text:
Is there an official, widely used subject classification?
For a university project I want to classify authors according to the subjects/domains they frequently publish in. For this purpose I want to first establish a subject classification with the according hierarchies (for example, chemical engineering would be a sub-subject of physical sciences and engineering).
Instead of creating my own classification/hierarchy, I would like to use an official classification of subjects. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find one that is universally accepted.
What I did find are the classifications of different publishers, for example the subjects listed for ScienceDirect.
So my question is:
Is there any official, widely used and accepted subject classification?
One thing I'd like to add:
English is not my mother tongue so it might be entirely possible that I am just using the wrong words for doing the search. I’ve been looking for subject or domain classifications. Maybe there is an entirely different term for what I am actually looking for.

"Official" according to whom? There is no office that could enforce such a standard.

@David Richerby I don't think there needs to be one single office that enforces the standard globally. I meant official in the sense that an organisation/institution published it (and depending on the organisation also uses it). I think the systems put forward by Peter K. fit this discription. In order to exclude classifications that are published but not really used I've added the "widely used and accepted" part. If you think my use of the word "official" is wrong or misleading feel free to suggest a better alternative :)

In addition to the ones @Coder suggests, perhaps the library classification systems:

Library of Congress
Dewey Decimal
Universal Decimal Classification

might be useful?
As @tonysdg says below, there are a variety of other system, too.

I hadn't thougt about using library classification systems for this purpose. It seems like a very good approach.

There are a variety of library classification systems available. You may find that a more universal one (such as the aptly-named Universal Decimal Classification system) is of interest.

@tonysdg : Thank-you! I've added your links to the body of the answer.

These systems have the added benefit for the OP that the authors' works will already have been sorted by cataloging experts into the appropriate categories (though note that authors themselves may have published in multiple different classes and sub-classes).

These are the possible classification that you could look at:

Google Scholar --> Metric (a link on the top of the page) --> scroll down to 'view top publications' --> Click categories --> ... explore as per your requirement.
ACM subject classification (ACM ccs)
Mathematics subject classification by AMS (Wiki)
PACS Regular Edition from AIP publishing

In physics, on is the American Institute of Physics (for key words in journal articles): https://publishing.aip.org/publishing/pacs/pacs-2010-regular-edition

+1. Thank you very much @JonCuster; I added this link to the answer. I am mostly in CS, so I probably lacked the details.

The granularity of the ACM classification can be frustrating. It often feels like single topics are conceded entire hierarchies of classification terms, while on other occasions, several large umbrella topics are mingled together in a single term. To be fair, that is probably a natural result both of historical developments and of people who update the classification being interested only in a subset of all fields covered by it. The OP should, however, consider this if they plan to derive anything such as "number of authors per topic" from their author-to-topic mapping. ...

... Another, minor issue with the ACM classification is that I wouldn't bet any money that publications are generally consistently classified when looking at the terms that can mean the "meta-level". For instance, I am never quite sure whether "Empirical studies in HCI" should cover all publications that contain such a study, or just such publications that discuss the study methodology, or rather such publications that focus on presenting a new methodology for conducting, or a new technique that supports such studies.

I strongly agree with your comments @O.R.Mapper. the acm classification is not entirely acceptable, because of the fact that the articles are sometimes classified by author even if they use a smallest term of the field. It mostly is not acceptable if the article appears in conference proceeding.

Although a bit obsolete, consider also the UNESCO nomenclature. It is international and specifically adapted to research. Also, unlike other systems, it is not restricted to Science and Engineering. For instance, in Spain, you have to specify up to three codes to officially register a PhD Thesis.

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


text:
When PhD advisor (in an interview) says "Tell me about your research interests", should you also say how it relates to their interests?
Just curious about this.
On the one hand, I feel like it's a bit heavy-handed to say "And these interests relate to your research interests because of XYZ." It sounds like you are trying to sell them on something.
On the other hand, it is important that advisors feel your interests align.
Note: These are advisors whose interests do pretty obviously overlap with mine -- it's not a stretch.
What is the consensus on this?
UPDATE: So I had two advisor interviews today (back to back, same dept). The first thing both possible advisors asked me was something like "What are your research interests and why did you apply to X department at Y school to study with my group in particular?" (emphasis mine).  So that made it a little easier because they explicitly asked for the link.

What's the field of research?

Information science

This is different enough from the answer of Bill Barth that it should probably be factored out of comments. An alternate consideration for you in any case.
The question you ask is subtle. Maybe the approach should also be subtle. Start out assuming it will be obvious and see where that goes. You can always make it more explicit.
If it is immediately clear that the prof "groks it" then you don't need to do anything else. If they are confused, make it clearer. Because if they are confused then it needs to be made clearer.

I suppose the issue is if they don't think our interests align they won't necessarily be "confused", and I am worried they would just move on and think "Okay, well, his interests don't align". Is it reasonable that a prof would actually ask "And how did you become interested in my work?" I should add: This is for a 'short list' of candidates (according to the prof) so presumably they think there's a modicum of alignment already.

And note too, that "close alignment" isn't a necessary precondition for acceptance if you show initiative in your work. Helpful, of course, but some folks will take on a student for various other reasons. Some of us have very wide interests that may not be apparent.

+1 PhD supervisors are generally smart people, they can take a hint.

You are trying to sell them on something: YOU! You want this position, right? You still have to make the "obvious" apparent. If you don't tell them about your interests when asked so that they can see the obvious, they won't know, so, yes, tell them, but maybe you don't have to beat them over the head with all the ways you and they are aligned.

I'm not sure I agree with this. There is "selling" and there is "overselling". The latter can seem phony.

I did say that you had to make the alignment apparent, but without beating anyone over the head with it, @Buffy. Yeah, I agree, don't overdo it.

So my question is:
Do I present my interests in a way that makes the alignment obvious AND follow on with "Of course, these interests align with your work on XYZ"?
Or do I just present my interests in a way that makes the alignment obvious?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Regarding academic misconduct
I'm currently a Ph.D. student and I have been reading a lot about retraction of scientific papers. I understand that scientific integrity is a big issue and that we should be as honest about the scientific process as much as possible. However, I do think that there is a difference between teaching someone a lesson and publicly shaming them. For example, I follow a lot of PIs on twitter who will unabashedly put other PIs, post-docs and phds on blast for manipulating scientific data. These PIs are very successful in their fields and have lots of citations to their names. I honestly believe that everyone at some point in their life has made mistakes, which they are not proud of - including these PIs. My problem with this model of retraction is that it puts the person's name out there and they are shunned from doing research for life. PhDs and post-docs are always overworked and underpaid. The stress and poor living conditions must take a mental toll on them to force them enough to manipulate data. Is it fair to ruin their lives beyond the scientific realm (for example by putting them on websites like retraction watch where a simple google search will display their names and misconduct)?
To the stack overflow community - do you think that's fair? As a society, can we do better and if so how? I also welcome disagreements and would like to hear your perspective.
PS - I am not condoning cheating and misconduct. I think these people should be kicked out (or at the least suspended). But putting their names on the internet - isn't that taking things too far?
Thank you for reading and sharing your perspective!

This is not a site for debating moral questions. Yours also comes with a lot of shaky implicature, such as equating intentional fraud with "mistakes" and presuming "poor living conditions" to be the main motivation behind the former. It furthermore ignores the fact that RetractionWatch rarely makes final verdicts on allegations, but mostly gives references to sources from all sides of a conflict to the extent they are public.

I disagree. I'm not about correlating poor living conditions to intentional fraud. It's about mental exhaustion and overworking to the point where one thinks it's okay to manipulate data. As for retractionwatch - link where the tech was blamed for misconduct vs the PI. Is it fair to put her on blast while ignoring that the PI might have something to do with it as well? The website throws poor students and techs under the bus rather than looking at the bigger problem.

In this case, blame the Department of Health for putting her on blast; RW is just citing. Do you think she threw no one under the bus when contaminating 32 published papers with fake data?

I'm not sure if she threw anyone else under the bus but according to RW, another PI (Michael Foster) was also aware of these fabrications but was not publicly humiliated or mentioned in the ORI (DOH) website that you linked. I am simply pointing out that RW chose to headline her name without mentioning the PI or associated faculty. I think it is analogous to singling out mechanics and pilots for airline crashes than to blame the companies that just want to churn out more planes for greater profit.

Vote to close as "primarily opinion-based". (I rarely do so) This post is soliciting opinions rather than asking a question. If you want my opinion, "mental exhaustion and overworking"  is not an excuse to fake data. That's it.

Sure - if this post doesn't follow the rules of this forum. However, using terms like "soliciting opinions" might be a bit harsh, especially since my question clearly states that I'm interested in getting other people's perspective. Also, I never said that one should use any reasons to fake data but I'm just asking whether the punishment warrants the crime - much like the judicial system. And whether, the punishment is just - is everyone involved getting dinged or only people at the lower level.

The only point is to avoid dissemination of false data. The following is up to personal judgement and cultures. I don't think Academia SE can decide on that. Asking about the behaviour of individuals on social network is a different issue per se. People are insulting and blaming others in about all topics. This behaviour should be less covered by others media by the way.  We don't talk to everyone just because one has a mouth. ...

When these people had their papers published, they agreed to have their names associated with the papers.  They took responsibility for the correctness of the papers' content.  If the papers are correct, they get rewarded.  If the papers are incorrect, they get punished.  If they did not want their reputations to be tarnished, then they should not have published incorrect papers or they should not have their names associated with the papers.

I agree with the first part and I think it is very strong argument. However I would strictly draw a line between mistake and misconduct. Mistakes and incorrect results are part if science, no one knows the ultimate truth. Errors happen. Misconduct, steeling, forging data, telling lies is intentional, done in bad faith and not just a mistake.

@Greg, I agree with you.  However, it seems to me that the OP is arguing that "manipulating scientific data" is a "mistake."  I have worded my response to be neutral: "incorrect" includes both intentional and unintentional situations.  Also, I understand that papers are retracted because they are "incorrect," and again, retractions include both intentional and unintentional situations.

Thanks for the clarifications. I do not think that people are punished as much if at all for honest mistakes, but I agree, the OPs question include both situations.

Yes, it is fair. Putting out fraudulent scientific information is contaminating, damaging, and retarding to all the rest of society for an indefinite amount of time into the future. Shaming and banning those who do it is an equitable response.
We can do better by making sure that it is widely known that this is the end result. We should all communicate and publicize this fact as much as possible.

I appreciate your response! But in that case how do you explain papers in high profile journals that cannot be replicated? In many cases, PIs (because they are from high profile institutions) are not penalized and that to me is just as bad as fabricating an image or changing numbers. Why isn't there a website to damage their reputation?

Intentionally committing forgery and unintended mistakes, measurement errors etc are totally different from moral perspective.

@Abdullah, papers that cannot be replicated (because, for example, the experiments are too costly to conduct again) are not necessarily incorrect.

Usually, it's not that the experiments are too costly, but instead, when replicated the results are not even remotely close to what's been published. I have (along with many other phds and post-docs) experienced this myself. Funnily enough, many of those papers are highly cited and to this day are used by PIs to apply for grants.

@Abdullah: A distinction between "lying" and "making mistakes" exists in any remotely reasonable moral system. A good doctor will still have a number of patients die, because medicine is not an exact science.

@darijgrinberg I agree! But that's why we have triplicates and statistical tests to prove the validity of science. If you made a mistake and don't report - isn't that a form of misconduct?

@Abdullah: It seems like you have many questions that lead to other questions on other topics. This is not the best venue for such open-ended discussions. And trying to conflate these different situations into one seems misguided.

@DanielR.Collins I agree. I would also like to close this question if possible. It's a very open ended question with many answers and perspective.

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


text:
Should I use `is ranked ...`, `was ranked ...`, or `ranked ...` in the awards section of my CV?
Should I use is ranked ..., was ranked ..., or ranked ... in the awards section of my CV? E.g.,

Ranked second (out of at least 11k students) in the Iranian national graduate entrance exam in AI & Robotics of 2022
Member of INEF

Versus,

Was ranked second (out of at least 11k students) in the Iranian national graduate entrance exam in AI & Robotics of 2022
Is a member of INEF

You should use whichever phrasing is the most consistent with the rest of your CV.  Other than that, I don't see any real reason to choose any one over the others.

For resume, depending on the resume styles, sometimes, people would prefer to briefly highlight key points, and may write:

Ranked first out of 10k students in the national entrance exam in AI
Member of INEF

For cover letter (used in a job application process), people would certainly write full descriptions, and grammatically correct paragraphs such as "I was ranked first out of 10k students in the national entrance exam in AI", and "I am a member of INEF".

BTW, this question probably fits "Workplace StackExchange" better. The link is:  https://workplace.stackexchange.com/

I have heard that rank can also be intransitive?

I suggest that "is" would not be correct if the exam is offered periodically. The others are fine, but a year should be specified for an annual exam. "National" might also need qualification. Which nation?
In my own case, "Is ranked first among professors at xyz" would (perhaps) have been true at some point in the (far) distant past, but now would be (sadly) incorrect.

I had abbreviated the sentences in the question, which I am going to now revert. The originals did mention the details.

Looks fine now.


text:
How do I cite a dataset from a database (Datastream)?
I have some data that originally is from OECD, but downloaded from the database Datastream. How do I cite this kind of data? I don’t even know the original name of the dataset, just what it’s called in Datastream, which is not necessarily the same thing, right? And what year do I put down?
Edit: Someone edited my title. The original source is not unknown as is clear from the text. I just can't find the data on the OECD website.
Edit2: The topics linked are not about citing third-party databases, which is what I would like an example of. For example, do I call the dataset what it's called in Datastream or do I need to find the original source and find its name? That doesn't seem possible in this case.

Regarding your clarification: So, you essentially have the problem of secondary citations with a dataset? Then please take a look at these related questions: 1, 2, 3. If they do not fully solve your problem (which I expect), please [edit] your question to focus on what issues aren’t solved.

A question similar to mine with a satisfying answer can be found here: http://libanswers.brunel.ac.uk/faq/49262

You can try Dataverse, the Harvard's sharing platform to archive and get credit for your data. The platform creates a DOI that you can cite for.

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


text:
Found significant flaw in my arXiv version paper: what should I do?
I found a significant flaw in my arXiv paper which quite impacts a major part of the conclusion, the paper has not been published anywhere but it has received citations to the arXiv version. Here are my questions:

What should I do? I cannot delete the paper from arXiv, I can add a new version. Is it sufficient?
What happens to the citations to my previous arXiv version given that I added a new version?
Generally how this can impact my academic reputation?

Adding a new version is just fine. I have seen many of my colleagues do that.

Fix the bug, make sure it is now ok, upload. Mistakes happen. Just be upfront. arXiv keeps track for a reason, but it's not to rub your mistakes under your nose.

Do you have a new corrected version of the paper?  Are the results still interesting?

"impacts a major part of the conclusion" isn't quite clear.  Does it invalidate your conclusion, or does it require that you add some sort of qualification?  It seems like the two existing answers are assuming different answers to that question.

Update your paper with corrections (or a preliminary warning if necessary)
Flaws in the analysis in a paper is a standard professional hazard in academia and it happens from time-to-time, particularly with preprint work that has not yet been subjected to peer review.  What is expected of you here is that you will make timely corrections to your paper to do your best to mitigate any problem that might arise from having flawed analysis spread further in the literature.
I recommend you review your paper and see whether it is possible to correct the flaw in your analysis and revise your conclusion accordingly, and if so, how long this will take.  There are three possible cases:

If you think this can be done quickly then undertake the relevant revision and post an updated version of the paper to arXiv.

If you think it will take a long time then you could create an interim update by using your existing (flawed) version of the paper
but adding a page at the start alerting the reader to the flaw in the analysis and noting that you are presently undertaking revisions.  (Also, if you don't yet know how to correct the flaw you can just say this, so that readers are not expecting a revision soon.)  Once this is done, undertake the revision and post an updated version of the paper to arXiv.

If you think that the flaw is so fundamental that the paper cannot be fixed (e.g., the entire argument is flawed) then you should withdraw your paper from arXiv, ideally with a note explaining the reason for withdrawal.

As a secondary action, since your paper has already been cited, you could also do the academic world a favour and contact the relevant authors of the citing works to alert them to the flaw in the existing version of your paper and its implications.  This is something that other authors will appreciate and it will prevent errors from proliferating in the literature.

Of course a true revised issue where the problem is resolved might never be coming if the flaw is fundamental. You're answer could also include what to do in that case. I think it is better in that case to put a disclaimer pointing out the flaw and that at the moment you don't know how to resolve it rather than make an empty promise for a follow up paper. Many such follow up papers never appear.

@Kvothe: Good suggestion --- edited.

What should I do? I cannot delete the paper from arXiv, I can add a new version. Is it sufficient?

The arXiv has an option to withdraw papers, which seems appropriate for this type of situation. Providing a short explanation of the reason for the withdrawal (which is required when submitting the withdrawal request) will allow you to make it clear to anyone visiting the paper’s page what the issues with the paper are.
If you need to provide a more detailed explanation, then uploading a new version of the paper is another option to consider.

What happens to the citations to my previous arXiv version given that I added a new version?

Nothing happens to them, they continue to exist. Anyone following up on the citations or linkbacks to your paper’s arXiv page will see that your paper was withdrawn and learn that its contents cannot be relied on to be correct.
If you are concerned that the papers citing your paper may be proving results based on it whose correctness is now in turn suspect (which is a very reasonable concern), the responsible way to handle this is to email the authors of those papers to let them know about the problems with your paper and that you have withdrawn it. They can then decide how to handle the issue.

Generally how this can impact my academic reputation?

An academic reputation is built up from all the work you have made public. One paper with mistakes is embarrassing, but won't irreversibly destroy your reputation, particularly since you haven't published it, and everyone understands that arXiv preprints may represent work that's still in progress and can occasionally contain mistakes. If you keep producing more work with no mistakes of this type, I don't expect this incident will have a lasting impact on your reputation.
In any case, correcting the mistake promptly will have less of a negative effect on your reputation than if you neglect to address the issue and it's discovered much later.

Ought not a correction initiated by the author have a positive effect on her reputation, assuming that she's got other published work that didn't need correction? For me, seeing that an author is not hesitant to publicise problems with her work gives me more confidence, not less, in her other work.

Well, the correction will have a small positive reputational effect and the mistake will have a negative effect (possibly small or possibly large depending on the nature of the mistake). So on the whole I would guess the net effect is slightly negative, or in some cases (like of a crackpot grudgingly retracting their latest proof of the Riemann hypothesis) very negative. In some cases the reputational effect will be negligible.

My assumptions about academic publishing are:

Published research contains errors, some that are minor and some that make the papers junk. The most outright junk is easy to spot, but a lot of misleading or wrong research is indistinguishable from what is well done; if anything, the flawed stuff may look "better" because the authors have filtered out the imperfections inherent in data and research.

Some researchers care about the quality of what they publish. Others are either happy to publish fraud or sloppy work or too scared to correct their mistakes.

If a researcher publishes a correction to their work, particularly of their own accord, I've learned that they are capable of making errors. This doesn't surprise me, I know there are errors out there, and I know everyone is capable of making errors.
I've also learned that they care enough about the quality of what they publish to correct it and that they are not afraid of valid criticism. To a substantial degree, this increases my confidence in both the corrected work and any other work they publish.
Citations to your original paper are citations of your original paper; they aren't physically affected by anything you do next. You could consider reaching out to the authors if your correction would impact their work. If it were me, I would really appreciate hearing about it, though it's unlikely I would do anything about it unless it also affected the conclusions of my paper; you shouldn't expect people to change their own papers to point to your new version, all you can do is provide the information they would need to make their own decisions.

ArXiv is not part of the peer-reviewed literature, but a place to store papers that may be awaiting publication in such literature or, alternatively, as a kind of academese version of GitHub for papers. Papers have history logs and the sequence of revisions may be substantial. It was made with much the same philosophy as Git, and an evolution stream for a preprint is the expectation, not the exception.
You should not concern yourself too much with external citations, since they're not supposed to be used as peer-reviewed references in papers in the peer-reviewed literature. Even monographs shouldn't be. Their treatment would be more in line with that for technical reports and referees should actually subject the unvalidated sources to the review process, too. Otherwise, things slip into the peer-reviewed literature that were not subject to the process.
So, feel free to make revisions, even substantial ones.
An example of a preprint, that I was keeping close watch over during the course of its evolution between 2018 and 2023 was Oppenheim's recent publication of a General Relativity - Quantum Theory unification "A postquantum theory of classical gravity?" (https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03116), which is now in the peer-reviewed open access literature under Phys. Rev. X 13, 041040 (https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041040).
In its earliest stages, it took on more of a "gravity is not quantum" tack, even citing a couple potential "no graviton" links to support a "gravity is not quantum" stand. Later, however, the author decided to de-emphasize this possibility, removed the references, and re-stated the possibility that gravity may, indeed, be quantum.
If that was your cause, going into this, then it represents a blow: you're not establishing that conclusion. However, it does not detract from the key elements of the paper: (1) that of providing a cohesive formulation of classical-quantum hybrid dynamics, (2) a mash-up unification of classical General Relativity with Quantum Theory as a corollary of this and (3) a general framework for resolving the measurement theory / interpretation / classicalization problem of Quantum Theory, that will lead - and already has led - to a surge of papers that are now branching out this new framework (nay, new paradigm) to the different application areas where the foundations have for decades run into a wall.
So, even if the issue you're pushing doesn't pan out exactly like you expected it to, and even if there are errors, a paper still matters as a contribution in some fashion or another. Even authors may get blindsided by their own work, and nobody's perfect. At the very least, if you're on the other end, and are citing something on ArXiv, in preprints or other work outside the peer-reviewed literature, it's up to you to keep current on its evolution and make appropriate adjustments to your narrative, if its direction begins to stray away from yours. It is also your responsibility to review any pre-prints that you include in your work, if they haven't been published yet. Generally speaking, as I can personally assure you, they have errors - even the preprint I cited.

Great first contribution!


text:
Is "Advances in Engineering" a predatory platform?
I have received an e-mail from "Advances in Engineering". Is it a predatory-platform? Is it reputable?
...
Dear Dr. XYZ,
We are pleased to inform you that Advances in Engineering selection committee identified your paper “Another XYZ” as a key scientific article contributing to research excellence. We would like to write a feature about your paper and highlight it in our next edition of Advances in engineering news series.
AIE highlight papers of exceptional scientific importance to a broad science and engineering audience (for the latest edition https://advancesENG.com). The feature is intended to globally disseminate research excellence across academia and in the wider community, and to inspire new research directions.
AIE reaches a global audience of 850,000 professors and scientists per month who seek the key research news and accomplishments in engineering. Papers featured at AIE gain extensive visibility and increased citations.
If you accept our special invitation, our professional writers will write a high quality feature draft about your research paper (significance of the work done) and then share it with you for final approval.
AIE is not-for-profit focused on serving research excellence. However, there is a small nominal fee for featuring key scientific articles at AIE ($75 USD total fee) to cover AIE writers’ time in preparing the feature. We can send you an official invoice and we will feature your research within 14 days.
At AIE, we highlight the researchers work at the cutting edge of science, those who are developing the innovations that will lead to a brighter tomorrow. I look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully,
ZYX
ZYX, PhD MBA
VP Scientific affairs, Advances in Engineering
38 Auriga Drive, Suite 200. Ottawa, ON K2E 8A5, Canada

Close voters:  Explain how this is a shopping question?

@AnonymousPhysicist ... seek an assessment ...

I don't see how seeking an assessment makes this a shopping question.

@scaaahu I agree with Allure.  This question isn't "should I buy this service."  The close reasons need a bit of rewriting.  Or maybe unrewriting.

And how is this a duplicate?  The question is not about a journal.  @Wrzlprmft

@Allure: “Evaluate X for me” has all the problems that "should I buy X" has. This is one of the reasons why we put the seeking an assessment phrase into that close reason. Otherwise, you could rewrite every shopping into a valid one without substantially changing anything. (Also see the FAQ.)

@AnonymousPhysicist: I closed as a duplicate because it is pointing the asker and other visitors having the same question in the right direction. This does not make the question any less shopping. As the question assumes that the service in question is a journal, I went by that. For whatever it’s worth, JiK’s answer aligns with one of the red flags in the proposed duplicate. If there is an important distinction to be made here, we can create a new canonical question on how evaluate the reputation of whatever kind of service this is.

@Wrzlprmft "As the question assumes that the service in question is a journal, I went by that."  That's not assumed in the question, it was asked (before the edit).

@Roland I don't agree. There are proper conferences send invitations with similar templates, especially for invited talks.

@Wrzlprmft However, Jik's answer is not a proper answer for this. I don't agree that one simply judge an organization due to their machine-generated templates.

A human writing to you about your research would say something about your research and say how it contributes to research excellence. Spam bots tend to use a general template and refer to your research in a way that is easy to automate, for example, copy your title in verbatim.

We are pleased to inform you that Advances in Engineering selection committee identified your paper “Another XYZ” as a key scientific article contributing to research excellence. We would like to write a feature about your paper and highlight it in our next edition of Advances in engineering news series.

This clearly falls to the spam category.

You'd think so. However, I've received e-mails from reputable journals that start exactly like this.

@mmeent maybe the reputable journals are also using machine-generated emails? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

There are many reputable organization (conferences/journals) sends machine-generated e-mails.

@Kutadgubilig Do they ask you to republish existing papers?

I mean, what reputable conference or journal contacts you simply about a single paper you have already published somewhere else?

@JiK Read what I have written again!

@Kutadgubilig Ok, many reputable organizations send machine-generated emails. I agree. Why are you writing this as a comment to this answer?

It is predatory, in the sense that they seek payment for services that are not useful.  It is not, however, a journal.

What makes you say publicizing one's paper is not useful? There're plenty of reputable venues that do it, e.g. New Scientist, space.com, Physics Today, etc.

@Allure I didn't say that.  It's not useful publicity.  Physics Today is at least a bit useful.  I don't read the other two.

The question also didn't say that.

Well, as it's currently written your answer says "...services that are not useful", which is what led to my comment. If you didn't mean that, might want to edit.


text:
Is it possible to cite from an abstract in a scientific paper
I was wondering whether it is possible to cite information from the abstract part of another scientific paper.
Let's say that you read something interesting in the abstract of a scientific paper and that you want to cite that information.
Is it normal to use that specific research paper as a reference source?
The question arises because normally the abstracts of scientific papers don't contain references, but still the abstract would reflect what the authors of that paper conclude/claim.
EDIT
To further ellaborate:
My question is relating to scientific papers in general.
I know that the abstract normally does not contain any citations like: [1].
The abstract is like a summary of the scientific paper.
When I quote or cite from the abstract of a certain scientific paper, I would be citing as if that scientific paper is the source.
As a result if assuming that the abstract of a scientific paper contains the conclusions of authors that wrote the abstract. Even though these authors partly or not partly based those conclusions on external sources.
So my question is whether that specific abstract/conclusion would be a valid source to cite from, making the scientific paper containing the abstract the source of citation.

When you write "normally the abstracts of scientific papers don't contain references," you seem to be asking whether you can include a citation in an abstract. (You can include the authors names, possibly coupled with year and venue, in the abstract, but you shouldn't use a citation of the form [X], because the abstract might appear independently of the bibliography, which renders [X] useless.) On the other hand, the rest of the question seems to be about citing material in the abstract of another paper. (You could cite a direct quote.)

Normally, the abstract is only a summary of what the paper presents in more depth, so why not find the related claim in the paper instead?

Could you post a link to the paper you are talking about, or maybe the abstract text itself? Since you do not disclose what information you want to use and you don’t explain why you are limited to the abstract, it’s a lot of quests work and hard to answer

It isn't true that "the abstract of a scientific paper contains the conclusions of authors that wrote the abstract." Authors may refer to the ideas of others in an abstract.

If you go through the actual article, you should be able to disentangle the authors' sources from their original work. Then you would know whether what they say in the abstract is their own and therefore attributable to them.
But why would you cite the abstract instead of the article itself?
Because it seems to say something the article does not? Double-check, but then it probably originates from another author.
Because it contains a particular wording that the article does not? Then either paraphrase as you like (and still cite) or verify that the wording can be traced to their own work (or that you trace and cite the originator).
Because you can't get access to more than the abstract without a different subscription? I would hesitate to cite in that scenario.

As a general rule, I would advise against it. It can be tricky to separate what constitutes original work of the authors and what they themselves cite from elsewhere.

I am having a difficult time understanding your meaning or justification. Perhaps you can expand your answer a bit?


text:
Repeating technical terms using varied ones
One of my supervisors told me that the language should not be varied, but instead we should use the same technical words (not synonyms) again and again. Is that really true?
PRE- & POST-EDITED SUBQUESTION (related to accepted answer):
How should paragraphs and sentences be formatted/structured in technical academic writing such as a master thesis (based on your personal experience/recommendations)?

The original question is too broad, and the answer is "consult a style guide." Your last question is relevant, and I am refocusing the question accordingly.

I wrote an answer for the question pre-edit, addressing more than just the question of synonyms. Hopefully it can be of wider use, as it provides references to other resources, and an overall principle that helps answer many questions about writing. Here it goes.
I once took a course in technical communication, which was largely based on an excellent textbook by Paul V. Anderson called Technical Communication: A reader-centered approach. It is perhaps a bit more targeted to technical communication in the private sector than academia, but it has many helpful hints, examples, and rules of thumb. However, the main principle Anderson repeatedly states is reflected already in the title: focus on the audience. Before writing a document or preparing a talk, think through what audience you're targeting, and then adapt the order things are presented in, terminology, notation, depth of the introduction etc. based on that.
This also applies on the level of paragraphs. If sentences are put in a logical order, the text flows better and makes more sense. Similar considerations apply also on the microlevel - e.g. using various synonyms for technical terms is likely to confuse the reader more than it helps, so it should be avoided, especially if different synonyms can mean other things in adjacent fields. Also avoid phonetically confusing notation, such as using 'new' as a subscript. Very long sentences can make the text harder to understand, so the author should ideally try to rework them. Other times they are the clearest way of expressing a given idea you can come up with, which is also fine. Now, it is hard to find the perfect balance the first time around, which is where editing comes in. Edit both for correctness, and to iteratively make the text more readable. (If you know programming, this process is a bit like refactoring code.) If possible get feedback from others (maybe you don't know your audience as well as you think!), and edit accordingly.
Since you've been active on the physics stack, I would also like to point you towards David Mermin's writings on the art of writing. I first read them when I was writing my own masters thesis, and had several 'aha!' moments, including about how to think about equations grammatically. They are also quite enjoyable to read, so I do like sharing them.

What's Wrong with this Prose? (non-paywall version)
What's Wrong with these Equations? (non-paywall version)
Writing Physics

For mathematical writing you'll find further references in Good books/resource on mathematical writing. Also see How to improve technical writing and links therein.

As much as possible, you should be consistent in using technical terminology in your field. Usually, specific terms have precise meanings, so substitutions have the effect of changing the significance of what you mean. For instance, a "matrix" and a "tensor" are not interchangeable. Similarly, in history, a "republic" and a "democracy" are not technically the same.
It is understood that repetition of technical terms may be needed. You use the rest of your writing to make your narrative interesting.


text:
Report Wrong-Doing in Class
In my class, one of my colleagues plays games on computers for about 1 hour each day in class. What should I do? Should I report it to the teacher or should I take matters into my own hands?

This isn't cheating.  It may be annoying and against the rules, but cheating would be something where they submit academic work that isn't an accurate reflection of their own knowledge.

Why does this bother you, and in what sense is this “wrong-doing”?

Where did the colleagues sit? Do they sit in the front row? Back row? Did they turn on the audio volume loud? Why did it bother you?

@scaaahu YES, it bothers me. The rest of us are trying to study and he decides to play Roblox while we are working. Doesn't it bother you.

This is Academia SE not kindergarten SE

Let him / her be : it's up to them.
Are you required to report it? If you are then do it but dispassionately and, if necessary, privately.
Whatever else, don't take matters into your own hands and don't get distracted - concentrate on the class for your own benefit. If necessary sit somewhere else.

You said in a comment that the student’s game-playing bothers you, and I think that that’s very reasonable - the classroom is not an appropriate place for people to play computer games in, which is an activity that could well distract the other students and hurt the learning environment. So yes, I think you would be within your rights to complain to the instructor. BUT - a couple of tips to keep in mind when you speak to the instructor:

Keep your tone as factual and neutral as possible. Do not accuse the student of “wrong-doing”, which to me sounds very judgmental and sanctimonious, or use similarly accusatory language; just state that his game-playing is distracting you and makes it difficult for you to focus on the material. That ought to be enough to get the teacher to act.
Do not talk about “taking matters into your own hands”. You may not realize it but that phrase carries a certain connotation of a threat of violence, and obviously creating an impression that that may be your intent is a very bad idea.

In general, your goal should be to get the student to stop playing games in class rather than to get him punished for “wrong-doing”; make sure that your motivation in complaining is pure and that you are not acting out of vindictiveness or malice. And keep in mind that there is always the option of having a quiet word with the student directly, pointing out that he is being inconsiderate of you and the other students in the class, and asking him to stop. That may be more awkward than going through the instructor, but probably will be a more mature way to resolve the situation. If that approach fails, you can still talk to the instructor after that.

I won't injure someone, but as I have administrative powers on my school computer network, I could repeatedly delete it from her computer.

That could be taken as an abuse of power...


text:
PhD after industry. Is it reasonable?
I am a 31 years old software engineer at a big technology company in Silicon Valley. I have a master's degree in computer science and moved into working full time right at the time of my graduation. During those ~6 years in industry, I always tried to work a few hours during the day on my personal passion which is studying mathematics. Ultimately, every time I want to study a specific topic, I made so little progress because of my full-time job that I got frustrated. I figured just a few weeks ago that something needed to change and I should pursue my passion, which is research, and then got into my head that I must do a PhD. Now, the principal reason of doing a PhD for me is to be able to work full-time on maths. Something I am dreaming about, just thinking about it makes me very happy. On the other hand, at the same time, I know that I am taking a major pay cut (from 6 to 5 figures), and my lifestyle will dramatically change.
EDIT :
Question has been put on hold so I will try to narrow down my questioning to a specific concern.
Considering that I have no demonstrable research experience, no real recommendations by academia people ( 7 years out of college, my teachers will likely had forgot about me ), no good grades in my masters ( average ), and a degree in computer science vs a math one, is it really possible to get accepted in a pure math phD program ?
Note : the only math experience I had is high school ( grade 18/20 ) and my personal experience ( which is not demonstrable )

This is too many questions to ask all at once.

Should I split it into multiple threads ?

Yes, but #3 is off-topic (except for the general question of can "older" students get admission, which has probably already been answered), and #4 is probably too broad.

Thanks for your input. I will be more considerate next time around

I think that the gap between somewhat undergrad level and research is huge in pure mathematics. The good news: there is an easy test. If you can read up-to-date research papers in your field without much trouble, you are good.

I did my PhD in my fifties, after a computer science industry career. I am also a permanent resident alien. I can see two problems you are going to have that I avoided:

I didn't start my PhD until after I had my retirement fund saved up, so my standard of living did not change.
I continued in computer science, so my industry experience helped. I could read current computer science papers without too much difficulty.

One approach to the standard of living issue is to rehearse by trying to live for a year at a graduate student spending rate. That will let you find out if you can do it, and build up your investments with the money you are not spending.
The biggest problem I see is the transition to Mathematics. You could perhaps use the Mathematics GRE subject test to evaluate where you are relative to what you will be expected to know. You might do better doing a computer science PhD but specializing in theory. There are some fine open problems, including the great P=NP question.

Thank you for your answer ! I have a little saved already in my savings, 401k and I hold some stocks that I plan to sell to buy the house if I were to relocate to study. I think I need to pass a GRE test to apply in the phD programs as well, so this is on my list. The issue with CS phD is that it is not really my passion, I work more in probability/machine learning and use my CS skills to program. On the other hand the subjects I am passionate about relate to mathematics as you can see from my original post.

Let me just reinforce Patricia's point here: if you want to study mathematics, but still enjoy programming, and like probability, there are probably people who might be researching something you'd like. But they may not be in mathematics departments! Also check computer science, applied mathematics, statistics, finance (some very hard probability work there). I know of a few mathematicians who are even in engineering departments.  You may need to decide whether your priority is to learn pure math broadly, or do research in a field you'd enjoy and where you can find a job.

...industrial engineering, operations research, electrical engineering, ...

the rehearse recommendation is a really great approach I think...

Here are some things to think about.
Have you considered a PhD program that is in applied mathematics?  This might not be as sexy as theoretical, but it might be a good way to combine your passion and a reasonable way to make an income.
If you work in academia as a researcher or academic it might leave you time between semesters to make extra income consulting.
The data mining/science industry is hot right now.  Yes, knowing the software is good in that industry, but it is the math and statistics that is the root of most things in data mining.  This would be another way of supplementing your income.
Best of luck!!

Thank you for your answer !, Yes I am already in the world of data mining machine learning. But ultimately this is not my true passion. I always dreaming of working in pure mathematics. The financial aspect can be dealt with I think following your suggestion, consulting, teaching that could be done I guess.

That makes sense.  I have been studying data mining lately too and have found myself drawn more towards the statistics and probability side of things.

Do you have any input on the other questions I had ? If not I want to thank you once again.

Yes, I experienced something similar as to what you are going through about 15 years ago.  I knew what I loved doing (academics), and knew that I, at best, felt mediocre about my job (programming).  I did not have the money to go back for a ms/phd and knew that it was risky to take out a loan to do so, but I did.  For me, it was worth it.  I met people and gained experiences that I never would have had if I did not take the risk.  I do work in academia now as a programmer, not a researcher, and feel that it is a happy compromise.

Awesome ! May I ask why you didn't go through the route of scholarships ? and what was the theme of your phD ? And after how many years in industry did you decide to go back for academia ?

I was a terrible student as an undergrad, so having access to scholarships was not an option for me.  However, I've always been a hardworker so I applied that to getting research assitantships and minimized the amount of borrowing.  The first time I went back to academia I had been working for about 10 years.  The second time I went back after working about 1 year.

I see. Regarding scholarships I really don't know about my case, I have an engineer degree from a foreign country ( equivalent to master's degree in the US I believe ) and had fairly good grades in maths. Though I have no idea how to get recommendation letters being 6 years out of school ...

Here is a successful story. Similar to you, this guy also worked 6 years in industry (at Google, as Tech Lead). He then quite his job for an extremely successful PhD, then started a company with his PhD supervisor, based on the ideas in his PhD thesis (code mining).
Back to your questions.

Instead of determining which area to choose, perhaps determine which school you can admission first.
That's not uncommon. After starting PhD, you will often have several months to do literature review.
Of course, of course.
Yes, academic positions are very competitive. You need to be at least as good as the guy I mentioned above to stay at Silicon Valley as an assistant professor.
I do think you are making a really bad choice. As you don't have a clear goal in mind, and don't know what a PhD can bring to you. Did you have kids? kids cost a lot, a lot of money.

Thank you for you comment ! I should probably iron out a few things. I have a few schools in mind, University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie Mellon are my top 2 ( I really want to move out of the silicon valley to be able to afford a house and PA seems like a good choice ). So I will move out In any case. I have no kids which is an other factor in my decision. It's true that I don't have a clear goal in mind, the only thing I want is to be able to do my passion which is research in maths full time, the phD certificate is a big + for me as I will consider it as an achievement.


text:
How to quote bulleted lists using IEEE style?
I found two very useful bulleted lists in my sources and I want to quote them directly in my thesis. For example:

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 3
Sentence 4

Nevertheless I only could find how to do it using APA and MLA. How can I do this using IEEE style?
EDIT: I was following the approach proposed by the accepted answer, but I found two awkward consequences while doing this. I would appreciate if someone can confirm if this approach is okay. I explain the problem with an example.
Consider this list in the original source:

sold, leased, or licensed to the general public
offered by a vendor trying to profit from it
supported and evolved by the vendor, who retains the intellectual property rights
available in multiple, identical copies
used without modification of the internals

Lists are automatically indented. Quoting this list directly using the IEEE guidelines will increase the indentation of the list:

sold, leased, or licensed to the general public
offered by a vendor trying to profit from it
supported and evolved by the vendor, who retains the intellectual property rights
available in multiple, identical copies
used without modification of the internals [1, Sec. 1.1]

Furthermore we have to add the in-text citation at the end of the long quotation, but because it is added at the last item in the list it might confuse the reader regarding what is actually quoted: the complete list or the last item. Is this okay?

Put it in a block quote and cite it like you would any other quote.

@ScottSeidman would you please post your comment as an answer?

Put it in a block quote and cite it like you would any other quote. The fact that it's a bulleted list doesn't necessarily  make it special.

Usually the bulleted lists are automatically indented. If I put them in a block quote should I indent them further?


text:
Reuse text from progress report in final report of scholarship/grant
Is it self-plagiarism to reuse text (multiple paragraphs) from a progress report to a grant giving agency in the final report to the same agency?
The specific case is an internal scholarship of my university (no guidelines except length), but I think the question is also relevant for all other grants that require both progress/interim and final reports.
The question is not the same as this question, because in my case both reports end up at the same place, so the whole "no one will ever notice anyway" argument doesn't work.
This question is also different, because it is about dissertation reports, not funding reports.

I am not sure I understand your question. The final report naturally includes stuff from progress report. You run the risk if you just copy and paste because the reader might be the very same person in the same agency. If you have time to write a question here, why not spend time to rephrase some texts from the progress report?

Slight rephrasing is still plagiarism, so it's a non-trivial amount of work. 2. I can delay writing the report for a couple of days or weeks. 3. I'm curious about the answer and curious why no one (appears to) has asked the question before. 4. "run the risk if you copy and paste" - risk of what? Either it is allowed and there no risk or it isn't and I won't copy and paste. But I don't know which of those is true, hence the question.

Okay, I understand your concern now. In the answers of your first linked question, grant proposals are not considered published, hence there is not much plagiarism issue. Is your grant report/progress report published/publish-able?

No, it just gets sent to a vice rectorate. I don't know if someone even reads the reports, so it's not a huge problem for me personally. I just couldn't believe that I can't find the answer anywhere, because that same question should come up for every single "real" grant as well, where you usually have to send yearly reports and a final report, as I understand.

Self-plagiarism is an offense caused by violating the expectation of originality.
When you write a progress report or a final report, there is no expectation of originality of the text per se.  Rather, you are expected to have done original work during each period, and the report is expected to provide a clear and comprehensive presentation of the work that was done during the reporting period.
Thus, it is entirely legitimate to include text from an earlier report into a final report that covers the period of the earlier report. Now, it is quite likely that the text should change to some degree to fit the new context. Whatever changes you might make are not about avoiding self-plagiarism, but about how your perspective changes when you're discussing the whole project in retrospect.
To drive the point home: my own practice when preparing a final report is to begin by concatenating all of the periodic progress reports, add a writeup of the final section, and then reorganize and rewrite as necessary to provide a comprehensive final document. If I were instead to write the whole thing from scratch, I would consider that an inappropriate waste of my sponsors' money and also likely to end up accidentally omitting important information contained in the periodic reports.


text:
Working with the 'my way or the highway' attitude from advisor
My advisor very much has a "my way or the highway" approach in her supervision of students, and chooses to communicate largely through email whilst sitting in her office. Some element of "my way or the highway" is to be expected when someone is an expert in their field (at least in relation to experimental work), but she refuses to listen to any kind of reasonable argument.
Often, rather than coming to the lab, or raising her issues during lab-meetings, she chooses to send emails in person late at night or first thing in the morning such that we wake up to them (she isn't a people person). The emails are often not really related to my project but rather about some aspect of how we do things in the lab. They often come after you've disclosed to her some issue you're having in your work, i.e. my cells died
An email chain may go something like this:

Advisor: I've been thinking about the situation regarding the running of the flow cytometry assays, and decided that XX will run these from now on in your place.
Me: XX's project doesn't require flow cytometry, and XX only works Mon-Wed in the lab which would mess with our schedule. I'm happy to keep on running this, but if you want someone else training to do the assay then perhaps I could suggest YY – they'll be needing to do the assay in a few weeks time anyway and did some work during their masters project.
Advisor: Please come to my office at 0800 tomorrow morning.

Maybe she does have a point. I do need more time in the lab. And could do with not having to spend time running assays.
My issue is that everybody accepts that the advisor has made a stupid decision (we're even sure that she knows that shes made a stupid decision but has taken it too far to back down). The person chosen is chosen not because of their skill/knowledge etc, but because that persons work is currently going well and so she favours them.
Going to her office yields nothing productive other than a re-hash of her emails (she's no more willing to listen to a reasonable argument in person). I don't like having these one-on-one meetings as I end up leaving angry/upset, which damages our relationship generally and makes me want to avoid her as much as possible.
How should one deal with this situation? My gut feeling is to reply along the lines of:

Me: I don't feel that would be productive right now. Perhaps we could discuss this at the next lab-meeting as it effects everybody, or if you're keen to meet one-on-one, then i'd be happy to do so in the presence of ZZ (my co-supervisor).

What does ZZ say about this situation?

ZZ is very diplomatic. They think the situation is stupid but have known the advisor long enough to know not to get involved. ZZ would generally say do as she asks and let her hang herself with the stupid decision. My reason for suggesting ZZ is present at the meeting is because at least with him there the advisor is forced to be somewhat diplomatic and polite.

My response to that attitude is always to choose the highway.


text:
Presenting a new work in different seminars in the same department
I work in mathematics and sometimes my work is on the border of two different subjects: analysis (my main specialization) and geometry. In my department there are both analysis seminar and geometry seminar.
Is it common to present the same new work in both seminars if I believe that the work might represent some interest to both groups?
If it matters, I am working in an American university and I am relatively new in this country.

It's more common to present the work in one seminar and to inform the people in the other seminar that this talk may be of interest to them also.  But I see nothing wrong with giving talks in both seminars, especially if the material would be presented differently for the two audiences.

You present your work to colleagues, not a formal group under a certain name. If you think there are people on both seminar groups who are genuinely interested in what you do and with whom you would like to collaborate in future - there is nothing wrong in presenting your results in both seminars.
However, there is no point (and no joy) in presenting to a wrong audience, or, in other words, in presenting a wrong talk to a given audience. If you decide to present in two different seminar groups, focused on different topics, make sure you rework your presentation accordingly. In fact, you have to present two different lectures,  each adapted to interests of a particular group.


text:
Is it right to have students bring cake and cold drinks for classes?
Where I study, it is normal even for advanced courses that the instructor for a class makes a "cake list" consisting of student names who each bring a cake (it could be other stuff, like cold drinks, but usually it's cake) to share with the rest of the class.
Is this acceptable behavior? I can think of many drawbacks of such an initiative (not all of them apply to me personally, but some do)

While not obligatory, it requires students to pronounce, in front of all other students, that they do not wish to participate. This is an awkward position to put somebody else in, especially during the first day of class, and it gets worse when somebody actually brings a cake: does the person who refused to be on the list get to eat the cake? Even if they do, I am sure they'll feel a bit uncomfortable doing so.
Classes should be focused on study, not on eating stuff.
Some students will find it annoying that while they're trying to do a hard problem or read a difficult section in a book, everybody else is eating and enjoying a cake which is also being passed back and forward, adding to the distruption.
Some students will be on diets or other health plans. They could refuse the cake, but why force them to make that choice in the first place? For many, this is a known problem.
Cakes and cold drinks can dirty the place up, with crumbs, wet marks, and so on. Somebody else will use the classroom after us, and at the end of the day, the cleaning people will have to do some work in there too. It should be left as clean as possible for them.

Where is this? Etiquette varies tremendously by location.

I'm a bit confused by this.  I have been involved, as a student or instructor, in courses in which food was brought into class once or twice.  The way you describe it, it sounds like it is either one cake per student or one cake per class meeting (depending on the size of the class, one cake per student could be more).  And this happens in every class?  So am I to understand that at your institution students are more or less eating cake all day, every day?  May I ask where is this land of continuous cake? I'd like to visit it, but not for too long.

@PeteL.Clark "Land of Continuous Cake" - priceless!

While I agree that it would be awkward to refuse to participate, I think it would be perfectly all right to do so.  An alternative approach would be to sign up cheerfully, and then equally cheerfully show up on your day with some healthy treat, such as sugar snap peas or some really crisp snow peas.  Baby carrots and hummus tend to go over big too.  You can bring paper plates and flavored, but unsweetened, mineral water.  You can also set an example regarding leaving the room tidy for the next group by cleaning up at the end of class each time.  After a couple of times doing this cheerfully,

...you can smile at a few classmates, hold out a damp paper towel, and ask them if they can give you a hand with wiping off the desks.  You can say, "I like to leave the classroom tidy for the next group who's coming in."  Make sure you don't say it in a guilt-trip way. // I will say I'm surprised.  Where I live, in the U.S., this is only a problem in kindergarten to fifth grade.

@PeteL.Clark This was fairly common in Copenhagen when I did my undergrad there, though it was not something all classes had (it mainly depended on who was TA'ing), and it was usually such that it was a once-a-week thing for each class that had it. But the list was usually not a problem since there would be more students than weeks in the course, and plenty of people signed up to bake.

Many hundreds of years ago I had a class on "theory of computation"* that met at a wretchedly inconvenient time: 8:00 AM on Sunday mornings, for four hours.**  Someone always brought coffee and someone else always brought donuts.  However, there was no list, only volunteers.  Arrangements were informal and made at the end of each class meeting.
Conclusion: List, bad; volunteers, good.
*With the polished and appropriately hideous book by Derick Wood.
**This was in the United States.  The class meeting time was an experiment, never again repeated.

I have nothing else to add save to say that 8am on a Sunday is possibly the very worst time possibly conceived for a class. It's almost sadistic! And I thought 10am on a Monday was bad.

@C26 It was an experiment that attempted to assist working students.  Didn't work.


text:
Will an online minority student PhD recruitment platform be valuable in the US?
I know many faculty are concerned about diversity in their labs and it seems to be an ongoing issue. Will it ease PhD recruitment pains to have a searchable database of propsective applicants? Especially for minority applIcants. Not so much to manage the application process but just to find good fit and increase diversity in the group/lab.
My advisor prides herself in building a diverse lab and went through a significant amount of effort to find right persons in the direct applicant pool that fit her criteria.
Anyone have any experience with efforts to diversify their labs that proved successful? Will a secure searchable repository of minority applicants make it easier?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a discussion topic and/or survey, not a concretely answerable question.

By the way, most US universities have online job application systems so my guess is that they'd be more likely to adapt those systems for PhD applications than use a separate piece of software.

Your edit made a drastic change of the question. The original question is about an online PhD recruitment platform. Now, it's about pain points of PhD recruitment. In my opinion, the new version is even broader than the original.

Really? Ok. Will make it better

Having reviewed literally thousands of posts asking " I study X. This is my GPA, GRE and TOEFL scores. I have published a few papers. I have good recommendation letters. What is my chance getting into US PhD programs?" type of questions on this site, I would say such a central online platform is definitely useful.
In particular, I think it would be very helpful for the students to get an idea what the schools are looking for. Publishing lab openings is a good start. Some schools may be reluctant to publish their requirements in the first place. But, if many schools are doing that, many others will follow suits.
However, I am not too sure if those admission committee members will spend so much time to go through hundreds of thousands (or even more) applicants' files.
My other concerns is the information security. There would be a lot sensitive data to be looked at. So, I think to put students' data on that site may not be a good idea at the moment.

To support part of the warning here: for maths there is a central site in the US for most postdoc and junior professor positions. It makes life easier for applicants and referees, but means the number of applicants per job is stupidly high.


text:
Does a year of entrepreneurship in an unrelated field affect an MS application?
I did my Bachelors in computer science. I have been working for 1.5 years in a reputed software firm working on distributed systems, information retrieval and such fields.
I want to apply for MS in CSE (distributed systems or ML) next year but before that I want to start my game development company which has been a dream. It might also help me earn a lot of money which I will need to study further. Game development is largely software engineering, but has nothing to do with distributed systems or ML. If my game development start-up fails I will happily do the MS right away.
Will switching from my current "related" job to a somewhat unrelated field trigger an alarm? Am I at a risk of getting rejected?
How can I patch things up if I have to after my game development gig?

I think you are forgetting that you do not necessarily need to self-finance your graduate study.  A teaching assistantship would take care of your tuition and would give you a stipend to live on (frugally).  Teaching assistantships are not hard to come by in the field of CS -- as compared to some other fields, because universities generally need a fleet of TAs to grade and/or teach the undergraduate classes.
You may want to consider putting in some applications for grad school this coming December - January.  You can always quit your current job after collecting a strong recommendation from your current supervisor.  Then you would have February - August to try out your entrepreneurial idea and see how it goes.  If it's taking off and you're really enjoying it, you can always cancel (or possibly postpone) the grad school plans.

I disagree with "Teaching assistantships are not hard to come by in the field of CS." For masters students in CS, funding (by way of TA and/or RA positions) can be very hard to come by. In my school, for example, there are far more masters students that want such positions than there are positions available.

@ff524 - (a) I was comparing with some other fields; (b) there are departments which don't make a hard distinction between PhD students and masters students.

Perhaps you should [edit] your post to clarify what you meant, then. As a general statement without further details, "Teaching assistantships are not hard to come by in the field of CS" is a rather misleading statement.

thanks for the answer. however it doesn't answer the core of the question. Will my game dev attempt spoil my chances of a good MS?
I plan to apply the year after this because I need some time to try out my own company. 6 months is no good. It will be a half assed attempted :)

If six months is not enough for you to get a sense of whether your project is going to be successful, or whether you enjoy it, then you do indeed have a dilemma.

@aparente001 For me, to make a polished game it would take 3 months easily. After that there will be marketing stuff, etc. There is no way I can stop at one game.
anyway I agree to disagree with you in this aspect. If I do end up spending a full year on my start-up will I have problems with my MS application?

If your entrepreneurial experience turns out to be something you do not want to put on your resume, you can say you took a gap year and be rather vague.  I believe there is an advantage to going straight to grad school, but it's not do or die.

@aparente001 thanks. but I am not ashamed of putting it on my resume. But the question is, should I be? Started game dev company vs took a break year?

If you are proud of something you have done, mention it.  If you are not proud of the thing you did, skip over it or leave it rather blurry.

@aparente001 thanks for your patience :) but my primary concern is not how well my start-up does. If it does well, I wouldn't even apply. But my concern whether my interest in a subject different from core computer science is a red flag for them.

I studied at UW-Madison which encourages people who have worked in the field to apply -- which makes sense to me, because when you work in the real world you get perspective.


text:
Doing a query on Scopus
I'm trying to perform a specific query on Scopus. To be precise, I am looking for books from Wiley that are related to real time systems.
Maybe I did a mistake because there aren't results. The query I tried is:
DOCTYPE(bk) EDITOR(wiley) KEY(real time systems)
Could you tell me how to do it please?

The EDITOR()-field searches for editors, i.e. (usually) human individuals who edit a volume.
You are looking, instead, for a book's publisher. The correct field would thus be labelled BOOKPUB().
With the following query, I find 8 results:
DOCTYPE ( "bk" )  AND  BOOKPUB ( "Wiley" )  AND  KEY ( "real time systems" )
(Note that I added the operator AND between each field as well as quotation marks within the parentheses.)


text:
How can I look for PhD offers in the USA?
I am a French citizen who is interested in a PhD in the US, Canada or Australia, in the field of geography, water management and protection, environmental problematics, land management...
But it seems really hard to find PhD offers, especially when you are a foreigner. I wonder if this is because we are in a bad period, where most of the offers are closed at the beginning of the year?
I get the feeling that most PhD candidates are recruited internally. Any advice is welcome.

Try findaphd.com.

At many US & Canadian universities, students who are interested in doing a doctorate apply to a department at a particular university;  only once they are accepted do they join a particular laboratory/research group.  The key phrase here is "graduate admissions";  Google "graduate admissions [field] [university]" to find out more about the application procedure for a particular department at a particular university.

Okay so if I understand things correctly, I am first supposed to reach out to a laboratory, and if they accept my profile they might offer me a phd position? The topic of which they will choose for me. I will do as you say and google graduate admission, I just hope the process is free since it might lead to nothing.

I’m voting to reopen this question, because it has a direct and useful answer: To first approximation, there is no such thing as a “PhD position” in the United States, because “PhD student” is not considered a job.

In the United States, you will not often find advertisements for one PhD positions. This is because graduate admissions are handled at the departmental level, rather than at the PI level. So, if you can find departments whose research interests line up with your own, you can apply. Note that there are usually one or two deadlines per year (which vary from school to school!), so make sure your application (including test scores) is ready by then.

I know only a little about applications to grad programs in the EU, but it's very different from the US (and Canada). In general you apply to a program, not a particular lab or advisor, although having advance contact with a potential advisor is often advantageous during the admissions process. Most US PhD programs admit only beginning in the Fall term, with application deadlines typically the previous January. So if you are trying to apply for Fall 2018, you need to be filing applications now. But there is no particular disadvantage to being an EU student, assuming your application is competitive otherwise and you speak English well.
Nearly all US programs require GRE scores, so you also need to have taken these already. If you have additional questions about a particular program, you should direct them to the "graduate director" or "director of graduate studies."

So if you are trying to apply for Fall 2018, you need to be filing applications now — In fact, many Fall 2018 application deadlines have already passed.  (The deadline for my department's PhD program was December 15.)

@JeffE This is true, but a strong applicant can often be given consideration with a late application.


text:
Study technique for courses that involve reading and understanding research papers?
Previous quests for the ideal study technique usually led me to "solve problems" (mathematics courses) or use spaced repetition (+ e.g. ANKI) for courses which require at least some level of memorization.
Now I'm taking courses which require reading (and understanding) research papers and I'm not sure about the best way to study. Should I print out quizzes for each paper? Or just read them again and again? Are there study techniques specifically for "paper-based" courses?

I'm not sure where you would find 'quizzes' for actual research papers. In a course, you might need to be able to read, understand, synthesize, and write a class paper about it all. In physics, one needs to read, understand to the necessary() level, and apply to one's own research as seems useful(). The outcomes are quite different, and the (*)'s for necessary and useful are key differences.

Searching this stack for how to read papers might help you find some suggestions that work for you: typically an early course that is based on reading papers is intended just as much to get you exposed to reading academic writing as it is about the stated topic of the course.

@JonCuster I thought about printing a quiz for myself and then filling it out regularly to have a spaced-repetition effect

My strong suggestion is that you write and keep notes on the papers you read. There is some evidence that hand writing the notes is superior to typing them for learning purposes. The goal is to engage the mind more fully in what you are trying to learn and note taking is a good way, especially if you don't have exercises to solve.
But even better is to summarize your notes a bit later. You can do this by entering your summaries onto electronic media for saving and later searching.
But one thing that is worth considering is to take your notes in a way that allows you to later extend them as thoughts occur. This is much like a "research notebook" in which you record yet unsolved problems and your thoughts on coming up with solutions. These problems might just be thoughts that occur to you as possible research areas but that you need to defer for the moment while you do higher priority things.
But the key is to fully engage the mind. For most people reading isn't enough. It works for short term retention but not well enough for long term learning. Writing is a better mechanism - especially writing by hand.

It depends in each case what purpose you are reading the paper for. At the lowest level of engagement, it might be to acquaint yourself with the existence of a paper on such-and-such. At the highest level of engagement it might be to understand the paper so fully you could explain it without notes to an undergraduate class. There are all sorts of intermediate stages, and you may find yourself moving through them in respect of the same paper.
I have certainly experienced the realisation that that paper by Smith and Jones that I glanced at a while ago is now, I realise, one that I need to understand inside out and backwards. When that happens I fully endorse Buffy's advice that going through the paper taking detail notes in manuscript is the best way.


text:
Why are some good math journals not indexed by Thomson Reuters?
I observed some very good math journals are not indexed by Thomson Reuters. The basis of my evaluation is the composition of the editorial board, the university or press that house the journals and the authors that publish with them. My question is what is likely the reason for this non-indexing?

Traditionally, Science Citation Index (which morphed into the current Web Of Science) focused on the physical and life sciences and mathematics was better covered by Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt Math.  Web of  Science has expanded its coverage a lot in recent years, but coverage still varies a lot between disciplines.

It would be easier to answer if you gave explicit names of journals in this situation, as there can be various reasons for not being listed.

There is no benefit to using Thompson Reuters as a way to evaluation mathematics journals. The editorial board and the papers that are published are the key things to look at, not the indexing (assuming that, as usual, the journal is indexed in MathSciNet and zbMATH)

The only mathematical journals that I think highly of and that I have noticed at any point not being indexed by Thompson Reuters where simply too recent. For example, Forum of Mathematics (both Pi and Sigma parts) is currently not indexed, but I bet it will soon be. Of course, I may have missed others.
Added in response to user's comment: you did find one I missed. More precisely, Real Analysis Exchange is known to me and not indexed. Here I guess that the issue is that the journal is rather low-profile, in the sense that its articles receive few citations on average (not to mean that its article are not good, I know much too few of them to judge even roughly). JCR only indexes the journals that receive a certain amount of citation (see the "Citation Analysis" section in the link provided in Sean Elvidge's answer). If one looks at MathSciNet, which is more comprehensive for maths, one sees that the MCQ (analogue of the 5 year Impact factor but using the database of MathSciNet) of Real Analysis Exchange is lower than half the average MCQ of MathSciNet's journals.

How about the Exchange of the Michigan State University? Is cost of indexing the biggest consideration?

The selection process used by Thomson Reuters for choosing journals is described, in detail, on this page: http://wokinfo.com/essays/journal-selection-process/
The basic standards (see the link for more information) are:

TIMELINESS
Timeliness of publication is a basic criterion in the evaluation process. It is of primary and fundamental importance. A journal must be publishing according to its stated frequency to be considered for inclusion in Web of Science. The ability to publish on time implies a healthy backlog of manuscripts essential for ongoing viability. It is not acceptable for a journal to appear chronically late, weeks or months after its cover date. To measure timeliness we need to see three consecutive current issues, one after another, as soon as they are published.
INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL CONVENTIONS
Thomson Reuters also determines if the journal follows international editorial conventions, which are intended to optimize retrievability of source articles. These conventions include informative journal titles, fully descriptive article titles and author abstracts, complete bibliographic information for all cited references, and full address information for every author.
FULL TEXT ENGLISH
English is the universal language of science. For this reason Thomson Reuters focuses on journals that publish full text in English, or at very least, bibliographic information in English. There are many journals covered in Web of Science that publish articles with bibliographic information in English and full text in another language. However, going forward, it is clear that the journals most important to the international research community will publish full text in English. This is especially true in the natural sciences. There are notable exceptions to this rule in the Arts & Humanities and in Social Sciences topics. This is discussed further below. Nonetheless, full text English is highly desirable, especially if the journal intends to serve an international community of researchers. In addition, all journals must have cited references in the Roman alphabet.
PEER REVIEW
Application of the peer-review process is another indication of journal standards and signifies overall quality of the research presented and the completeness of cited references.6 Inclusion of Funding Acknowledgements is also strongly recommended. Not only do they help create a greater context for the journal, these acknowledgements also function as a confirmation of the importance of the research presented.

Once again, for a more detailed description visit http://wokinfo.com/essays/journal-selection-process/
Edit:
In response to Benoit Klockner's comment, I thought I would also quote the 'Citation Analysis' that is used by Thomson Reuters.

CITATION ANALYSIS
The Thomson Reuters Journal Selection Process is unique in that Thomson Reuters editors have a wealth of citation data available to them. Because Web of Science is a true citation index, all cited references from every item in every journal covered in Web of Science are indexed whether or not the cited work is also covered as a source publication. Through these data it is possible to measure the citation impact of journals under evaluation.
The importance of interpreting and understanding these data correctly cannot be emphasized too strongly. Using quantitative citation data to measure impact is meaningful only in the context of journals in the same general discipline. For example, smaller fields like Agricultural Engineering do not generate as many articles or citations as larger fields like Biotechnology or Genetics. In some areas, particularly in the Arts & Humanities, it may take a relatively long time for an article to attract a meaningful number of citations. But in other areas, such as the life sciences, it is not unusual for citations to accrue rapidly and peak after two or three years.7 These facts must be taken into consideration if citation data are to be used correctly.
Citation analysis takes place on at least two levels. Thomson Reuters looks for citations to the journal itself, as expressed by impact factor and/ or total citations received. For new journals that do not yet have a citation history at the publication level, analysts examine the citation record of the contributing authors and editorial board members. This allows them to see if the journal is able to attract contributions from scholars whose prior work has been useful to the research community.
Likewise, established journals that are not covered are often re-evaluated. These journals can experience new growth in citation impact resulting from changes such as translation into English, change in editorial focus, change in publisher, publishing medium, etc.
As noted above, because Thomson Reuters captures all cited references from each of the over 12,000 journals covered, citation information is available on journals not covered as well as those that are covered.
Self-citation rates are also taken into consideration. The self-cited rate relates a journal's self-citations to the number of times it is cited by all journals, including itself. For example, journal X was cited 15,000 times by all journals, including the 2,000 times it cited itself. Its self-cited rate is 2/15 or 13%.
It is entirely normal for authors to reference the prior work that is most relevant to their current results, regardless of the source journal in which the work was published. However, there are journals in which the observed rate of self-citation is a dominant influence in the total level of citation. For these journals, self-citation has the potential to distort the true role of the title in the context of the literature of its subject.8
Among all journals listed in the 2010 JCR Science Edition, for example, 85% have self-citation rates of less than 15%. This shows that self-citation is quite normal for most journals. Significant deviation from this normal rate, however, prompts an examination by Thomson Reuters to determine if excessive self-citations are being used to artificially inflate the impact factor. If we determine that self-citations are being used improperly, the journal's impact factor will be suppressed for at least two years and the journal may be considered for deselection from Web of Science.

The link is interesting, but I doubt that the part you cited is the one that is most likely to answer user's question. The threshold in citations for example would often be more drastic for legitimate, serious journals.

A good point - as such I thought I should also include the 'Citation Analysis' part of the link as well in my answer. Thanks for the comment.

"True citation index". Pff... They can't count citations from journals they don't look at.


text:
Department not giving me TAships after a dispute with professor, what should I do?
I got in a dispute with a professor I TA'd for, and now my department is not giving me TAships.  What should I do?  I am required to teach more classes in my department in order to satisfy a graduation requirement.  In addition I do not have research funding and I'm dependent on TAships to make money.
Nobody actually told me I wouldn't be allowed to TA again, but I suspect I have been blackballed by my department (and there's no way for me to know, since the application process is opaque, and they can just keep rejecting my applications without telling me why).

the application process is opaque — Yikes.  Get out.

Do you mind sharing what happened in the dispute with the professor?

Have you tried talking to one or more professors whose classes you would like to TA?

If you have a union, this is exactly the sort of thing they're for.

I agree with the idea of asking, as suggested by @user6726. However, as a matter of general office politics I suggest a couple of refinements:
If you have an advisor, that is the first person to ask. If not, if there is someone with general administrative responsibility for graduate students, try them. You can always escalate to the department chair later if necessary.
Regardless of who you ask first, if you really are blackballed make them bring it up. You have a question along the lines of "I need more TA assignments for graduation, but have not got an assignment the last X cycles. What do I need to do to get an assignment?" That opens the discussion without accusing anyone of anything. If they tell you that you are never going to get another TA assignment then it is time to escalate to the department chair and your union, if any.
In a comment, I asked about talking to professors. Depending on the department's rules and customs, the professor who is responsible for a course will have some amount of influence over TA selection for the course. Even if you have been deliberately blackballed, asking a professor you do get along with about being a TA for one of that professor's courses may break the logjam.

The first thing would be to meet with the department chair to get the story. If that doesn't yield a satisfactory result, many universities have an appeals process, and you could call on that avenue. If teaching is an actual requirement, then they would need a pretty compelling reason to effectively terminate you without just cause and doing the Due Process thing, although this depends on the legal system in your country, of course. But you would have to be pretty blameless (e.g., if the dispute was over a significant error on your part as a teacher, that could be the end of the discussion).