. Frankly, this doesn't seem very helpful most of the time. It has found suspicious similarities on several occasions, but it takes a lot of my time to check through the potential matches that come up.
I also find cell values that occur in a handful of workbooks (in, say, 2–12 of the 800 files.) The assumption is that cell values which occur in more files than that are "natural" for many students to include, and that a copying-cheating-ring would not be larger than that. I look at these and decide if they're suspicious or not (two students making a typo "Parrt 1" seems normal; a longer phrase with identical mispellings is not.)
It does take a couple hours of my time each time a batch of workbooks comes in, and it's far from foolproof, but it tends to turn up several clear cases of cheating each time.

Figure out a way to generate data sets and results programatically so you can uniquely verify each student's assignment separately.  This would imply lots of effort initially but may payoff for later courses.
Use a single dataset and a single result set.  Ask them for their reasoning behind for achieving the most complex tasks of the assignment.  Use this to check for cheating.  No one person thinks exactly the same or describes something complex in the same manner.

My recommendation is for the latter.  Most jobs that can be done with tools like Excel will be automated in the near future.  The best that your students can learn is to reason (and articulate this effectively) and choose the appropriate tool/technique for the job.

Your first suggestion is a lot of work, but might fit my situation better. I've edited my question to clarify why the latter recommended solution is not feasible in my situation.

@Tripartio if you choose the automation path, start building your prototype and post more detailed questions in stackoverflow.      On a side note for inspiration you may want to read this paper https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-00761-4_12 of a solution done to automate assessment of software engineering assignments.

I like your second recommendation. OP says it doesn't fit OP's profile, but the instructors can grade the explanations from their group for value, while an automated script can sieve out the textual similarities in the explanantion over the whole class.

@KoenigLear Re your suggest to generate Excel files in a programatic way reminds me to access and modify their content with Python's openpyxl module (https://openpyxl.readthedocs.io/en/stable/, a maybe more gentle introduction -- now (March 2020) maybe just a little bit behind the project -- by Al Sweigart https://automatetheboringstuff.com/chapter12/.

I assume you need clues which can be obtained automatically.
It might be an idea to check all the positions and sizes of graphs / diagrams / drawings etc. Those are usually placed by mouse movement and so the positions should differ.
If you are very subtile, you might want to give them individual sheets to start from (maybe containing the initital data set). Those files can be secretly marked in the underlying xml files, e.g. by adding an extra tag per student (I did not test this, but I'm sure no one will detect it) or by adding a personalized "document creator" (but this is visible to the students). You just have zu unzip the .xlsx-file and modify docPros\core.xml
A pure file copy can easily be detected by e.g. calculating a PGP checksum for the files. If two checksums are the same, they are exact copies.

I like the idea of programmatically verifying positions and sizes of graphs in Excel. Could you point me towards any sources that might suggest how to do that?

@Tripartio are you capable of using e.g. python for scripting? Then I could try to build a minimal example code which could be adapted for your needs.

I normally use R, but I can read Python and could probably translate it. Example code would be fantastic.

I think you should expand a bit on the OpenXML format. At least point out it's a zip file. There's an OpenXML SDK that helps generate code and such. Something more obscure might be to set a custom r:id for the worksheet. A quick test shows you only need to update the reference in \_rels\.rels and \xl\workbook.xml and \xl\_rels\workbook.xml.rels

If the revision history is not enabled, you will not be able to glean any information pertaining to the history of the document - maybe make enabling it a rule?
Other recommendations:

If the project is based on data, programatically produce or alter the data that each student is given (they download it from some server)
Rule that if any two students are found to have identical solutions, both will fail the course. The students giving their solution away usually are aware that the ones they are giving it to are inept, so they will be extremely wary.
Have the students install a tracker (something like this: https://www.exceltrainingvideos.com/track-changes-automatically-in-worksheet-with-vba/) - The end result may be similar, but the way to the result will vary between persons. A lot.

Your second bullet point should not be used. Students who are not cheating will produce identical solutions, given a large enough class size. The 700 students in this class are more than sufficient to produce identical results without cheating.

That entirely depends on the complexity of the task. You are correct that this might lead to false positives in smaller assignments, but the possibilities grow mighty fast (especially with identifiers that have a lot of wiggle, like positioning of graphs, etc.) which makes the probability of false positives miniscule.

I am also a teacher and I have the same problem with plagiarism.
I use these methods - I can detect:

Pure copying and renaming files between students - I am using a special encrypted string placed into meta of each student's file. So when student is copying classmate's file, he is also copying this special string and I am able to detect from what file it was copied.
Copying specific range of cells - I can put into specific cells some hidden link which contains a special encrypted string. If I put this link into cell into some data table (but to cell what student doesn't need to work with), there is some chance to catch him while copying, because he will copy some range of cells WITH THIS LINK.
Also I am looking for author name and last edited author name.

You can use these advices for making your own script. Or just try online tool https://www.sheetexpert.com/ - I developed it for saving my and my colleagues' time.

This has attracted a few "spam" flags. This seems to be a free tool developed by the post author, so I'm not sure it's technically spam. Still: Vaclav, it would be good if you can expand your answer to explain what your tool does and how it addresses OP's specific question; we don't really allow "link-only answers."

Hi @cag51, thank you and sorry. I updated my post, I hope it's better now.

I teach excel and have had several students "cheat" by copying from other students.  I have always caught them by right clicking the file they turn in and selecting "Properties".  Under "Security", it gives the date and author ID of the student that created the file.  If it's 2 different names, or a name that's completely different, that's a great clue.  Hope this helps.

Unfortunately, in my case, I am the one who created the template file, so my own name is always the original creator. So this does not help in my situation.

How do you know you always caught them? Most cheaters are probably smarter than just copying the file.

have you tried downloading all of the files into one folder and then sorting based on CRC number? I run a stats class with excel submissions and have caught a lot of students this way because crc will be identifical in most cases if the file is exact copy

Could you perhaps link some reference on how to do this?

Welcome to Academia SE. Could you please explain your answer better? In addition to explaining (or linking) to how to create CRC numbers on Excel files, please clarify if CRC numbers are similar only with exact matches (which is not so useful, since cheating is usually not a 100% match), or if closer numbers indicate closer similarity (which would be more useful).


text:
How can one best seek out collaborators in obscure topics as a young researcher?
Some context: I will be starting a Ph.D. program in mathematics this fall (a 5 year, U.S. program), and I have a wide array of research interests. In the majority of these areas, I have a (relatively) broad conceptual knowledge, and a few ideas for potential research projects, but I don't think that my command of the material is sufficient to allow meaningful contributions on my part (viz. writing publication-worthy papers) without collaboration.
For example, I have developed a type theory I believe to be compelling for qualities both philosophical and technical. This intellectual endeavor would benefit from the experience and specialized reference of a more knowledgeable collaborator who could elevate my general understanding and vision of how to go about proving the relative consistency of this type theory and enrich the discourse in parts where my experience may be more limited. This brings me to my question: How should I go about seeking (and attracting!) potential collaborators for such a project given my lack of experience in the field?
One other issue that I should mention is that most of these projects are relatively far outside the faculty/student's areas of expertise at my university, so I don't think these projects (like the type theory example given above) would be reasonable for my dissertation, or more generally collaboration with my peers/the faculty at the university I will be attending.
Should I put projects like these on hold until I finish graduate school, make more connections, and have more academic freedom, or is it worth it to try to reach out to academics who might be interested through e-mail/conferences and try to convince them to co-author papers/collaborate with me? I'd appreciate any input on how to best approach this dilemma, but some things I've already thought of are:

Type up a short analysis of the literature to ensure potential collaborators that I've done my research, and give an argument of why this research might be significant.
Correspond with potential collaborators via e-mail with more pointed questions relating to the potential research question before formally asking if they would like to co-author a paper/collaborate.

Any other input along those lines I think would be helpful, but I think I'd also like to get some context on how my position might fit into the general academic etiquette of the mathematical community, and how someone in my situation might best approach different researchers as a newcomer to the research community.
Thanks in advance for any responses!

When you are in grad school and have an advisor, s/he will be able to weigh in on this sort of thing in addition to guiding you on your thesis project.  S/he will also be able to help you balance coursework, TA or RA duties, thesis research, and side projects.  Nevertheless, if you have time over the summer, before you start your program, you could certainly make some headway.

This sounds to me that you need networking. National/international conferences, scientific societies, journals, etc. to seek potential collaborators, and to educate yourself what other groups in your domain do. This is what advisor or supervisor should introduce you.

As mentioned by aparente001 in the comments, the best way to start collaborations as a beginning PhD student is through your supervisor.
Your supervisor is hopefully a well-established researcher who's made some decent contributions to the field. People working on close areas of research will likely know their name and what kind of things they work on, and consequently the sort of things their students are likely to be doing.
Your supervisor may bring up the idea of collaboration without you asking, or you could approach them with the idea you have and, if it has merit, they might suggest names of people working on similar areas whose work you could read up on and get in touch with.
In this day and age, it's easy to start a conversation through email, and your second point about corresponding with potential collaborators and asking questions about their work is a good approach, but make it clear who you are,  what you're working on and why you're interested in their work from the outset.
If you're serious about starting collaborations with people completely outside your network (or your supervisor's network), the best way to do it is face to face, at conferences, meetings or summer schools. The latter are particularly useful for PhD students, as the attendees are also going to be PhD students or post-docs, who will definitely have more time and incentive to start new collaborations than senior academics will.
Lastly, don't worry too much! People are aware that new PhDs are still finding their feet in academia, and as long as you are professional in your enquiries, I don't think you'll go far wrong. It's certainly not bed etiquette to want to work with different people and broaden your research horizons.

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


text:
How do you choose a textbook for a new class
I am teaching a new class next term and I need to choose a text book (or create a reading list) for it. The class is a hands on introduction to programming with MATLAB. A quick search of my library's catalogue returns nearly 300 titles, 100 of which are on-line books. When you are creating a new class from scratch how do you go about choose the text book?

A good start is to ask colleagues, preferably ones who have taught such a course before and whose preferences are generally similar to yours.

When you are creating a new class from scratch how do you go about choose the text book? — I don't.  I write my own lectures notes.

These are some criteria I usually use:

Published within last 5-10 years, preferably in 2nd edition or beyond: This ensures the materials are reasonably up-to-date and major errors had been cleaned up.
Have physical and e-book versions: To tailor different types of readers.
The e-book version should be freely available through the institute's subscription: This is to lower the barrier for acquiring the book.
The titles have been commonly adopted by other syllabi: Perform a search using your course title or subject plus "syllabus" and "filetype:pdf" or "filetype:doc" will get some nice results. Sift through them and get some ideas.
For software book, I would also check if the publishers provide all codes and data sets online. In additions, I'd make sure the book's examples use the software with the same version that my institute has or the students have.

Some other thoughts:
From my experience in teaching statistical software, I found that books are really not that popular. Online workshops and support websites seem to be a lot more welcomed by the students. If you can identify any of online resources, I'd at least suggest that as a secondary option.
I elaborate to students in the first class on why I chose this particular title. When I teach a class with very diverse backgrounds I also suggest some secondary books that are more specific to their interests. For instance, if I have medical and veterinarian students in my class, I may pick one software book on medical data analysis and another one on analyzing zoological/ecological data, etc.
Another thing I do to show that I am serious about the text: I often put footnotes on my notes or slides pointing students to the relevant section if they'd like to learn more and try that particular analysis/function.
Once you have found a few candidates, read the forewords. All else equal, I often prefer books that were written with a syllabus in mind. The authors usually explain that in the forewords.
Isolate the "must learn" techniques in your syllabus and make sure they are all included in the chosen text. That would make sure the texts and your teaching are coherent, and lower the chance of getting evaluation comments like "the text has nothing related to what was covered in the class."
One format that always thrills me is inclusion of self-assessments and case studies. Even I don't end up using those titles, I often borrow the case studies to make all the codes that I teach relevant to the contents.

Start with the learning outcomes, which should have been defined when the course was approved.  Write a rough time line of how you would approach those learning outcomes, i.e. in what order would you teach things.  Then begin checking the tables of contents of books that look most promising.
See Penguin_Knight's criteria, request evaluation copies of the three that look most promising, and pick one.

Listed textbooks from other syllabus may be useful... Always check what other Prof.s have been using...

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


text:
Why are conference papers so important in computer science (CS)?
From my understanding many CS conferences are highly selective and the papers are peer-reviewed. The CS field also seems to publish traditional journal articles. I do not understand the difference between the two and in particular I am curious about the advantages of having two different publication streams. The type of things I am curious about are:

What is the difference between a paper published in a top CS conference and a top specialist journal?
Is one more prestigious than another and if so how do they line up?
Why not just publish conference papers as a special issues of a journal?

I'm afraid this answer may be unsatisfying, but at its root, it just boils down to the culture of the field, as determined by early choices in its particular history.  Now that it is well established, practices have developed that cement it in place, including clear distinctions between what goes in a journal and what goes in a conferences.
Michael Ernst has a very nice write-up of the typical way a computer scientist thinks about conferences vs. journals.  In short:

Conferences are fast, higher status, higher selectivity, and higher visibility.
Journals are where you put a review article or a final "extended version" of a paper (the typical threshold is "at least 30% new material").

Journals are also important for getting tenure at lesser institutions, which apply the same standards to biologists and computer scientists.  This also further lowers the perceived status of journals, since the best departments are less motivated to publish there than the worst.

Correct, but there actually are pretty reasonable journals that approach A+ conference level of selectivity and prestige (typically Transactions, but one should not make the mistake of assuming all Transactions are necessarily great).

Also, computer science has grown quite a bit. Things differ between different subfields. Bioinformatics has some fun combinations (ismb/eccb conference with proceedings in oup bioinformatics -- good journal by itself).

@xLeitix Nothing says the journals aren't good, just that the perception is different.

@choener Absolutely: I see this in synthetic biology as well, which has a lot of overlap with computer science and currently no proper peer-reviewed conferences.  I really hope that these hybrids will tend to bring more conference culture into these other fields, because I think it's a crying shame to have to wait for years to have access to a result because it's doing the rounds at various journals.

also VLDB and ECML/PKDD conferences experiment with linking conference presentations to journal publications. But in the "publish or perish" race it might be convenient to have two publications (conference and journal) instead of one:)

While this is mere speculation, I have often wondered whether the information presented is another reason why CS-subfields frequently opt for conferences. A chemist or a physicist will not repeat an experiment live after presenting their findings, a medical scholar will not perform a live treatment in front of a conference audience, and even an engineering scholar will not construct a building or bring heavy machinery to a conference. On the other hand, a computer scientist is, in various CS subfields, quite likely to bring an interactive prototype for conference attendees to try.

"Conferences are — — higher status, higher selectivity": I do not agree here. Consider e.g. the Journal of the ACM; it is more selective than the top conferences in theoretical computer science. The conferences are certainly faster and more visible, though.

I note that this page states "Journals have higher acceptance rates, giving the opportunity to get your research published." -- Is this due to fewer (higher quality) submissions to journals, or is it due to lower standards when reviewing journal submissions?

"...same standards to biologists and computer scientists..", exactly, one has to publish more in journals just because of such stupid regulations.

@JukkaSuomela As far as I know, most JACM papers appeared in a conference first before being republished there years later. So I don't think it makes sense to compare JACM to a conference, as it performs a vastly different role.

A good summary of positions papers and empirical research on conferences vs journals in CS is the paper by Bowyer Mentoring Advice on “Conferences Versus Journals” for CSE Faculty
Grudin also have a nice bullet-like summary and link to some 20 papers on the subject in http://research.microsoft.com/~jgrudin/CACMviews.pdf. One of Grudin's paper is a history of how CS became so attached to conferences (I dont remember which onebut it should be among the ones mentioned in the pdf).


text:
How to deal with constant pressure given by advisor
I am a third-year PhD student in mathematics from a very reputed institute in my country. I have one problem to share and discuss that is related with my guide. He is a senior professor in our department. The day I joined that institute he gave me one research problem and asked me to study about that and present. I did as much as I can and presented. In return, instead of appreciation I was being scolded for small mistakes. And it has continued for the last two years. Seniors say it is his way of working. I have lost my happiness. Sometime I cry for joining this course. My prof is not impressed with my good academic record and my hard work.
Second thing that worries me is that he is not much aware of my research problem. I feel like I know much more than him. He has no paper on that topic, although he has a good number of papers in other topics.  I never got help from him in solving research papers. I have to study papers on my own and then have to present to him.  And again for small mistake I have to suffer his taunts. I am scared whether I would be able to finish my degree in such an environment or not? Is this normal? Does every PhD student suffer such mental trauma?
I need  advice. Thanks.

@Bravo Thank you very much for edit. I am not that much good in English.

@Nunoxic - Not every caustic person should be avoided at all costs. His skill as a researcher, and the fact that this is only a grad student (i.e., the relationship will last a few short years) may make holding out worthwhile.

Knowing more than your advisor is fairly normal. By the time you get your phd you are supposed to have made a meaningful contribution to your field. You will be the world's expert on a very tiny specific thing. No one on the planet will know more than you do about this very specific thing, and it's up to you to solve the problems you encounter.

If he criticizes you for small mistakes, this probably means he can't find any big ones. Take it as praise. Don't think "oh I made a lot of small mistakes". Think "Yeah, I more or less nailed it"

@user12889 Given the second paragraph in the question, it's more likely he's criticizing the only thing he actually knows enough to criticize, just so he can feel like he's contributing...

@lzkata Not necessarily. As others pointed out, as a PhD sutdent you often know much more than your supervisor on a topic. Especially in your 3rd year. As a senior academic he is likely to have a lot of experience in reviewing work (for journals, conferences, phd theses) in areas where he only has moderate knowledge about. If he is good generally as an academic he will be able to spot serious flaws in his students' work.

http://danny.oz.au/danny/humour/phd_lotr.html

@user12889 it was an interesting story

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1853/phd-to-be-advised-by-mr-enfant-terrible?rq=1

Possibly worth noting that at the graduate level, "hard work" is not by itself respected (though certainly lack of it will be noticed and penalized!). Results/outcomes/accomplishments are what matter. A researcher who works hard but accomplishes nothing is considered an ineffectual researcher. Ergo, "but I worked really hard!" will not change your advisor's opinion of you, except possibly to worsen it.

Every PhD student suffers mental trauma. You say your advisor "scolds" and "taunts" you. I think of scolding and taunting as personal attacks, and hence unacceptable. That said, your English makes me unsure if he is attacking you or your work. Attacking someones work is a common occurrence in academia. We tend to get one sentence notifications about our successes and pages and pages of feedback about our failures. Even the best researchers fail more often then they succeed. The key thing to remember is that, in general, it is not personal. You need to identify if your advisor is attacking you or your work.
You say your advisor "is not impressed with my good academic record and my hard work". Successful academics tend not to be impressed by academic records and hard work since it is par for the course. This doesn't mean they do not respect you. The best way to find out what your advisor thinks about you is to ask. Ask what you are doing well and what you can work on. Also say that you are feeling unsure of yourself and looking for reassurance. Some advisors will give you reassurance and a shoulder to cry on, others will simply tell you that you are not failing. Not failing is another word for a major success.

Dear sir he scolds me for my work. I really appreciate your answer. I got frustrated at the time when inspite of working whole night next day I get feedbacks like you are not serious and not working hard.

@srijan feedback like "you are not serious and not working hard" are personal attacks and should not be tolerated.

Two or three times in a week I have to listen these words. :(

@sirjan The adviser has more power over you than you do over him and power corrupts. This affects some people more than others and some fields more than other.

@StrongBad Now things are cool as I have published some good papers. :)

"Not serious" is personal. "Not working hard" is not personal and completely normal and legitimate for an advisor, assuming indeed the student does not work hard.

@Dilworth "not working hard" is not a criteque of the work, but of the person doing the work and hence it is personal. Something like "you are not producing enough", or potentially even "you are not working enough hours", is a criteque of the work.

Yes, "not working enough" is certainly legitimate. But it is almost similar to "not working hard"; namely it's the same meaning, isn't it?

No. StrongBad said "not working enough hours", and that distinction is meaningful here. I can work very hard at something for five hours a week— in fact, I have such a hobby in my life.

"Successful academics tend not to be impressed by academic records and hard work since it is par for the course." - I must disagree, there are very academically successful professors who recognize hard work and openly state they are very impressed while there are others (likewise successful) who do not flinch at the most impressive results yet tend to emotionally destroy their students upon the slightest lack of progress. I think it comes down to personality.

Every PhD student does not suffer mental trauma.

@StrongBad Dear sir. Now I see this question and flashback of memories comes back. Now I got the government job in my country and living with a successful   career. Thanks a ton for being supportive

Here are some of the less severe options that you can try out first:

Research the whereabouts of his former students. How many of them graduated, and if so, what was the quality of their work (publication venues/citations etc) and where are they now? Contact them individually, and talk to them about how they resolved this situation.
Try talking to him, privately at first, in a pleasant, non-accusatory manner. Tell him that you tend to find his method of working rather discouraging, and ask for ways in which both of you can improve your working relation

If nothing else works, consider changing your adviser. As your institute is a reputed one, its almost sure to have a formal procedure which can be initiated by the student to change one's adviser. Before doing that, look around the department and find out, albeit discretely, if there are openings in other groups doing similar kind of work - after all, if no-one is ready to take you in the same dept., you may have to look at other institutions entirely!
Most importantly, do NOT give up on your research/look to find faults with yourself without any valid reason - a lot of researchers have faced similar issues with their advisers at first, and they have successfully either worked out all issues or simply changed to a more suitable adviser down the line!

Now things are cool as I have published some good papers. :) Thanks for the support :)

What you describe, unfortunately, somewhat of a common problem in academia, particularly with senior faculty. My advisor and I had a somewhat similar relationship, but he was far less harsh than what you describe.
The following isn't a solution, but just a few points to think about as you consider your options:

It is almost certain that you will not be able to chance your professor's attitude. He's been managing his lab like this for years, and this is his way of doing things. I would strongly suggest speaking to other students about him before approaching him directly; I would venture a guess that talking to him about this issue and your feelings on the matter have a good likelihood do you more harm than good, as he likely will not care and will only think the worse of you for it.
You should have a research committee; speak to one of the members of your committee about your concerns. Personally, almost all of the useful advice I received during my PhD work was from a committee member, both in terms of direction and in terms of actual research work.
You can switch labs whenever you want. Yes, it will set you back a few years, but that may be a necessary cost. Always keep that in mind; you're not bound to him by any means.
On the other hand, sticking it out may be worthwhile, as you'll have a good name behind your PhD, and this is a personality type you will likely come across again in academia (and elsewhere). It's definitely worth getting to know how to deal with this type of individual.

Do realize that his critique of your research doesn't mean it's bad by any stretch, it just means that he's focusing on your mistakes. To get more positive feedback, try joining other journal clubs and lab meetings around the university, and present your ideas there; most would be happy to have you, and would give you useful feedback.

I came across your post as I was looking for information on the same subject - too much pressure from my supervisor.
First of all it's good to know I'm not alone... and the comments from all the others really helped.
One thing that helps me is to think that in the end, it's not my supervisor who's going to evaluate me. I'm going to present my thesis to a jury,not to him. He'll probably won't even have any word to say in my final presentation. He's suppose to be a help to get me through, not the person who will judge me.
So try to keep your eyes on the goal instead of making all this efforth to adapting to your supervisor and ending up writing and researching as if him was the one I have to impress. He's not.
Good luck:)

+1 "it's good to know I'm not alone..."  It has been said that every PhD student feels like quitting at one point or another during grad school, and I presume many of these feelings come from advisor stress.

I'm going to present my thesis to a jury, not to him. — Well, yes and no.  Your advisor has a very strong interest in your not presenting a substandard thesis to the jury.  A good advisor will work with you to make sure your thesis is strong.  A bad advisor will simply declare anything you do to be substandard and (attempt to) block your defense.

You can either keep him and find other secondary supervisors to help you out with your research. Alternatively you can find a new supervisor but I guess you're nearing the end of your PhD so this has to be taken into consideration. I'm sry to hear about your ordeal though.

Thank you for your response. Your guess is right. T hanks for your concern. :)

You're most welcome, hope it all goes well.


text:
Can I include the completion of Udacity and Coursera classes I have attended in an academic CV?
Can I include in my academic CV that I have attended and completed the Coursera and Udacity classes I have been taking? I understand that these are not anything major, but the courses definitely gives a good overview and starting formal study on the subject becomes less cryptic. If I can include them without any negative impacts, then under what section should I include them?

Your question doesn't make sense to me: if you have a CV, then presumably you already have at least a bachelor's, and are working on some advanced degree. (Or you already have an advanced degree, and are working somewhere.) At any rate, what would the introductory-level courses offered by these sources do to help your CV and career status? Some more information would help clarify the situation.

There are some courses which is not covered in the current course i am doing for example.

Doing an introductory-level course probably won't matter much to someone hiring you in a different area.

Related: What is the value of a Coursera certificate?

No.  Specific coursework (whether formal or informal, online or in-person) does not belong in an academic CV.

I agree in principle, but disagree that the answer is absolute. I think that there is room for some types coursework, for example to demonstrate study beyond the degree, or attendance at workshops in advanced topics where the students are grad students, post docs, and young faculty.  Especially when the workshops are selective and/or well known in the field and/or taught by well known faculty.

I know exactly the kind of workshops you're referring to, and I think they should be included only if there is some prestige in being invited.  Really, nobody cares which famous people have talked at you.

I agree for the most part, but disagree with this somewhat. Those applying for postdocs in fields unrelated to their current research may want to include a brief list of "relevant course work" near the bottom of the CV to demonstrate that they are capable of the job. No need to do this for applying to grad school because the transcript already does this. No need to do this for applying to faculty positions because no one cares.

"relevant course work" near the bottom of the CV to demonstrate that they are capable of the job — I'm shocked by the suggestion that coursework would imply any indication whatsoever that an applicant is capable of a research job.  If they have relevant research experience, why would I care what classes they took?  Conversely, if they don't have relevant research experience, why would I care what classes they took?

I also disagree.  There are some specialized research skills that might be worth noting.  For example, languages (human or computer): coursework in them if it's not obvious from the degree history might be good, e.g., in a c.v. for relevant grant applications to indicate ability to do the work.

@PaulGowder  I would think for both human and computer languages, the cv would rather include 'languages spoken' than 'took this language class'.  As the style of JeffE has been replying, if you cant speak the language, why would someone care you took the class

That depends on what one's inherent credibility is for the bare claim, which depends a lot on things like rank, status. I think many readers of an academic cv from, e.g., a graduate student would like to see a little more detail.

At least, can you explain why it doesn't belong to an academic CV?

@WetLabStudent You cannot say "the transcript already does this" because the question is about courses on Coursera and Udacity, which are not included in the academic transcript.

Interesting to see how things changed after the online courses really got started from when Coursera started. Although personally, I won't have any of the courses in my CV, at the moment I think, if the course is certified, then it's worth having it in the CV for sure if that specifically targets the job/position one is seekinng for.

@phoxis  Nope.  The proliferation of MOOCs on Coursera and other platforms does not change my answer.

I agree with you completely @JeffE in the case of an academic CV.

If the online course is relevant to your current field of work/study it would help. For example, a graduate student of science could mention a course on scientific computing but a course taken on criminal law would be irrelevant. Also online courses taken can only be shown under professional development and not under academic qualifications since these are non-credit courses.

Yes. The certified courses that connect to skills that doesn't directly apply to your mainstream degree deserves to be in your academic CV. It will show, to an extent, an interdisciplinary qualification that you possess.
There are many real life instances where this has helped a lot, especially in industrial placements, career change, and interdisciplinary research.
There are some courses from MOOC you ought not to add in your CV. These include those that overlaps the courses you've already completed as per your educational degrees, minor introductory courses, and those that wouldn't prove a significant impact in your career point of view.

Interesting to see how things have changed since 2012 when I asked this question. I started with some artificial intelligence and machine learning coursework in my masters, and afterward attended the first machine learning and probabilistic graphical model courses, which started Coursers (the first ones before Coursera was founded).
Although I did not need to list these courses in my CV, I think if it is certified, it is definitely worth having it in the CV depending on what position one is targeting to apply for. For example, if someone wants to apply for a position where statistical analysis and modeling skills with R are needed, then it is worth listing relevant courses (preferred certified) in the CV. I believe that it will show that the candidate has some skills with R and statistical analysis. It is good to have this is a CV for the industry that may add real value.
Although for an academic CV, I somewhat agree with @JeffE . It may be good to have this in an undergraduate or master's CV if the course is certified, and you want to showcase that specific knowledge that probably is not covered in the curriculum and you want to highlight it. Afterward, when things become more specific, these definitely become pointless.


text:
Can the US general schedule (GS) scale be mapped to academic rank?
There are a number of US government jobs that are in essentially academic research labs that are unaffiliated with a university (e.g., the NIH and the national laboratories). The salary for some of these jobs are based on the General Schedule (GS) salary scale. Is it possible to roughly map a GS grade to an academic rank? For example, GS-11 requires a Masters degree and GS-12 requires a PhD so presumably step one as a GS-12 would be a new post-doc, but how do GS-13, GS-14, and GS-15 fit into the mix? Is it fair to say a GS-13 is like an assistant professor, GS-14 is like an associate, and GS-15 is like a full professor?

Well, there's no tenure, so I wouldn't draw too strong a comparison. Also, a GS-15 has a capped maximum salary, which doesn't necessarily happen on the professorial scale.

@BillBarth there may be no tenure, but the positions are pretty secure.

What's the purpose of making this mapping?

I seem to remember this coming up at some point. There are actually rigid definitions for GS levels. IIRC GS-13+ are senior leader positions, 10-12 are high-level positions, and the rest are defined mostly by experience required to perform the task.

@BillBarth for negotiating a starting grade and step :)

Might not be too terrible for that purpose, but you're better off looking at comparable salaries in comparable departments (assuming US state universities). Almost every state has a newspaper that posts these salaries after using their state's public information law to get them. I would suggest adding ~2% to any number you find to offset the fact that the numbers are usually about a year old.

I knew I had read up on this before. Don't remember for what, but it was definitely for Academia.
From the U.S. Code § 5104 - Basis for grading positions
I would say that GS-15 would be like department head, GS-14 would be tenured, GS-13 would be non-tenured, GS-12 associate, and GS-9 through -11 to be some varying group of PhDs and grad students.
GS-13

(A) to perform, under administrative direction, with wide latitude for the exercise of independent judgment, work of unusual difficulty and responsibility along special technical, supervisory, or administrative lines, requiring extended specialized, supervisory, or administrative training and experience which has demonstrated leadership and marked attainments;
(B) to serve as assistant head of a major organization involving work of comparable level within a bureau;
(C) to perform, under administrative direction, with wide latitude for the exercise of independent judgment, work of unusual difficulty and responsibility requiring extended professional, scientific, or technical training and experience which has demonstrated leadership and marked attainments in professional, scientific, or technical research, practice, or administration; or
(D) to perform other work of equal importance, difficulty, and responsibility, and requiring comparable qualifications.

GS-14

(A) to perform, under general administrative direction, with wide latitude for the exercise of independent judgment, work of exceptional difficulty and responsibility along special technical, supervisory, or administrative lines which has demonstrated leadership and unusual attainments;
(B) to serve as head of a major organization within a bureau involving work of comparable level;
(C) to plan and direct or to plan and execute major professional, scientific, technical, administrative, fiscal, or other specialized programs, requiring extended training and experience which has demonstrated leadership and unusual attainments in professional, scientific, or technical research, practice, or administration, or in administrative, fiscal, or other specialized activities; or
(D) to perform consulting or other professional, scientific, technical, administrative, fiscal, or other specialized work of equal importance, difficulty, and responsibility, and requiring comparable qualifications.

GS-15

(A) to perform, under general administrative direction, with very wide latitude for the exercise of independent judgment, work of outstanding difficulty and responsibility along special technical, supervisory, or administrative lines which has demonstrated leadership and exceptional attainments;
(B) to serve as head of a major organization within a bureau involving work of comparable level;
(C) to plan and direct or to plan and execute specialized programs of marked difficulty, responsibility, and national significance, along professional, scientific, technical, administrative, fiscal, or other lines, requiring extended training and experience which has demonstrated leadership and unusual attainments in professional, scientific, or technical research, practice, or administration, or in administrative, fiscal, or other specialized activities; or
  (D) to perform consulting or other professional, scientific, technical, administrative, fiscal, or other specialized work of equal importance, difficulty, and responsibility, and requiring comparable qualifications.

They're all slightly different, heading from supervisor role to department/division lead role.
This one provides a bit more granularity between each group..


text:
What's the correct order of writing for a MSc. and a Dipl.-Ing. degree? (e.g. on a business card)
I finished my (german) Dipl.-Ing. (FH) degree after 4 1/2 years of studying. After that I started to work and studied parallel via a correspondence course. I'll now shortly (hopefully ;-) ) have the additional title of a MSc. That took me 2 1/2 years but only in part time, so the amount of time I invested was much less, than that for my Diploma.
So in order to reflect the increase in qualification I'd put the degrees like that:

Dipl.-Ing. (FH), MSc. Firstname Lastname

But as the Master is sometimes regarded as a higher form of qualification than the Diploma, it might be correct like this:

MSc., Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Firstname Lastname

What's the correct order?

edit:
Like it was pointed out the MSc. is written after the name. So the choice is between:

Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Firstname Lastname, MSc.
Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Firstname Lastname
Firstname Lastname, MSc.

As others noted, MSc. is usually written after the name. The main issue to find out is if it is allowed to use both at the same time. If both are from different fields, this is perhaps not a problem. It might also differ from one Bundesland to the other. But I am not a lawyer, so I'm not really sure.

For most cases the answer "MSc is written behind the name" solves the problem of writing order. There are still cases though where this doesn't resolve it like e.g. a common business card layout where the titles are in a separate line (and usually in smaller print) than the name. In this case one has to decide about the order or just put one title on the card like it was suggested in the answers.

You should notice that in Germany academic titles such as Dr., Dipl.Ing, Mag are writen in front of the name, whereas titles such as M.Sc., B.Sc., M.A., etc., a written behind the name (see here). So if it all I would say the correct order is

Dipl.Ing (FH) Firstname Lastname, M. Sc.

However, I would just ignore the Dipl.Ing (FH).

Good point. You're right (of course) the MSc.'s proper place is behind the name so the question of order doesn't arise at all. Leaving away the Dipl.-Ing. would be quite hard for me as it was a lot of work to achieve. (Lots more than the MSc.) But the other alternative of having one title at the front and one at the back looks kinda weird to my eyes. But I guess that's my problem now to decide. ;-) Thanks for the answer.

I think the situation is different in people getting the degree after the Bologna process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-nominal_letters than those who had the degree before the Bologna process.

It seems there are not strict rules for this (speaking about Germany). There are few ways to deal with this:

do not use titles at all except for documents like your CV. Why to list them anyway, isn't it just vanity issue at play here?
if you want to use titles still (well, it's Germany, right?) list only the highest title you achieved as if it superseded all the lower-grade ones. In the case you have several on the same level, choose one. Should be good enough to get all the respect you are after (since you decided to use titles)
if you should list the titles of different academic levels, then list them in the order of importance/level: [honorary titles] [prof equivalents] [dr. equivalents] [MSc. equivalents] [BSc. equivalents] [whatever else] Name [whatever comes after the name]

well, now it comes to my mind, that how the ordering "after the name" should look like is even more confusing.

if you live in Austria, list everything you want and need in any arbitrary order (half-joke, of course)

For references check also here, or here, or here (part Anrede).

Using no titles at all might be the solution for E-Mail footers etc.. For our business cards: Our company wants us to put achieved titles there. Also I sometimes find the degrees quite a useful source of informetion about the background a person has (e.g. engineering or business) and what kind of background knowledge I can therefore expect. For example I wouldn't explain IT-Basics if it says Dipl.-Inf. (diploma in computer science) in the E-Mail Footer.

@Karin: re: the point about business cards and background checking - fair enough, of course I understand, since I lived in DE.


text:
Will two typographical errors can harm the chances of getting accepted into a PhD program?
I have submitted a Ph.D. application to a university with a ranking from 100 to 120 in the US. As I am preparing for my next application, I have found out two typos in my CV (3 pages long), one extra comma, and one uppercase "P" in the middle of a word. I have also found that in my SOP (2 pages long), I have mistakenly placed the preposition "in", where the correct preposition should be "with". Other than these, there are no mistakes in my application, at least from my point of view (I am a non-native speaker).
Will these mistakes harm my chances of getting accepted into the applied Ph.D. program?
My experience in brief:
I have 12 publications in journals ranging from 1.0 to 5.0 impact factors, 20 months of part-time research experience, 6 months of job experience, and am affiliated with 2 voluntary organizations for about 03 years (relevant to the program).
I have contacted the graduate manager and they informed me that no change can be made at this point.
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

What is the difference between this question and this older question you asked two weeks ago? Will errors in using articles harm the chance of getting admission?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/143031/is-one-spelling-mistake-in-the-academic-cv-a-big-deal Does this answer your question?

Admissions committees try to find the best candidates for the program. I do not expect any admissions committee to select an applicant with 0 typos and 0 research/publication experience over an applicant with 3 typos and 12 publications and more than a year of research experience. Your research experience seems better than what most applicants to a PhD program have, and you should not overthink the effect of those 3 typos. Just fix them for your next applications.
You may want to consider shortening your application documents though. Two-page CVs and one-page statements of purpose seem to be more common. Too long documents risk the chance of not being read in detail or even at all.

Unlike their industry counterparts, academic CVs don't have a space restriction. Mine is more than 10 pages and I got the last two jobs I applied for.


text:
Would using feedback from an identical prior assignment to improve the new assignment be considered academic misconduct?
Several months prior, I submitted a very late assignment due to personal issues in my real life. My tutor was kind enough to mark it and give me full, proper feedback and even a score and under his recommendation and my own decision, I deferred the course until I'd gotten my life back in a more stable state.
I am now restarting the course and the assignment is the same. Would doing a new assignment using none of my original work since I got a rather poor grade using the feedback I got from the first one count as academic dishonesty?

It depends what you mean by "using".  Learning from it, fine.  Copying from it, not fine.  Anyway, for any question about "is X academic dishonesty", the best answer is "ask the instructor".  If everyone here thinks it's fine but your instructor has an obscure rule against it, you're going to get in trouble anyway - so only the instructor can give you the answer that will stick.

No. You got that feedback and you can't be expected to "forget it" when writing the new assignment. Feedback is given in the hope that you learn from it; it would be bizarre to expect that you ignore it. If they want to avoid that students use information given out in connection with the earlier assignment, they have to set a different assignment.

This. It can actually be quite infuriating as an instructor when students adopt some bizarre honor code preventing them from doing the job. "I will spend a week cramming Bessel function tables for an open book exam because using the book is cheating and I must have it all in my head" - these tabular values are NOT what the course is about (and it is not even about Bessel functions!).

Actually, I'd make it stronger. It isn't that you can't be expected to forget it. It is really that you are expected to take advantage of it; to learn from it. But yes, definitely start over for the new version.