text:
Methodology as a Body of Methods?
I'm currently having a hard time understanding if authors are using the word methodology correctly, or if their papers should be classified as BS. Hence, I set out to get a better feeling for the correct use of the word, but now I'm even more confused than before:
First I had a look at wikipedia which states:

Methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study, or the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a branch of knowledge.

This sentence is followed by a second sentence with reference to a paper from S.I. Irny, which as far as I could see, states something very contracting:

Methodology is generally a guideline for solving a problem, with
  specific components such as phases, tasks, methods, techniques and
  tools [two sources are given]

Even though I think the wikipedia description is identical with my understanding of the term, the reference is confusion. I then asked Merriam & Webster for help. Here it says:

1:  a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline : a particular procedure or set of procedures
      2:  the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field

Oxford says a discipline is branch of knowledge, which I would interpret as things like math, sociology, computer science and psychology, but not things like UML modeling, crossword solving, methods for solving a problem, or even sticking together methods to solve a problem. This does not match the discipline : a particular procedure or a set of procedures part of the definition.
And then again they give a weird example:

«for solving crossword puzzles my usual methodology is to begin by
      filling in all of the answers I'm reasonably sure of»

Maybe the « and » brackets indicate that they chose a poor example, or they consider crosswords a discipline (case 1). It obviously doesn't qualify for case 2, as the example does not analyse methods used in the crossword domain.
Sadly, Oxford defines the term as:

a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity: a
  methodology for investigating the concept of focal points

Which again is used as a method/solution for a problem and not the theorecial study of methods in that field. Only the "Methodology as a buzzword" section on wikipedia seems to back up my understanding of the term:

Many recent uses of the word methodology mistakenly treat it a synonym
  for method or body of methods. Doing this shifts it away from its true
  epistemological meaning and reduces it to being the procedure itself,
  the set of tools or the instruments that should have been its outcome.
  A methodology is the design process for carrying out research or the
  development of a procedure and is not in itself an instrument for
  doing those things. Using it as a synonym for method or set of
  methods, leads to misinterpretation and undermines the proper analysis
  that should go into designing research.

Question 1: Is my understanding that a methodology is, as the name suggests it, a logic behind methods, and consequently must not deal with the topic per se, but address some meta level of the used methods, wrong?
Question 2: For my particular academic problem in CS: Is the combination of general priciples and rules as part of a standard for creating a particular type of operating system a methodology (e.g. as used in AUTOSAR)? Such principles and rules govern and describe communication mechanisms, memory access methods, scheduling and the like. I would call this a body of methods, hence this must be a buzzword?
Additional fact: My Sixth edition Oxford from 1976 says:

Science of method; body of methods used in a particular branch of
  activity;

So in the current version they dumped the actual meaning and only used that weird body of method definition.
I'm happy about any source bringing some clarity into this mess. Don't worry if you can't answer the CS specific question, a general purpose answer may well be just as good.

Your pre-questions about the use of colon and brackets in a specific dictionary (the Merriam-Webster) is clearly not on topic here. However, the question below (difference between method and methodology) is actually excellent, so I wonder if you could edit all the irrelevant bits out?

Words don't have a fixed meaning, and dictionaries only follow usage here. That is what is happening here.
The “classical” meaning of methodology is (my own words): a branch of epistemology that studies scientific methods, i.e. the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied in science. (Epistemology, in turn, is a branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge).
This classical meaning is what the eponym Wikipedia article discusses (WP being an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, it doesn't have to list all meanings of a given word). It's also what one of the Merriam-Webster definitions says:

the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field

Now, language evolves, and in addition to this “classical” meaning of methodology (which is, in that sense, a mass noun), a second meaning is developing. This new meaning is “a collection of methods used in conjunction”, as you noted.
Now, as with every language evolution, some people complain about it (and the Wikipedia article on Methodology is clearly written from this point of view; see “Methodology as a buzzword” section). The Wiktionary article goes on to say:

Etymologically, methodology refers to the study of methods. Thus the use of methodology as a synonym for methods (or other simple terms such as means, technique, or procedure) is proscribed as both inaccurate and pretentious.

Well, sod them to Hades! It is clear that this newer meaning is abundantly used in the academic literature these days, and can thus be considered acceptable.

(If you've never seen it, this wonderful tirade by Stephen Fry should cure you of prescriptivism. It is delightful to hear… “They're no more guardians of language than the Kennel Club is the guardian of dogkind.”)

And see also this question on English Language & Usage

One meaning of "methodology" is a synonym for method. That is how it is used, both in technical literature and in common use.
Another of its meanings is the study of methods.
And yet another is the body of methods in a particular field.
You will find writers who are celebrated for being experts in that craft who use the word with any and all of those meanings; so this is not a question of technical usage versus casual usage.
Etymology is not destiny. As F'x writes, language is defined by usage, and evolves constantly.
Nevertheless, as writers we not only have the expectations of our readers in mind, but also (and primarily) the expectations of our commissioning editor - the gatekeeper to publication.  If they are a descriptivist, you may have to work with that in order to get published. If they have a style guide to work to, then you must work to it too.  Your goal is to get your paper published: fighting to change the publisher's style guide is a different and separate battle, so don't mix them up.
So, to find out whether you should be using "methodology", "method" or "paradigm", read some comparable papers in your target journal, and see what's most commonly used, in contexts that are most analagous to yours. If that doesn't clear it up, ask your contact editor at the journal.

+1 In fact, ISO/IEC 24744, a standard on methodologies, defines "method" and "methodology" as synonyms.

Since there exists also the word "method", then one could argue that we should use "methodology" in its full epistemological meaning (definition 2 in Merriam & Webster), which is the discourse about science and its methods. In practice, a lot of people use the two words almost interchangeably.
There is a reason for that: "method" has a rather narrow applied and descriptive flavor, while "methodology" invokes the knowledge of the fundamental principles of logic, science or whatever else is pertinent to the case, from which specific methods descend. So when we write "the methodology that was followed in this paper is...", we do mean to refer to the fact  that we are aware of the philosophical, epistemological foundations (and weaknesses) of our methods. Even if we are not aware of that,  in a sense, it makes us accountable: we cannot afterwards claim that "we just employed a widely used method" -by using the word "methodology" we accept responsibility of having a clear opinion of what we are doing and why we are doing it this way (even if we really don't).

Maybe it's my strictness for definitions. Maybe it's that I have some friends who speak Greek. But I've always understood "log" as part, and the "-y" as just a declension. So methodology would be in regards to the parts of methods. Given that when discussing methodologys, writers go into great detail, this definition seems to fit.
Part of why I treat "log" as a synonym for part has to do with how it's used, independently, in English. Consider logs from a tree, the tree has been sliced, with each slice being a part or log. A timelog or datalog is essentially just a bunch of separate entries in a single document.
You can find a lot of similar use here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Log
Some thoughts: I think a lot of the more recent use of "methodology" stems from it being a "bigger word" and therefore sounding more sophisticated or intellectual.

I don't think that "-logy" in methodology has anything to do with "log". AFAIK, suffix "-logy" ultimately comes from Ancient Greek word "lego". Additional details are available in this article, which clarifies (emphasis mine): "Originally a word meaning "a ground", "a plea", "an opinion", "an expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "to reason"... it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge."

Thus, "-logy" means a principle of order and/or knowledge. Therefore, "method"-o-"logy" should mean nothing else than knowledge about methods, in other words, science about methods.

As the sciences ultimately try to understand the atomic parts of a field, isn't this the same thing? Two alternative approaches to defining what is fundamentally the same? It seems like synonyms to me.

Not really. You write: "... methodology would be in regards to the parts of methods". This point (or assumption) is not only not equivalent to my (and, general) interpretation, but, actually, is quite opposite - methodology is a discipline that studies whole methods and their interconnections, not parts of methods or, alternatively, parts of scientific fields. This is my understanding and it seems to be a common knowledge, supported by references I cited and many more.

Maybe it's from experience, but the use I've seen at Clarkson University has fit very much with the definition I provided, and is largely where I got that definition. I've never seen or heard methodology used in regards to interconnections.

Yes, everyone has their own unique experience, which shapes their perspective on every topic. The point of my comments is not to argue with you, but to introduce / mention / share my perspective (which happen to be based on a popular interpretation, as you can see). If you want to learn more about it, I shared the starting points. I think that, if you will take any textbook of research methodology (even in your university's library), you will find something similar to what I'm talking about. Interconnections is my term in this context - to clarify that many methods are related to each other.

And I've tried to do the same. I suspect the field usage is some combination of our two points. Maybe leaning more towards your definition.
I appreciate it. :)

It's my pleasure :-).


text:
Would going to Teacher's College be useful, if my ultimate goal is to become a university math professor?
I am close to entering the fifth year of a five-year Concurrent Education program. What the program involves is four years spent working on a bachelor’s degree, while “on the side” taking education courses and doing placements contributing to a bachelor of education and teaching certificate. The final year of the program is regular Teacher’s College, which is a combination of education/curriculum courses and, in total, about 14 weeks of placement.
I’ve thought about dropping the education part of the program a few times since it started, but stuck with it because it left teaching open as an option, while only requiring one education course and a 3-week placement each year (which is good experience anyway). About 2 years ago, I started considering going to grad school for math, but by the end of last summer, still wasn’t 100% sure, so I didn’t write the GREs. This year I took a graduate-level algebra course, and about halfway through, realized that grad school for math is definitely something I want to pursue.
As the deadlines for applying to grad schools had passed / were soon approaching, my plan then became to finish the program and get my teaching degree, and apply for math graduate programs this December/January for entrance in Fall 2017. Spending the next year in Teacher’s College, I’ve been thinking, might actually be a good thing, as a way to set me apart on applications for grad school and for jobs in the future, as well as a way to develop good teaching and other related skills. On top of that, it would leave teaching as a back-up just in case.
I would sincerely appreciate hearing the opinions of those who are in or who have been through graduate school in math. Do you think it will it be worth it, in terms of a future as a mathematician (ideally as a math professor), to finish the teaching program? I fear that the final year of this program will be painful for me, as it will require a lot of placements, which I already mostly dread. Alternatively, if I didn’t do Teacher’s College, I could spend the next year taking more graduate courses at my university, learn more math independently, focus on the GREs and honing my applications, and try to see if any professors at my university are willing to supervise me in some research experience before entering grad school for math.
In case it’s relevant, I come from a smallish university in Canada, which is probably not very well-known in the US, and I am graduating top of my class in math.
I’m sorry if this question is not general enough.

There are other users who can answer with more authority, but from what I gather from reading answers here, the year at teaching college will be completely useless for getting into a PhD program. You do want to stand out from other applicants, but you need to do so in a way that signals the potential for doing research, which means taking many graduate level courses and doing well in them. Even though graduate students also teach, being a great teacher will not help get into grad school.

Similar question (Europe vs. here NA): http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/69627/would-it-be-an-advantage-in-terms-of-admission-to-study-pedagogics-before-apply

There are good PhD graduates from leading institutions who are unable to get academic positions. Do you think you are good enough to become a university math professor? You talk about spending a year preparing for the math GRE ... seriously? I just looked at a sample paper. I could have done 1/3 of the questions at school and the rest after one year at university. The standard is low and it should be trivially easy for a future math professor. Sorry to be blunt.

@TheMathemagician No, I would spend probably two months part-time studying for the GRE, since I need to write those in October. And yes, I agree, the questions are straightforward and skill testing, but as one of my professors explained to me, it's not the difficulty of the test you need to study for, but the time crunch.

@TheMathemagician Were you looking at the math section of the standard GRE or the math subject GRE? The former is pretty trivial, but the latter is much less so (especially due to the time limit on the exam). I know many very good mathematicians who got quite low scores.

From the body of your question, the genuine question is about getting into a good-enough graduate program in mathematics, and whether the "education" program would be more helpful than taking higher-level math courses. Especially if the latter two are essentially mutually exclusive, taking more math courses (and interacting with math faculty as you suggest) is vastly more relevant to admissions criteria for grad math programs. "Education" work itself is not. If the education work displaces math work, that would hurt your application.
Nevertheless, experiences beyond the typical can distinguish applicants. When I am on our grad admissions committee, often the interest, commitment, drive, and maturity of slightly older people (as opposed to fresh baccalaureate degrees) is visible in their applications. Being able to think about grad school in comparison to other things (e.g., real-world jobs) can be clarifying, and this clarity can sometimes be seen in applications.
It is true that most funding of grad students in math in the U.S. (and, I think, Canada) is as Teaching Assistants, and it is certainly true that part of the job of math professor is teaching. But teaching experience is rarely decisive in post-doc or tenure-track hiring (post post grad school). A really awful teaching record can have a bad marginal effect, but still would not be likely to be the dominant effect, in comparison to "research". Further, "math education" or "eduction" coursework and/or training is not at all necessarily the same thing as experience in teaching. It's an academic subject, aimed mostly at k-12, licensure, etc.
To my perception, the significant point in your situation is the either/or. If pursuing the "education" stuff excludes some math, that would have an adverse effect on your applications to math grad school.

Spending the next year in Teacher’s College, I’ve been thinking, might actually be a good thing, as a way to set me apart on applications for grad school and for jobs in the future, as well as a way to develop good teaching and other related skills.
If you want to get into a research Ph.D. program in pure or applied math, this will do extremely little to set you apart.  Taking more graduate courses and doing well on the GRE (especially the math subject GRE) would certainly do more than education or curriculum courses.
The most basic reason for this is that Ph.D. programs are essentially only worried about your ability to complete research in that discipline.  Any life experience or preparation that isn't relevant to that is likely to be ignored.  I suspect education courses are particularly likely to not be helpful, since (at the risk of way over-generalizing), many mathematicians have a pretty low opinion of the way classes in education are taught.  I suspect, for example, actual experience teaching in a school would be more helpful.

On one hand, an education certificate will not directly help you in a PhD program in pure math, and will not help for jobs that are unrelated to pre-university education.
However, if you are interested in pre-university education, there is a path where the certification could be helpful. Many "regional" universities have a strong teacher education mission, and some faculty from their mathematics departments are often involved with educating pre-service teachers. This is a niche that many PhD mathematicians do not fit, because we have no experience with pre-university education, licensure, etc.
If you are interested in schools such as those, you could certainly use, or attempt to use, your background in pre-university ed as a selling point. You would need to do your legwork and also watch the job ads closely. Many universities have a habit of hiring a few faculty with EdD degrees for these positions, but you may be able to build a case that you have the background needed along with the stronger research credentials of a PhD.
Of course, this is just one path that a career could take. One of the challenges at the beginning of grad school is that you need to start thinking - well before you graduate - about what kind of school you would like to work at, and groom your vita to fit that kind of school.

Nobody in the university system gives a crap about your teaching ability (with rare exceptions from small liberal arts colleges which pay nothing). They care about how much money you can pull in and prestige- that means how many papers and grant proposals you can write, how well they are received by the community. Teaching isn't even secondary's as a concern in most places- tertiary perhaps at best.
Do you want to teach university math because you love teaching math or because you think it will let you live a life of puffing a pipe with tenure and doodling on paper? Because if you think either thing, you're in the wrong business.
Being a university professor is hellacious work involving very long hours and non-stop skull sweat as you desperately try to push yet another article out or get yet another grant. It is thankless because people don't know the work involved, and it is increasingly rare as ever more positions are replaced with much cheaper Adjuncts.
Go into the job because you are passionate about devoting yourself to math and have both the desire and ability to stand on your own. Go into it because you're fine with cramped offices, bad air conditioning, stained carpets, and students whining/arguing to get better grades CONSTANTLY even though they don't deserve them.
So, yea, don't bother with the teacher college. Unless you want to teach primary or secondary schools, in which case you need the license.
I'm sure there are those who will disagree with me, so I would finally suggest that you talk to some of your math professors, especially the younger ones more recently hired, about what went into getting their job and keeping it. Even if they ended up in what you describe as a tiny school, they will still describe the system pretty similarly I would bet. But ask nonetheless.
Be wary of older professors- many of them may simply have no idea what the field is like, having had tenure for 50 years. I had one math professor who was offered a position when he was still an undergrad about to graduate and stayed since the 1970s. Great guy, great professor, lousy source of information for this sort of thing.

The concept that teaching is only a tertiary concern might be correct at a smallish number of research-oriented universities, but at least in the U.S. most universities are not of that sort and most of them do care more than a tiny amount about teaching. Even among research schools, there is significant variation (for example Berkeley and Michigan are ranked #1 and #2 as public universities and they care about undergraduate teaching to keep the top rankings).  At the school where I work, a regional comprehensive, applicants must have solid teaching and research to be hired.

I have attended and taught in many places in NYC where lip service is paid to teaching- new teachers give inflated grades to keep the students sweet and after that walk away ignoring the class more or less. So long as sufficient money is brought in, nobody cares. Take a look at pretty much any opening for a science position in a university large or small and you'll see the heavy emphasis on research and grant money

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I'm graduating engineering program in only six semesters but have gotten no serious work experience along the way. How much will grad schools care?
I am a pet and Nat gas engineering student. I am graduating in six semesters (three yr) and this fall will be my fifth semester. I did not apply for an internship my freshmen year because I was under the impression no one hired freshmen. Therefore I assumed a rather standard summer job and figured I would certainly get one the next year. Now the oil and gas markets have completely crashed and there are almost zero internships right now. This was my last summer to find an internship before graduating and sending in graduate school applications. How much of a detriment will not having had any serious work experience be to my application?
I began college right out of high school. I have a 3.5 gpa and though I have not taken the GRE yet, I imagine I will perform 95+ percentile judging from my SAT and looking at a few problems.
I do not necessarily want to go to a top 20 graduate school for engineering, but I want to leave the door open because I am not quite sure what discipline I will be pursuing (but it will be some type of engineering or mathematical field). Do you think a six semester graduation in eng. (which judging from lack of online posts about it is almost unheard of) will be enough to be accepted into top 20 schools?
One more question: I have both a stock and Foreign Exchange account which I do profit from. I write backtests and apply statistical analysis to determine what to buy. I do not usually list these "jobs" on resumes or applications because I'd find that pretentious, but do you think I should include it in my graduate school application since I am lacking serious work experience?
EDIT: My question is not answered at all by the recommended question. I am seeking advice from ACADEMIA on this matter as I am not quite sure what to do. I am applying for a masters, not a PhD

Are you considered an engineer according to the laws of your country/your industry group? Or have you completed "PreEngineering" undergrad, and are now looking to take a Masters of Engineering?

I live in America. I will be an engineer "according to the laws of your [my] country" by the springtime. I will have already applied to graduate schools by then.

Thanks for clarifying. Looks like I can't answer this one, in my country things are substantially different (It is generally impossible to become an engineer in less than 4 years (normally 5:  3(UG)+2(PG)), and generally you are required to have an internship completed before you are allowed to graduate.) So I think my experience will not transfer.

May I ask what country that is?

In my case it is Australia, but it is pretty common I think. Take a look at the various definitions of Masters of Engineering in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Engineering
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Engineer_(UK)#International_equivalence  this is the notion of "according to ... your industry group"
It does vary a lot, for sure. see also http://meta.academia.stackexchange.com/a/1212/8513
(I actually don't have a masters, as I when I got my degree my uni just had a longer bachelors that is now considered as mostly equivalent, and had same requirements)

Possible duplicate of How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?

My question is certainly a unique question. I know of no one else graduating in six semesters and this is what is causing my "problem".

In France, we are graduating from engineering school in 3 years = 6 semesters, but we do at least 10 months in company (4 in 2nd year, 6 in 3rd year), and it's an obligation to be graduated, dunno if that helps.

For starters, I suggest you have a chat with faculty at your school about what makes a strong graduate-studies application in your field. In my field (EE), unless you are pursuing studies which lean strongly towards industrial interests, I don't think lack of internship would be a show-stopper; whether this holds in petroleum/natural gas engineering I cannot say. (Also, I don't think the linked "possible duplicate" question really addresses OP's situation very well.)

I'm not aware of any accredited program in the US that would let you graduate with an engineering degree in only 6 semesters. I'm very curious about this.

If OP enrolled with a bunch of AP (advanced placement) credits, that could have cleared out a bunch of the usual "first year courses" and/or out-of-major requirements.

@user8001 I'd estimate 1-2% of engineering students at my university (that is, a few dozen students per year) graduate after only three years. A significantly larger fraction matriculate with sophomore standing (>30 hours) or even junior standing (>60 credit hours) because of AP credits. We are accredited out the wazoo.

The lack of professional or industrial experience will likely not significantly influence graduate admissions committees, particularly if you're planning to apply outside of your undergraduate field. However, what will matter is that you don't mention any real research experience that you've acquired in any field, whether your own or another. When applying outside your "home" area, this will almost certainly raise alarm bells for committees, because they will have little solid ground to decide whether you will succeed in their program or not. (For instance, they may have a hard time deciding if you can successfully complete the coursework phase of their program, and they may not be able to tell if you will be able to become a competent researcher in that program, if research is part of the degree.)

No, lack of work experience will not affect your application to graduate schools. Perhaps focusing on a research project or successfully completing a Research Experience for Undergraduates funded by NSF summer program will really help your future applications. In addition, I believe the Forex/Stock broker account may be worthwhile in mentioning IF you are going into finance (maybe quant) AND you were moderately successful at trading, or you developed some type of new algorithm in the field.

NSF also has fellowship programs that I think post-bacc "students" are eligible to apply for.

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


text:
How to work effectively with unengaging labmates as a graduate student?
This might seem like a small problem, but one I've been thinking about lately, and was hoping for some insights. I joined a new lab around a year ago, and while things have mostly been going great, my lab colleagues are really not the brightest group. They are wonderful people to work with (and friends in a non-work sense), but just not engaging when it comes to the science. They basically fall into two categories: 1) average students. Average at everything basically. Not bad in any way, but just... not great either. Cannot have an intellectual conversation with them. 2) Very smart, but not hard-working. Takes short-cuts etc. Essentially someone who is very good at talking the talk, but not really walking the walk. Again, very smart people, but overtime I'm just losing respect for them as scientists.
I guess I was just used to (and took for granted) working with great people who are engaging, and who you can have a real "science" conversation with. People I respect and have learnt so much from. To be honest I've been a little down lately because I just miss being surrounded by great colleagues. I know it's a downside to joining a new lab, and that it'll likely get better as our lab grows, but I'm still regretting the growth opportunities I'm missing out on. My advisor is basically the only person in our group I can have a real conversation with. Even our lab manager is just a few years older than me, and I can tell she sees this as nothing more than a job that pays the bills. All of our conversations I walk away from feeling indifferent and having gained nothing. This probably seems like a silly problem, but I was just wondering if anyone has had similar experiences or have advice.

Is there anything stopping you from joining a new new lab? :-)

I joined a new lab around a year ago, and while things have mostly been going great, my lab colleagues are really not the brightest group I realize this doesn't answer your question (and may annoy you), but I feel obligated to point out that when someone dislikes and/or disrespects all of their colleagues, that the problem is generally with them, and not the colleagues.

Do you mind me asking -- is this the first lab you've worked in?

@01010110011001 It doesn't annoy me at all. Yeah, I realize from the way it was written it looks like I have attitude problems :)

@01010110011001 I don't dislike my colleagues at all, as I said they are great people to work with. I am simply a little bored. All of them alone are great colleagues under any other setting. That comes with the premise that in most other labs, there is at least another person you can go to to troubleshoot or talk about your work with. I have none. That's kind of the problem: not that they are all bad, just that there's no on great. This is not my first lab, I've worked in several others previously.

@tonysdg I don't work to switch because I love my project, and my advisor is great for mentoring. I don't think I'll get this lucky in another nearby lab, and I'm not going to drop out of grad school right now to move ;)

From your question, I get that you feel like the big fish in the small pond. It does happen, but you might be able improve your situation and your environment. Here's a few ideas:

If your lab doesn't do it, propose weekly lab meetings or a journal club where science is discussed. Yes, it means more work for you, especially if no one else is interested in leading some of those meetings. But it will bring some science discussion to the group, and might excite their curiosity.
Seek scientific fulfillment in other groups: open the journal club to other related labs at your university, or join a professional organization linked to your discipline. There's plenty of opportunity for grad students to get involved.
Twitter is full of grad students like you. You will find that you can engage in science conversations and get support from fellow graduate students.

In any case, you have a great opportunity to act as a leader in your group. In the best case scenario, your example will motivate the other students and you will create a better environment. If not, your involvement will be noticed and it will be good for your own career.

+1 for focusing on how the OP can make the best of the situation. It's impossible to always be surrounded by people without flaws. I feel like it's our responsibility to try and improve the situation, or, failing that, make the best of it.

I think basically everyone (other than the luckiest among us) who has ever had a job has at one time or another felt that their team wasn't professional and/or pulling their weight. To address your thoughts:
You described your colleagues as falling into two different categories:

1) average students. Average at everything basically. Not bad in any way, but just... not great either. Cannot have an intellectual conversation with them.

By this, I assume you mean that your colleagues lack the expertise necessary in order to be effective collaborative partners -- If this is the case, then it sounds like you should find a new research lab. The whole point of working in a lab is that you're on a team of people with specialized expertise in a research area. If you have a question in your research, ideally there is someone in your research group who has experience in that area and can give you valuable insights. If nobody in your research group can provide this to you, there is very little value in being there other than receiving a paycheck.

2) Very smart, but not hard-working. Takes short-cuts etc. Essentially someone who is very good at talking the talk, but not really walking the walk.

I am assuming that what you're saying here is, my colleagues are capable of contributing valuable intellectual horsepower to our research projects, but they don't perform their day-to-day duties --If this is the case, then it's really no different than someone not doing their jobs in a normal workplace. Even though you see your lab manager as someone who "sees this as nothing more than a job that pays the bills", you should bring it up with her as you would any manager.
I do want to point out something else. It sounds like some of the issue here lies with your attitude about your team and the workplace culture of your lab. I think you're being a bit unfair to your teammates. Keep in mind that doing research in a lab is very different than doing research as part of a graduate degree. You're now working in an office setting, so the attitude of the lab is almost always going to be more "business" oriented and less "hungry" than research you did as part of your graduate degree. In that same vain, good workplace habits apply in a research lab just as they would at any other place of employment. So, if you're saying that your research lab is full of people who, "are really not the brightest group", that tells me that you don't really have a great attitude about teamwork in general. Keep in mind that these people have normal lives. Most of them are probably not really interested in making a huge discovery or working 80 hours / week to publish something unbelievably cutting edge like they were in graduate school. To me, that is actually a sign of maturity as a researcher rather than a negative.
Basically, my suggestion is to take a step back, and reflect on how you can improve your lab rather than focusing on why the experience not being perfect is because your labmates are intellectually inferior. If it really is the case that your labmates don't possess the expertise necessary to be effective collaborative partners, then leaving the lab is a perfectly reasonable choice. Also, every lab has a different work culture. If you would prefer to work at a more intensive lab, that's always an option. Otherwise, it sounds like you may need to calibrate your expectations a bit, and ask yourself what you can do to make it a better experience.

Thanks. I am a graduate student actually, and these are mostly other grad students I work with. Yeah, I would put it under the "not effective collaborator part". I still love my project and field though and unfortunately there isn't a lab nearby that I would want to join. I'm also not going to drop out of grad school right now to change labs so I was more interested in making the most out of what I have.

i was more negative when I posted the question than I actually am. I'm all for teamwork. The thing is that if someone has "a life" outside, and therefore don't put the extra time in, that' great. The problem comes up when a lot of times they work more than I do, and I somehow always become the emotional garbage can of: oh my experiment didn't work again today, for the tenth time, I have nothing to show for months of work. And then I troubleshoot with them, and yet again they forgot to do something rudimentary in the protocol. There's only so many times I can do it with a smile on unfortunately

It seems eminently reasonable to me that someone who is passionate about their field could find themselves stuck in situation where less passionate people around them are making them feel down about the experience.


text:
Is it acceptable to include a paper in the reference list but not cite it in text?
A paper (quite) related to some work my coauthors and I have recently appeared as a preprint. This paper cites ours; however, it does not do so in the body of the paper (intro, proofs, etc.), but only in the references: with the LaTeX command \nocite, I assume.
Doing so seems strange to me, as it does not discuss relevance, nor compare, nor even state what the cited paper does. It's a citation without context.

Am I overreacting? More importantly, am I wrong: are there situations where this type of citation makes sense, and, if so, which ones?

Edit: by "makes sense," I mean "is justified for academic-related/citation etiquette reasons."

Perhaps not ideal, but unacceptable on the other hand is probably too strong.

Fair, my wording is a tad too dramatic.

I think it happens by accident quite regularly. Maybe the citation was removed from the text but remained in the references due to not recompiling bibtex.

There are lots of situations where this type of citation naturally emerges:

You want to cite a paper that you have gotten inspiration from, but you cannot pinpoint any specific objective relation between that paper and yours. For example, some equalities appearing in that paper look similar to some equalities in yours (even though they involve completely different objects), and you have built some parallels in your mind without ever making them rigorous. You may try to be open and mention these parallels in your paper, but they will be so vague and subjective that readers will tap their foreheads and referees will ask you to remove the sentences.
You have cited a paper whose results you used in one of your proofs, but then you find a better/simpler proof and no longer had any use for the citation. But you never bothered to remove the citation, since you might well need it again for something different. It's much easier to keep it in and only remove it at the very end of the process, when the paper is about to get published.
You have written a long paper and then split it into two. Each of them still has the full bibliography of the original paper, because removing references is thankless and boring work and you may need them again (see the previous point).
You have pre-emptively added the citation to the bibliography since you know you will want to cite it in a forthcoming section of your paper. That section never gets written.

But the last two points are not really reasons, are they? They're merely convenience for the authors, and basically just a subsitute for private citation managing (in particular, why would that get public?)

Preprints are public in the sense of "anyone can read them", not in the sense of "set in stone". Since unused references in the bibliography do not interfere with reading, there is little reason to clean them out before posting a preprint (unless maybe you can save a page by doing so).

I may be mistaken, but I don't think arXiv preprints (at least in my field, computer science) are seen that way. People keep track of new preprints, read them, cite them, discuss them.

@ClementC. One problem with fields that rely on preprints is that, although journals and publishing costs are often criticized, this is the sort of thing they tend to audit better than authors. Most journals I've published in have an explicit policy that all references appearing in a reference list are cited someplace in the text, and their copyeditors will verify that this is the case before publishing the final version. I think darij is simply pointing out that in the preprint process there is no one who has this task as a specific job.

@BryanKrause I understand that. My comment was about the fact that this is not saying its good practice, just that it's uncaught bad practice. The answer states these last two bullet points are "valid" reasons to use nocite. It doesn't seem so to me, and the fact that a journal would prevent them from happening is further evidence.

I don't see the answer claiming they are valid - where do you see this? It is just stating that these are situations where they "naturally emerge."

I reckon that I took the phrasing as I intended the question ("valid uses") rather than "people would do that because they would want to". @BryanKrause

There is nothing positively wrong with extra citations -- they're just wasting space. People have priorities.

@ClementC. Your question also does not have the word "valid" anywhere - I took your question to be asking if this is to be taken as some misconduct. The answer here is also not saying "people do it because they want to" it is saying "people might accidentally do this in several contexts."

removing references is thankless and boring work — People still manage references manually? How hard can it be to rerun bibtex (or whatever)?

@JeffE: I still don't know how to properly cite things without journal refs in bibtex, or how to get DOIs to show up, or how to mention arXiv IDs for published papers... short of stuffing everything into the comment field. And the learning curve wasn't fun; it's too easy to do things wrong (see the many [??]'s in arXiv preprints). I do much of my reference management manually and perfectly understand why others do the same.

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


text:
What are the arguments for "reviewers see each other's identities" conference reviews?
I have recently accepted to review for a machine learning conference. It's a conference with chairs, area chairs (AC), and then reviewers who are managed by the AC's.
This conference is double-blind, with a rebuttal phase, and what follows was never mentioned in the invitation to review, the review instructions, nor on the website of the conference. But regardless of this, I would like to understand what could be the rationale for it:

reviewers are assigned papers. Each paper is assigned to an AC, and reviewed by 3-4 different reviewers. Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
each reviewer sends their reviews
the authors get the reviews (do not know the reviewers' identities, nor the AC's), and write a rebuttal
the reviewers are given the rebuttal for the paper (still do not see the authors' identities), and see the other reviews. Moreover, they now also see the identities of the other reviewers for the paper. (The authors still of course do not know these.)
the reviewers (managed by the AC, whose identity is also known to the reviewers, discuss and update their reviews in light of the rebuttal and the other reviewers' reviews and comments.

Now, I do not understand the point of the part I emphasized, and it seems to me it breaks a key premise of peer review (even single-blind). Namely, now you have implicit and explicit pressure among reviewers.

What are the arguments for this? ("This" being: divulging the identities of the reviewers to the other reviewers of the same paper -- not only to the AC)

Have you looked at all the other questions and answers about double blind reviewing? see, for example https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/8891/72855

The title may have misled you - I am not talking about hiding the identities of the authors to the reviewers. @SolarMike

Perhaps some of these questions do cover what you are trying to ask, see this and the answers for example : https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/625/72855

@SolarMike Having a quick look, they don't seem to.

Have you seen https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8012/are-reviewers-supposed-to-know-each-others-identity-after-the-reviewing-proces?rq=1?  Also relevant may be https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32181/in-peer-review-is-it-common-for-a-reviewer-to-be-shown-and-asked-to-comment-on?noredirect=1&lq=1

@NateEldredge Thanks, the first link looks relevant. (Although it seems to be more of the flavor "this is not normal" rather than "why would conference organizers decide to do this?")

"Namely, now you have implicit and explicit pressure among reviewers." Yes, but to a much lower degree. People tend to be emotionally more involved if their own works (or those of close collaborators) are the subject of discussion. Regarding close collaborators: At least in EasyChair, PC members don't see the discussions for papers for which a conflict has been declared (I've just checked).

NIPS/NeurIPS used to do this, but as of this year reviewer discussions are anonymous. So there seems to be a move away from this model.

Historical reasons: Many conferences have switched to online PC discussions only recently, after having had physical PC meetings before. Since anonymity is not an option at physical PC meetings, a non-anonymous online discussion is closer to the experience of physical PC meetings.
Incentives for PC members. PC members do a lot of work without monetary compensation. There are some reputation-related incentives offered by a non-anonymous online discussion:

Junior PC members can "make themselves a name".
Senior PC members can prove that they are still good citizens of their community.
All PC members can get an impression of whom to invite and not to invite as reviewers for their own conferences and journals.

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


text:
How to respond to allegations of misconduct in authorship dispute?
I was working on a problem in the field engineering. I have used one approach and it turned out that it does not work well. After that I got into conflict with my supervisor, and realized that it will be hard to publish the original paper with him. So, I have redone everything with another approach, wrote a paper, submitted it and at as soon as my paper have been almost accepted, my supervisor wrote to the editor claiming that he also should be an author of the paper. He haven't even seen the new paper nor haven't analysed or interpreted the new results.
Now my supervisor has started a university investigation against me, with following allegation:

"Dr.X submitted a manuscript on [some topic] to the journal Y. Theory and simulations of [some topic] are part of his responsibilities in [grant] for which Prof. #1 and Prof. #2 are co-PIs. The manuscript was submitted as a sole author without the prior knowledge of either coPI. Dr. X refused to provide a copy of the manuscript. The work described in the manuscript is unlikely to be Dr. X's independent work given his background prior to joining the university and given his current work under [grant]."

How should I respond to the allegations of Prof. #1?

Presumably this is related to your previous question. How is this question different from the previous one?

It's different now because his supervisor has started investigatory proceedings against him, at the very least.

@BillBarth It's not clear to me whether these proceedings are with the journal (which had already come up in the previous question) or someone else. Perhaps ntm can clarify?

From what I know from the committee, the allegation was submitted by Prof. 1, but not the journal. The Editor of the Journal have suggested the investigation to me.

Yeah, it's a little unclear, but I had assumed that it was a university disciplinary proceeding based on the context clues.

@ntm, yes, but submitted to whom? Your university or to the journal?

@Bill Barth:  To the university.

@CharlesMorisset, now that we know that this is a university proceeding of some sort, I think the answers are going to be very different. No longer is the answer "Run, don't walk, away," but rather "get professional help, ASAP."

@ Charles Morisset:  I would appreciate to get some advise how should I respond to that allegations. I tried to do nothing as adviced in the previous discussion. Thanks to everybody for useful comments.

This is clearly a different question.

I find it remarkable how your supervisor makes strong claims about the contents of a manuscript of which he claims to have no copy.

@Wrzlprmft: I agree; that is striking.  On the other hand, the OP also claims that the supervisor has no copy of a paper on the topic of a grant in which he is a co-PI and which is funding the OP.  There is a certain symmetry here...

You should gather all your materials related to this project into one place (emails, codes, lab notebooks, etc) and talk to an attorney immediately. Presumably you can be dismissed from your job for research misconduct if they find against you. Only an attorney can help you navigate the related employment laws of your country, state, or region, your university's regulations and rules, and whatever granting agency's rules and regulations that you are operating under.
I would not respond until you've had an attorney competent in this area at least evaluate your case and your options.

I will have to write written response to the allegations. Do you think I should ignore this responsibility?

No, I think that you should talk to an attorney today or Monday and get help writing the response. You appear to be under threat of losing your job or having a significant blemish on your employment record. Presumably you have a few days to respond. Use them wisely.

Unfortunately, your situation has gone from bad to pretty much impossible.
Your challenge here is that without incontrovertible proof that you've submitted the accepted manuscript to your advisor (and the co-PI), you will almost certainly lose the process that your advisor has started against you. Moreover, even if you win, it will be at best a Pyrrhic victory; all you will have managed to achieve is avoid having another black mark added to your academic record.
In addition to Bill Barth's advice above, you should also start looking for alternate employment immediately, regardless of what happens in the proceedings with the university. Start over and regroup, and learn from your experiences.

Well, it seems hard to know that the OP will "almost certainly lose the process": what it takes to get formally recognized for academic misconduct by one's university surely depends in a sensitive way on the written rules and unwritten culture of the university, and many of us keep in mind examples of egregious cases of academic dishonesty/misconduct -- even by faculty -- which are treated too lightly.

But your observation that even if the OP wins, he still really loses is (sadly) dead-on, as is the good advice to start looking look for jobs.  (+1) I'm afraid the OP is "attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis," as they say on The Big Bang Theory.

It's one thing when charges of academic misconduct are filed—but an advisor filing charges against a member of his own group are so rare that I think things are very much stacked against the OP.

We agree that things do not look good.

Where did you redo the work? At his Lab? Even if it did not work with the first approach, it does not mean you ignore your supervisor and publish the paper alone. You at least knew it would not work that way so you tried another way. It seemed you had a grant at his team, which means he offered you the fund to carry out the work, is that true?I think it doesn't make you better to publish a paper alone than to publish it as a first author/ and may be as a corresponding author too and put your supervisor as a coauthor. He doesn't see the paper because you did not send it to him not because he doesn't want to, right? I am not against you, but I am telling you how the people who will get involved would see the matter. If you have a proper answer to these question, you might have right, otherwise, you should reconsider adding or supervisor instead of getting accused of plagiarism and getting your career into trouble.


text:
Is the evaluation section of a paper a "contribution," if it only describes the performance of the proposed system with no novel ideas?
Recently I was reading a paper where the authors include their evaluation as a part of their contribution. In general the paragraph I am referring to was something like this:

Our contributions are a,b,c,d and e

Where e describes the evaluation.
In evaluation section, is about the performance evaluation of the proposed system. So the are running some simulations and benchmarks to show in which of the cases they perform better than the state of the art tools.
The evaluation (as a process) is not containing something novel, except from some modifications they did to adapt the benchmark / evaluation framework to their needs.
So, is this considered a 'contribution'? Is it 'good' to list the evaluation in the list of contributions?

What do the authors evaluate? If they evaluate a previously published method's performance on a new dataset or in a new environment, this definitely is a contribution. If they refer to their last teaching evaluation, less so.

@StephanKolassa They are evaluating the system that they are presenting in the paper. Mainly they are doing something like performance evaluation, on what they presented in the aforementioned a,b,c,d.

There are no official standards for what constitutes a valid use of the term "contribution".  It's intrinsically a vague word, and authors can use it in many ways.  It would be inappropriate to list something as a research contribution if there's absolutely nothing at all original about it, but a small amount of originality could be enough (and opinions can differ as to where the threshold is).  Of course it would be foolish to highlight the less original parts of a paper as contributions when this might distract readers from the more original parts, but that's a different issue.
You haven't given enough details to say much about your particular case, but making small modifications to an evaluation framework could be considered a small contribution.

I am in the same 'page; as you. And as you say, the inclusion of the 'evaluation' in the contributions list it distracted me and made read many times the evaluation part to find if the is any originality. Regarding the lack of the details, I ll say that is more or less on purpose, since I am trying to avoid targeting / revealing that specific paper.

Both gathering data and analysis of data can certainly be valid and reportable contributions. Certainly my coauthors and I tend to report them thus in synthetic biology papers, where both involve a lot of hard work. It would only not be a significant contribution if the actual work involved was trivial. Otherwise, the importance of the evaluation to the paper should allow the reader to make a reasonable judgement of weight of contribution.

I am getting your point, however in the paper I am referring the evaluation can be considered trivial, except from this 'humidification' process, which is by the way not documented.

If you have enough information to make that judgement, it's still probably reasonable to report (though if an author only was involved in evaluation, you might question the propriety of their authorship), and 2) There might be an awful lot of unreported evaluation that was required to get to the point where they could do the simple evaluation that was finally reported.


text:
How to start an academic career after 5-6 years in industry, without an undergraduate degree?
As an undergraduate, I wasted a ridiculous amount of time due to a combination of being distracted by part-time work, lack of focus, not knowing what I wanted to do with my life, and just plain being stupid and lazy.  Several times I tried to "get it together" but by then it was too late as my grades were ridiculously low (mostly around 0) and I could never have gotten into grad school anyway.
Eventually I dropped out as I realized I wasn't getting anywhere.  I had a lot of awards from things like programming competitions, so I used that to get some decent jobs.  My intention was that I would work for a few years, clear my head, save up some money, and go back later.
Well, later is here.  After 5-6 years work experience doing mind-numbingly boring menial programming jobs, I applied for and got accepted into a master's program at a fairly respected university.  It's only a 1-year program, but if it goes well I'd definitely consider applying for a PhD.
Obviously it's very important to me that I do things right this time around, so my main questions are:

Will the total lack of a BSc degree be a problem when applying for a PhD program?
I spent the last half a decade mostly doing tasks which required no creativity or deep thought.  Sometimes I feel like my mind is like an ex-boxer who has been sitting on a sofa eating KFC and donuts all day for 5 years.. completely out of shape!  How do I get the gears spinning smoothly again?
I need a plan for making the transition into "research" mode.  To be honest when I was at university I never paid attention to what any of my friends were doing when they were reading papers so I have no idea how the whole thing works.  e.g. Do I start by making friends with some professors?  Should I volunteer to be a TA?
At what point will I be able to apply for a PhD?

Master's degree will be in Computer Science.
Several people have expressed doubts about the legitimacy of a degree program that gives you a 1-year master's degree with no undergraduate degree.  I just want to clarify that it's not some "IT shop under the railway bridge" giving the degree, it is a very respected university.  It's a 1-year degree because masters programs are generally one year in the UK.  Also, I didn't just walk in with nothing.  I demonstrated in my interview that I had knowledge in CS topics, I had a couple published papers, as well as half a dozen international awards from my time as an undergrad, and work experience from top-tier Fortune 100 companies; I just never finished my degree.

One suggestion: talk to the course coordinator now, and ask whether they have any suggestions for things you might read/do over the next few months. You might also look at syllabuses for the masters course and typical undergraduate "feeder" courses, and revise any rusty but important topics.

How is it possible to get into a Master's program without an undergraduate degree?

@user11192 It's possible, I had 10 years work experience instead of an undergrad degree.

@CaptainCodeman Huh, I learned something new today.

This is not one question but many quite different ones rolled into one (creative research mode, lack of degree, application process etc). Try to formulate several specific questions instead.

@fileunderwater I could do that but then I'd have to retell the backstory every time to rebuild context; wouldn't that be less efficient?

@CaptainCodeman It would be less efficient but it could be more useful for future visitors, who might run into one or more of the same issues with a different backstory.

This being said, your question would have enough context if it started at 'After 5-6 years work experience...'

I have no idea, I've lately been considering how to change my career path and find a better job, and I still have no idea. I found an article that states that what you should do to get a good job (e.g. in academia) is make more friends. Well, at least that is what I understand from reading the article.

Related question: Returning to academia after a year in industry

The answer would also depend on the university. Stockholm University requires a certain number of credits to enter a PhD (IIRC, around three years, plus a project), but no solid title at all. Other universities do require the degree to have certain number of credits AND to be finished.

I'm in the same exact position as you. Want to start research. And it seems we've also had similar background (CS + Bioinformatics). I'd be really interested in learning what you've ended up doing. I'm currently studying a BSc program at Open University which allows me to continue working. So I'd be interested in learning which university offers the master degree you're talking about. And how do you know for sure that that will be enough to start your research career?

@CaptainCodeman any information about the institution?

Why do you want to start research? Because you are good at coding and bored with your current jobs? There are demanding jobs in industry, just search for them. Research is a different animal - it is the drive to either discover new things or to structure/classify existing knowledge. Is that really what you want to do? Most of the time it is tedious, although on a higher level. Of course, technical skill doesn't go amiss, but this is not the whole story - motivation counts.

As a current PhD student, my advice is to first ask yourself several questions before you decide that you want to apply to do a PhD.
First, why do you want to apply for a PhD program?
For some, the PhD is a stepping stone to a tenure-track job in academia.
For others, the PhD is seen as a mind-enriching experience, even though the student wants to work in industry.
For some industrial research jobs, having a PhD in a related field is a requirement before they will even consider hiring you for that job.
Second, what level of PhD program are you willing to accept?
There are also different levels of PhD programs.
If you want to get into a good PhD program (MIT, CMU, Stanford, etc),
you could take a look at current students of those programs and look at their CVs.
Usually, these students would have graduated from a top school with a good GPA,
and have had some undergrad research experience and maybe even a publication or two.
If you want to get a job in academia, you usually would have to graduate from a good PhD program.
If you only want to do a PhD to get a job in academia,
it may not be worth your while to get a PhD from a less reputable school.
However, this is a personal decision based on what is important to you.
Finally, are you both competent and interested in doing research in computer science?
The way that most people realize that they want to do research
is that they have some sort of undergraduate research experience,
or maybe even do a Master's.
Conclusion
If you think that you would want to get into a good PhD program in computer science,
you should first get a BSc in a good school,
and try to obtain some research experience while you are studying
in order to get a feel for what research is like and whether you are able to do it and whether you really like it.
I think that getting a BSc in a good school would probably be helpful in your career development
even if you decide not to get a PhD.
At the end of the day, you make your own decisions and deal with the consequences.
Good luck!
In response to OP's edits
A couple of thoughts:

You didn't mention in your original question that you had several published papers.
If you have some research experience and published papers, that definitely helps your PhD application.
I don't have personal experience being on an admission committee.
If you were able to meet someone on the admission committee of a university PhD program which you were interested in,
you could ask him/her how they would evaluate your application.
Since it is very rare for a PhD student not to have a BSc,
I don't know how open they would be to accepting you as a student.
Could you go back to the university which you dropped out of and finish of your degree in a year or two, by just completing missing requirements?
From what I understand, most master's degrees are based on course-work, and have no research component.
In that case, doing an MSc may not prepare you to do research as a PhD student.
On the other hand, if you were able to do a perhaps 2-year MSc which includes research with an adviser/supervisor,
this could be a great stepping stone into a good PhD program.

Why is it better to spend 4 years doing a BSc rather than just going straight for the MSc?

To be honest my published papers didn't give me too much research experience as it was a bioinformatics paper in which I helped with the programming so they included my name in the paper.  But it did add to my CV.

Going back and doing the same degree again seems like a bad idea, as I know most of it anyway, it seems a better alternative would be to do an undergrad in another topic, which would raise the question of: would it be worth it to start a new undergrad program or would I get there faster by just continuing with my MSc and doing some research on the side?

@CaptainCodeman it depends largely in how you sell it. Provided you fulfil all the requirements your institution asks for enrolling in a PhD, you can sell yourself based on your industry experience.

@CaptainCodeman Getting a BSc first might help you get into a more competitive MSc program, if that's a concern.  But, yeah, if you can bypass the BSc and still do well in the MSc classes, getting a BSc would be pretty pointless.

@CaptainCodeman ...just realized that that comment was from 2014.  So, erm, how'd this all work out?

@Nat I got into a Masters degree in CS at Oxford University, realized it was an overrated waste of time, remembered why I dropped out of my first degree in the first place, and I moved on..

@CaptainCodeman So a "grass is greener on the other side" situation. Good that you figured this out within the context of a master's degree.

Will the total lack of a BSc degree be a problem when applying for a PhD program?

If the institution that has accepted you for the MS also offers the Ph.D., then if you do well in their master's program, you can almost certainly get into their Ph.D. program.  If that seems to be a likely path, ask about their Ph.D. program and about how their Ph.D. graduates have done in academia.
If the Ph.D. is not available at your master's institution, then ask about their master's students who have gone onward to the Ph.D. and where they went.  Ask a couple of those institutions whether your lack of the B.Sc. would be an absolute barrier to acceptance into their Ph.D. program assuming you've done well in your master's program.  (Nobody is going to tell you whether they will admit you until you have that master's degree, but they probably will tell you whether the lack of the B.Sc. is an insurmountable barrier, which is what you need to know at the moment.)

I need a plan for making the transition into "research" mode

Talk to the people who put your name on their paper about how they came to the particular research they did and the process of completing it.  Even if bioinformatics is not your field, the process is very similar for large areas of academic research.  Some professors in Ph.D. programs publish lists of potential doctoral research topics.  If you have an area of computer science in mind for your Ph.D. research, find professors who have published in that area and check their web pages.  (Google Scholar is your friend.)

Do I start by making friends with some professors?

Even though you may be the same age as some of your professors, they're likely to want to keep a certain distance between themselves and their students.  The advice already given is extremely good; that invitation to a social event isn't likely to be helpful.
If, in your career as a master's student, you come upon a professor whose research rings your chimes, and you have a cordial relationship with that professor, ask whether there's anything you can do to help with the research.  If there is anything, expect it to be scut work, like programming others' algorithms, at least at first.  Do not be dismayed; do the best job you can.
My own experience is similar to yours, but in the United States.  I made a false start at an undergraduate education, worked in industry, finally completed the BS and MS degrees, and later the Ph.D.  I have an academic job, and expect it to be the career from which I retire.
I don't know whether this is true in the U.K., but in the U.S. the master's degree qualifies one to teach in community colleges.  Some universities, often lower-ranked, will also hire faculty with only the master's degree.  That's how I got my start in academia.  Check the credentials of the faculty at the institution that's accepted you for people without that Ph.D.

Will the total lack of a BSc degree be a problem when applying for a
  PhD program?

Chances are that it will. Your situation is uncommon, you will need to convince that your industry experience and your 1-year Master program* are somehow equivalent to a full undergraduate degree. You will be in competition with younger candidates who have a more traditional background, and a good grade record. This is not at your advantage. Note that some graduate schools/universities will simply not consider your application without an undergraduate degree, even if you found a professor willing to mentor you.

I spent the last half a decade mostly doing tasks which required no
  creativity or deep thought. Sometimes I feel like my mind is like an
  ex-boxer who has been sitting on a sofa eating KFC and donuts all day
  for 5 years.. completely out of shape! How do I get the gears spinning
  smoothly again?

You might have a too critical view of your work, it's unlikely that your everyday coding routine didn't include a bit of creativity. Even if you didn't recognize it as such. Plus, you probably have been in contact with software or techniques that are original.
But you're gym analogy is correct, practice is important. I would suggest to read papers (start with the most cited or most downloaded ones of the reputable journals in your field). Try to theorize the algorithm you would write to address or compete with the one presented, and maybe try to code some prototypes.

I need a plan for making the transition into "research" mode.

Have a look at these:
Why do many talented scientists write horrible software? or Best-practice models for "research" code?
They are full of excellent information about the difference between coding a commercial product and being a computer scientist.

Do I start by making friends with some professors?

That's not how you start, but it might happened along the way. More seriously, meeting professors during your Masters is an excellent idea. You will need to understand who's doing what and how you could be a part of it. If a professor knows you and is interested in your skills, it's going to be helpful, but it might not be enough (see above).

Should I volunteer to be a TA?

Teaching and administrative work will come by themselves soon enough, should you be accepted in a graduate program.

At what point will I be able to apply for a PhD?

That depends of many factors, but having some sort of degree is certainly the first step.

*In fact, an institution that gives Master degrees, in 1 year, to people without a bachelor would probably not be highly regarded by reputable graduate programs.

Doesn't a masters degree supersede as bachelor?

@Martin it depends. For some universities it would be sufficient, for others it won't be seen as equivalent. I know of at least two institutions (in Switzerland) that will dismiss PhD applicants if they don't have Bachelor and Master from an institution they recognize.

Thanks very much for your answer.  However, I disagree with your statement about the legitimacy of the master's degree, as the university is one of the top 5 in Europe.

I'm a bit surprised that a good school accepted you into an MS program, much less a 1-year MS program, without a bachelor's degree.  These days, some schools use their MS program as a cash cow, and the value of such programs is limited, in my opinion.
Regarding your specific questions:

Will the total lack of a BSc degree be a problem when applying for a PhD program?

Not necessarily ... if you do interesting work in your MS.  This will require not only good grades but, ideally, an MS thesis or very serious project, even more ideally ending up in a publication.  The problem is that with a 1-year MS, you will have no time to do anything but take required courses, and good grades in courses plus a mediocre industry experience and no BS will not make you a very appealing PhD candidate.

I spent the last half a decade mostly doing tasks which required no creativity or deep thought...How do I get the gears spinning smoothly again?

Do an MS thesis as part of your degree.  Write some papers and impress your advisor.

Do I start by making friends with some professors? Should I volunteer to be a TA? At what point will I be able to apply for a PhD?

You should make professional friends with some professors (taking them to a ball game will not get you far).  There are several ways to do this:  take a particularly challenging course and be the top student or even less than the top student but demonstrate some unusual positive quality; do an interesting thesis that results in publications in respected venues.
Volunteering as a TA will help you expand your knowledge and experience with course material, but it will not, in itself, do much to help you get into a PhD program.  PhD programs at good schools are extremely competitive, and to get into one you have to demonstrate skills that others do not have.
Incidentally, I would qualify your ability to survive at a mind-numbing job for 5-6 years as one of those skills.  In research, perseverance is no less important than intelligence - I've seen very bright students leave a PhD program because their research wasn't advancing and they were sick of trying.

Why don't you simply start with BSc studies?
If you know the stuff, you can do it quickly. Don't waste time with the lectures — just self-study and take exams. It does not need to take that long.
On the other hand, if you don't know it, then it will be very important to study it properly before starting your MSc & PhD studies.

Because skipping the BSc saves me 3-4 years!  If I know the stuff it just means it's a waste of time.

@CaptainCodeman: It does not take 3-4 years to do a BSc if you know the stuff! Skip lectures, self-study, take exams.

Are there any universities which allow you to show up and take exams in exchange for a degree?  It seems unlikely!

@CaptainCodeman: Well, of course you will first have to be accepted to a BSc program, but once you are in, in many cases it is entirely up to you how fast you want to proceed with your studies. In very many cases, grading is based on your performance in exercises & exams; not on how many hours you spend listening to lectures.

Yes but as far as I'm aware, there are limits to how many units you can take per semester.  At my university it would have taken you 3 years if you took the maximum amount every semester as well as summers.

@CaptainCodeman: That kind of rules are certainly not universal! Universities are different; BSc degree programmes are different. Some make it much easier to self-study quickly. For example, here in Finland it is typical that you can take any number of courses simultaneously if you can handle it. And in many cases you can also skip the usual course registration entirely and just take an exam (again, no limitations on how many exams you can do per year).

Thanks for that, so are you saying that in Finland I can just show up, take all the exams in one semester, and walk away with a degree?

@CaptainCodeman: Again, it depends on the particular university and BSc program. Some challenges include courses that rely heavily on compulsory exercises (e.g., programming projects) — these typically take a lot of calendar time. Another challenge is writing your BSc thesis. Moreover, there may be dependencies (e.g., typically you cannot start your BSc thesis before finishing most of the other courses). One semester is too optimistic, but I think with a bit of research you should be able to find a BSc degree that you can do in maybe 1.5 years. Much faster than 3–4 years anyway.

Cool, thanks for the info, I'll look into this.

Another concern for others similarly situated that is not mentioned in any of the answers is that admission to a PhD requires meeting at least three criteria:

The right to study in a given country
Selection by the department
Approval by the university of the department's selections.

University approval may or may not be pro-forma depending on the institution, but it is possible that a university regulation might prevent the selection of a student without an undergraduate degree.
The right to study in a given country can also present a barrier. Obviously if you are a citizen, you don't need to worry, but many countries have requirements for issuing visas that might make this prohibitive. I have a Japanese friend who tried to study abroad in Norway, but he was unable to do so because he lacked the necessary number of years of education back in Japan. (14 rather than 12 were necessary and he similarly had not graduated undergraduate).

I am going to make another attempt to answer the question.
The first question which you need to ask yourself is:
Why do I want to do a PhD?

If you want to do a PhD because you want to be a CS researcher,
then you should aim to be admitted to a PhD program in a good CS department
(eg top 10-15).
If you want to do a PhD because you want to be a CS lecturer in a teaching university,
it is possible to be employed at this job with only a MSc
so getting a PhD may even be a waste of time.
If you want to do a PhD because you want to get an industry job,
then it is not vital to be admitted to a PhD program in a top CS department—any reasonably reputable CS department would suffice.

If you have decided that you want to get a PhD,
then you probably want to get in the best CS department that you are able to.
Thus, it is natural to ask the next question:
How do I make a strong PhD application?
Chris Blattman says,

In short, focus on getting good recommendations, experience, grades and GRE scores.

You asked the question: Why should I spend 4 years to do a BSc, rather than spend 1 year to get an MSc?

If you just want to get into a reasonable PhD program,
and you are qualified enough to do so,
then I agree that getting a BSc is a waste of time.
If however you have decided that you want to get into a PhD program at a good CS department,
then it may make sense to get your BSc.
Why?

You could overload (do more courses in each semester) and get your BSc in fewer than four years.
Anecdotally, I have heard of students at MIT finishing in three years for example.
Even though you are confident that you know everything that there is to know in an undergraduate CS education,
unless you have the grades to back it up,
PhD admission committees would be naive to just take your word for it.
Earning a BSc is a certification that you are competent.
As part of your undergrad education,
you have the opportunity to be involved in undergrad research programs.
These programs are great in giving you the chance to work with professors and/or PhD students,
for you to get a sense of whether you really like research,
and for them to get to know you so that they can write you an outstanding recommendation letter,
and if things go well for you to publish research paper(s).

Finally, I realized as I answered this question
that Chris Blattman has a very long and detailed post
that is a superset of my advice.
I recommend that you take a look.
Good luck!

On some of the Ph. D. Applications I have seen, not only did they require a BSc. degree, it was required to have a 3.0 or above cumulative GPA in the undergrad.


text:
Is it legal to use images from social networks for research?
I would like to use images from social media (e.g. imgur, Facebook, Flickr etc) for research (ie not for profit or any industrial use).

Would it be legal to use images (for analysis, etc), if I do not store them locally?
Would it be legal to create a dataset of such images, that I will later publish with my future paper?
If it is not legal, how can there be these existing computer vision datasets of thousands (and even hundreds of thousands) of images taken from Google search or social networks? Surely the authors didn't ask every owner for permission.

Of course. What I meant was to ask if there is any distinction between just (a) just using the data and (b) creating a dataset from them.

In order to copy or redistribute images that you don't own, you have to comply with the terms of the license under which the owners have released the images.
Some images are released under licenses (such as Creative Commons licenses) that allow copying and redistribution under various conditions (e.g. attribution, non-commercial use only, etc.  - depending on the specific license.)
For example, the People In Photo Albums dataset was "collected from Flickr photos
with creative commons licenses", according to the paper. Similarly, Yahoo! Labs compiled a dataset of One Hundred Million Creative Commons Flickr Images. And Google released an Open Images Dataset dataset of images that are listed as having Creative Commons licenses.
If there is no license accompanying the image or no blanket license applying to all images on the site, you have to assume that it is All Rights Reserved - in this case, you would not be able to redistribute these images.

Does Facebook have such a license? 2. In case of all rights reserved, can I still use it for personal analysis and publish results without redistributing? Possibly just link to the owner's image? Thank you.

While true, I don't think this really addresses the question. The asker isn't asking about republishing images (except for a limited number in their question 2, which they could presumably select to be ones with appropriate licences) - they're asking about performing an analysis on the images. IANAL, but I don't see this as any different to analysing the contents of a book that is in copyright.

@SimonW This answer mainly addresses 2 & 3. Feel free to address 1 in a separate answer (I believe this will depend on jurisdiction, and the terms of use of the websites from which the OP gets the images.)

I'm not a lawyer, but I'll go out on a limb a bit here. I would think that your use and analysis of such images is fine, provided that you don't publish any of them in your research and that you don't do anything similar to publishing them. If images are put on the web they are meant to be seen, no matter the license. For you to "see" them, they  are transferred to your computer. If you analyze them on the fly and keep only summary information or classification, there is no harm to the rights holder (in almost all cases).
Saving them for later analysis might raise issues later as the "dataset" on which your research was based may need to be preserved. But if your dataset is not the images themselves, but your analysis data points you aren't (likely) in violation.
For research reports and the like, if you need some images, choose only those for which the rights are clear.
Caveat: Copyright differs widely from place to place. Consult a lawyer for edge cases. Me going out on a limb is different from you taking a risk, I realize. European law has become especially strict lately, I note.

For legal advice one should always consult a lawyer directly.
I don't think it is recommendable to (solely) rely on inquiries in a forum or website or even own study of law books as a layman.
Copyright is a very complicated issue and depends heavily on countries' laws.
Any advice given here would be opinion based (unless posted by a lawyer) and may have serious financial and professional repercussions.
There are also privacy issues and laws that need to be taken into account.
As a prominent example Cambridge Analytica filed for insolvency proceedings...


text:
How to find an alternative international transcript evaluation service?
I need a career evaluation for applying to a U.S. university graduate program in computer science. I have an official transcript of all my exams in Italian.
I've found this site spantran that evaluates the career, converts the votes to GPA and translates them in English. But it costs 400$, and it asks 65$ for every page translated. I'm here to get to know some cheaper alternative.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "career evaluation". Can you clarify?

But it costs 400$ — Scam.  Admissions committees will want the original records in Italian, not the translations.  And your grades/exam scores are not the most important component of your graduate application.

@JeffE Some universities and employers do, in fact, require that candidates also submit an "evaluation" for foreign transcripts. (examples)

I need the evaluation to get the GPA average and the translation.

@ff524 Very few, and almost certainly no strong graduate programs, assuming your results are representative.  In particular, I found only one (unranked) CS graduate program that requires a foreign transcript evaluation.

@JeffE those results are just for one way of phrasing it! Johns Hopkins is one example of a strong university that requires evaluation and/or translation (depending on the program) of international credentials.

@JeffE from that page: "All application documents must be provided in English (either the original or translations of the original documents) except for samples of work and letters of recommendation for the German and Romance Languages Department. For all other departments and documents, English translation services are available at World Education Services."

The National Association of Credential Evaluation Services is an association of credentials evaluation services in the United States. Of universities that require an evaluation of foreign transcripts, many will also require that this evaluation be done by an NACES member.
The list of NAECS member services is available here; there are currently 19 services on this list. Now it is up to you to find out which offer the kind of evaluation you need, and what is the cost of each service.
(Note that you need only submit an evaluation if the university you are applying to explicitly requires it; most do not. If they do, they may also require that you use a specific service; check with the university about their requirements.)


text:
Applying early as a postdoc + two-body problem
A recent question asked about applying for tenure-track jobs before the end of a postdoc.  I'm in a similar position, also in math, and would like to ask the same question with an additional twist.
I'm in the middle of a postdoc.  I've been advised to apply to places I'd definitely accept offers from this year, but my wife will also be looking for a job.  She is not quite looking for an academic job, but the ideal outcome would be for her to work at the same institution as me, in a non-faculty job.  (Let's say she wants work in the registrar's office.)  The hiring for her sort of job doesn't take place so far in advance.
I would be very reluctant to accept a job a year early if I did not know for sure that my wife would also be able to find something there, especially if we were not moving to a big city (and we would prefer not to, if we can help it).
I'd be grateful for any general wisdom, but here are a couple concrete questions:

If I get an offer and turn it down because she can't find anything, and finish out my postdoc instead, would this be a very bad move?
If I get an offer and she can't find anything, is it possible I would be able to defer a year to help her job hunt?

Seems like something that would be easy enough to ask about during the interview process. "My wife is looking for jobs in the area; if I accepted a position here, would the university be able to provide support in helping her find one?"

Tenure-track jobs in mathematics are very rare and competitive. Turning it down, at least for this sort of reason, is a bad move.

@tonysdg I'm not sure what sort of answer you would expect to get.  I'm sure they'll tell you they're very committed to dual-career couples and that they'll do their best to connect her to opportunities, but everyone will say that, which makes it not very useful.

This question is weird, because waiting one year doesn't make any difference whatsoever.  That said, for something big like the registrar's office, it seems well within the realm of possibility that a school could arrange a job for her.  When you interview and are talking with the chair, tell the chair what kind of job she wants, that way there's some lead time so that the chair and the dean can see if something can be arranged in the event of an offer.

Short answer: apply for positions now, accept any (or the best) offer that comes from your efforts, once you are established your wife can apply for jobs in the registrar's (or similar) office of your university.

I'm a little confused about your thinking on this matter:  given that hiring for the sort of job your wife has generally happens on a shorter timeline, how could you ever know that your wife will have a job when you have to make a decision about an offer?  I think you may just have to go for it and hope for the best. You can always apply for jobs again if things don't work out (I've done this twice); if you can afford to be choosy about jobs now, then likely you can get another.  The one wildcard is that if you get an offer, you may be able to negotiate a job for your wife before you accept.  A non-academic position is an unusual request, but on some level its a smaller ask than, say, a TT position for her.  The situation might be clearer if you said more about your wife's experience and skills.  About your specific questions:

Well, it's not a good move.  Probably the interview and offer process will move too quickly for your wife to reasonably expect to have found a job for six months hence, and people in the department might reasonably ask why you applied and went through the interview stages if you weren't willing to take the risk of moving there.
If you make the decision before you accept the job, this is a reasonable (and often made) request, but probably not after (and I'm a bit confused as to why you would ask).  As with 1., the timeline on TT job offers (often 1 week) is too short to really know anything about her job prospects, so I assume you mean after accepting.  Negotiation about start dates should happen before you accept the offer; of course, you can try to organize it after, but that is more likely to be received poorly (of course, it all depends on the situation, how much they are counting on your teaching, etc.), and you've lost all your leverage.  Given that your wife's job search will be easier once she's in the location (and can network, etc.), it will seem like an odd request and will likely give your colleagues the sense that you already have one foot out the door.

1) You absolutely have to start applying! The job market in math is better than in other fields, but can never rely on being able to obtain a tenure track position in any given year.
2) Two-body problems can be negotiated. This is very common these days. Indeed, the department chair at any university that you may negotiate with will be overjoyed that your wife does not need a tenure track position.
3) The tricky question is always at what time do you bring this up (when you apply, when you interview, or when you get an offer)? Typically not when you apply, but I tend to think you should bring it up when you interview. Given that this is not tenure-track (which requires more time), you can also wait for an offer.
4) The details of whether you defer, whether you and your wife defer, etc. can always be negotiated.