text:
How should I interpret advisor overly positive feedbacks?
I am currently in the writing phase of my master thesis in a US-based university. Almost all of the feedback I am receiving from my advisor is either linguistic suggestions or just positive supportive kinda of a language. I am the primary investigator from my thesis.
How should I interpret this positive feedback and lack of critical comments? Could it indicate that the work is so weak and not even worth corrections? How can I direct their responses to be more critical?

Do you have to defend the thesis?  If so, you might ask about how prepared your advisor thinks you are?  That might give you a second prospective.

@JonSG No i do not need to defend it.

Take it at face value. It is unlikely s/he is playing a game. There isn't any point to it.

What is your goal with the thesis? To complete the program? To publish?

@Dawn to complete the program and develop a manuscript for publication.

The thesis is probably pass/fail, so I would just be happy and move the thing along.
I recommend to take the attitude that you are the "captain of the ship".  If you are doing a good job it shouldn't matter about the advisor.  Consider how you would just write an article as solo author to send to a journal.  It would be your baby.  This doesn't mean not to consider feedback, but I recommend to take the attitude of a Hollywood director, you make the final decissions--great art does not come from committee reports.
My point is that if you are doing a top notch job, it is not the end of the world that you are not getting close readings.  Sure, in a world of unlimited time, that would be great to get.  But your advisor has to prioritize and may have other students that are struggling, work of his own, etc.
In terms of publication, I would worry about that when you get to that.  You may have minor or major transformation required to turn it into journal articles.  But deal with that when you are in that, versus trying to make a thesis match exactly a journal article.  There are some logical differences of the two.  For example longer lit review is normal in a thesis.  Or you may show some incomplete work (so at least it is memorialized somehow) or have small innovations in apparatus or methods to share with your future lab group mates.  If you are just publishing a monograph, that is a little different, but I would still lean towards just letting that be the thesis itself (this is different in history/lit if you actually go through a book publisher).
Finally, just push the thing along and move on to other work.  There is so much to do in the world and master's theses are rarely read.  Still do "good work" always.  But just try to get this project done and move on to new research.  You sound like you are capable of good things.

That’s a good sign. Not all the advisors would take pains to provide you with lots of English corrections. I suggest that you make sure all corrections are made. Some people in academia may be very negative about a paper written in bad English. It might have a very negative impact. You may ask American students to help you out with this simple task of editing your work. Then your advisor might switch to some other recommendations or critique. It might make your work even better if you accelerate the editing in this way. Your advisor will undoubtedly be very impressed. And I’m almost sure some other improvements will be suggested to you apart from constant English language corrections. I would have given the same feedback. I mean first things first. Language should not be dismaying; otherwise, as I said, it can have a very negative impact on your work, while it’s the contents the paper should be judged on. It’s good that your advisor is ready for the nitty-gritty job of plowing through the language of your paper. That’s commendable.

I started doing that after the first feedback but that didn't change the type of feedback I am receiving but decreased the number of comments quite a lot.

That's very good but I would not let up. I mean you can improve it a lot more. You can also give it to more professional editors. You should also talk it out with your advisor. Ask how good or bad your work is apart from broken English. Ask if you need to submit it to more professional editors or it's already okay. Talk it out. Ask for a fair preliminary assessment. That's straight forward but that should be helpful. You should know where you actually stand with your paper.


text:
Can a professor from totally different research field be invited to thesis defense?
In a very reputed private university, there is a rule for sending thesis to internal(national) and external(international) examiner for evaluation. After a report from two reviewers, a viva is conducted. For the last few years, I am noticing that some departments are inviting local professors to thesis defense who have virtually no research relationships with the thesis. They are being invited just because of financial constraints or quid pro quo relationship between professors who just do this to please their friendly peers in academia. By inviting local professors, the university is saving up money from travel and lodging expenses.
Is this process legal?

You're asking a question about the rules of the UGC, which means that the question is specific to that organization and its rules, which is a reason to close the question.

@BrianBorchers: There are so many researchers on SA from India who might be interested in this question, so there is no reason to close question.

The point is that no one here can speak for the UGC on this matter.

@BrianBorchers: The UGC operates on a national level, so this would be on-topic. I have no idea whether they have written standards or precedence cases to base one’s answer on, but at worst the question would have to stay without an answer (which does not invalidate the question).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Nervous about submitting a paper - what if I made a mistake?
I'm an undergraduate and I've taken part in a summer internship. Part of the internship was writing a paper based on a model we developed, which we're hoping to submit.
The paper is "finished" now, and so we're ready to send it off for peer review. I'm really nervous about this as while I've checked over the code time and time again there's always the chance I'll have made a mistake somewhere which might not get picked up on.
How do people cope with this? If there is a mistake that I haven't identified, and isn't picked up in peer review, how damaging will it be if someone else identifies it later on? I'm kind of nervous given what I've heard about retractions and breaches of ethics.
To the best of my knowledge the model is working, and to my knowledge the results it is generating are correct.

A honest mistake is not a breach of ethics. And everyone makes mistakes: for a few examples, see this answer of mine.

But, indeed, you haven't made any serious mistake, submit your work and celebrate your first submission!

@MassimoOrtolano, ah, perhaps... my aimed-to-be-one-line comment got out of hand. :)

@paulgarrett Of course not sending letters to parents. It is much more efficient the other way : if everything from your parents is sent to us ;)

"Sometimes scientists change their minds. New developments cause a rethink. If this bothers you, consider how much damage is being done to the world by people for whom new developments do not cause a rethink." -- Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart, and Jack Cohen.

Don't let it stop you. As others have mentioned, any mistake that could slip through will be honest, so treat them as learning opportunities. If you aren't regularly making new mistakes in life, you're not living it enough. Just make sure not to make the same mistake repeatedly.

(Upon @Massimo Ortolano's kind suggestion:)
Your issue is not even about "retractions", much less "breach of ethics", if you (and all your co-authors, and advisors/mentors) are acting in good faith. "Making a mistake even with due diligence" cannot be a punishable offense, or no one at all risk-averse would ever do any new work/research/etc. In other words, it's not like a school course where there is some "ultimate judgement" and "absolute standards". In this regard, many school systems from kindergarten through high school (the U.S. name) through undergrad school (the U.S. name) cultivate terrible reflexes, yes.
That is, even if you did make some sort of serious mistake, it's not like it "goes on your permanent record, and a letter is sent home to your parents, and you'll be 'grounded' for two months". The paper just gets rejected (if the referee detects your supposed error!), and hardly anyone in the world knows about your gaffe... whether or not it is upsetting to you personally. People have to "go out on a limb" (English idiom) to make serious progress, and this oughtn't be punished.

First, congratulation on your first manuscript! The peer review process assesses several aspects of submitted manuscripts. It's hard for a paper to be denied on the basis of a few minor mistakes. Usually, you get comments from peer reviewers asking for minor modifications, corrections and explanations.
Even the best manuscripts go through multiple steps of submitting and resubmitting after editing as per peer reviewers annotations.
Minor mistaks in code, if they exist, shouldn't be cause to refuse a manuscript.
Good luck again!

It might be a little too optimistic to say "a paper is never denied, unless there are big mistakes..." since sometimes/often status issues intervene, for example.

Agree @paulgarrett. edited the answer accordingly.

Is "minor mistaks" a purposeful mistak?

who would identify a mistake as purposeful and how ?

@NicHartley, I agree with what you said but I do not see how that connect to the question concerns.

@NicHartley, I meant to the original question. maybe i should have tagged the person who noted to the possibility of purposeful mistake.

"What if there's a big mistake?" Well, it's detected, everyone becomes a little wiser and more knowledgeable, and life goes on.
If you've never seen it before, check out the case of BICEP2. On 17 March 2014, this large international collaboration claimed to have found something very important. Press conferences were called, people were excited, the popular media such as the New York Times got involved. And then they found out the signal was contaminated. Oops. Life goes on.
So don't worry about it. There're a lot of wrong papers out there. If your paper turns out to be wrong - and it's not certain at all it will - there's likely to be no permanent damage to your career. After all, you'd be in good company.

...I would not call that a fraud. I don't think mistakes in interpreting data and deliberate frauds deserve the same label.

@Anyon that's why I wrote the signal turned out to be a fraud. I wasn't alleging the scientists were being intentionally deceptive. Still, will use a different word.

@Anyon The BICEP2 story is far more than a "mistake", there was a whole set of shady things that (some of) the people on the collaboration did, including using unreleased data that they didn't understand from a video of a Planck presentation. BICEP2 wasn't outright fraud, but it was definitely intentionally bad judgement in pursuit of the Nobel.

Fair enough, to both of you. I certainly felt worse for the OPERA folks. Anyway, I'm happy with the edit, and happy to leave it at that.

There is an issue that arises with many academics, especially young ones starting out. It is called Authenticity Bias and is the feeling that I'm not really smart enough to be part of this community. Everyone else is smarter than me and I can't believe that they are really accepting me here.
You are exhibiting some of the symptoms of that now. I've done everything I can, but how can it possibly be enough? Know that this is pretty common. I don't know that there is a simple way to overcome it other than perseverance. As you gain more experience, you find that you are, indeed, just as fit as other people to practice your art.
The other issue here is that this is an early experience in a complex undertaking. Mistakes can be made. Experts make mistakes and are sometimes misled by a variety of factors. Mistakes aren't normally career ending unless they are serious moral errors.
Another thing you will learn is that as you do more work in your field and write more papers, etc. your older work will look a bit naive. But that is just a result of learning and growth. If in ten years you are a lot better than you are now and your ten year old papers don't seem up to your then current standard... well consider the alternative. If they do all still seem great you haven't learned much.
I suspect that, as you have taken proper care, your current work is fine and that others will also find it fine, even if they recognize that you still have more to learn. And just as authors can, and do, make errors, so can reviewers. Evaluate everything you hear from peer review, accept what is valid and question what seems invalid. In the normal course of things you get a chance to revise a work before it goes for publication. Every academic experiences this.
Even poets often revise their work with the help of peer review. Some of the best, in fact, have published final works that seem to bear little resemblance to the original poem. Feedback helps.

I've checked over the code time and time again there's always the chance I'll have made a mistake somewhere which might not get picked up on.
How do people cope with this?

By acknowledging that nothing is perfect but that, by the time you, your co-authors and the peer-reviewers have done your job, there probably aren't any significant mistakes left.

If there is a mistake that I haven't identified, and isn't picked up in peer review, how damaging will it be if someone else identifies it later on?

Hardly at all, and what little blame there is is shared equally among all the authors. Everybody who's published more than a few papers has published mistakes. They're almost always minor and they're not a big deal.

I'm kind of nervous given what I've heard about retractions and breaches of ethics.

I don't see any ethical problem in what you're describing. You've done your best to make sure that your work is correct. You haven't deliberately or knowingly included anything incorrect, manipulated, faked or anything else.
Retractions are a big deal but they're only needed in cases where there have been serious ethical breaches (which you don't have) or your work contains a mistake so critical that it destroys the conclusions of the paper. Even in the case of a serious mistake, it's usually more appropriate to publish a correction than a retraction.
Worrying about having to retract is like worrying about getting hit by a bus. Sure, it's a big deal but any reasonable person is already doing everything they need to avoid it – be honest, check your work, look before you cross the street.

This question raises an interesting question in science. If you write a piece of code long enough the probability that there is at least one mistake is one. I have found such errors in the code of others and in my one code. And sometimes the errors appear in the text of the article (misplaced decimal points, mislabelled series in a graph, etc.). These errors can happen and do happen. But the importance of the errors vary: some may affect substantially your results, others may have a minor effect.
The idea to keep in mind is that science is incremental. When you write your article you are only asked to do your best. Substantial errors should be caught at the review stage (not always true), you are told about it and you have the opportunity to correct your error. Otherwise, the error may be picked up later, especially if the code is made public (this is why open science is important). What happens then? There is a new, revised, version of the code you maybe can publish.
The history of science is full of errors. And by constant work we correct them as we notice them. That's how it works.

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


text:
Requesting a favor from student for giving recommendation letters
Can I ask/ insist a bright undergraduate student (who is having similar areas of interest) to work under me for his final year project period and try to come up with a scientific publication in favor for giving him recommendation letters for internships?

What you propose is plainly unethical and abusive towards the student.

give, and you will be given... Sometimes the bible helps ;-)

It sounds like what you want to do is to write a letter now in exchange for the promise that they will work for you later. Whether you can do this is down to your university's rules, but I would argue that it is unethical and unwise to coerce a student in this way.
My recommendation would be to accede to the request and make the offer

Sure, I can write you a strong letter. For that matter, if you are looking for research experience, I would be happy to supervise your senior project next year. Let's chat sometime if you are interested.

If you are not willing to write the letter:

My policy is to only write recommendation letters for students who do research with me. That said, I'd be happy to discuss hiring you as a research assistant next year.

Note, this second one still links the two, but it simply tells the student your requirements, rather than suggesting quid pro quo.

I agree that OP should write the letter. In general though, having a policy that "I will only write for students that meet X criteria" is reasonable and ethical, and it is proper to cite that policy when declining to write a letter. I don't think the policy of "I'll only write for my research employees" is a good one, but that's for OP to decide.


text:
Discovered that my research was not so original after it was complete. Is there a policy I should follow here?
I'm a student researcher in high school.  Over the summer, I did some research on a rather obscure math topic, so there was not much research done on it.  I found some decent results on the topic, and through all my searching for articles or other sources, I did not find similar results, so I decided to write a paper on it so I could eventually submit it to some research competition.
About an hour ago, after googling my topic under some unthinkable term, I discovered that someone, in a forum post, found all my results years ago, and the work done never received much attention.  Our derivations/methods differ slightly, but overall, they are really similar.
This is really frustrating.  I thought I finally came up with something new, and yet on some obscure part of the internet, someone did it already.  I was convinced I was exhaustive in my literature review, since that forum post just never seemed to come up.  I don't think there's any time left to extend my research.
Should I submit my paper anyway?  Is it ok to submit original work that isn't original?

This happens even to people who know how to search the literature and have some experience. Often it happens because when one starts thinking about something new, one understands little, and only once one has understood some things is it possible to realize that others have also already studied and understood them. Talking to other researchers, attending conferences, reading widely, etc. are all activities that help avoid rediscovery, but obviously they are all hard for a high school student.
Generally, one should not publish results that are already available in the literature, particularly if one's methods are in the fundamental aspects the same as those used previously (moreover, it will usually be quite difficult to publish results that are already known). There are exceptions, as sometimes one has a new take on an old result, or a better way of obtaining it, or sometimes one can adapt one's work into an expository account of the already known results that could be published (this will work only if those results have generated a fair amount of interest). If one succeeds in publishing already known results, it could generate in others' minds doubts about one's honesty, although it certainly happens that people innocently rediscover and publish known results (I know several examples). Often this occurs when they rediscover them in a context different from that of the original discovery (e.g. a graph theorist discovers some algebraic fact, and publishes it in a graph theory journal, although some experts in the relevant algebra would recognize it as a special case of something they already know).
However, there is a positive side to such rediscovery, and this is the most important aspect for a high school student.
The positive aspect of rediscovery is the following. First, that one has rediscovered published results should confirm one's sense (that one ought to have already) that one is doing something interesting (this is important for one's confidence). Second, any interesting results admits extensions, variations, further developments, etc. so such rediscovery provides a base for further work. Third, as a practical matter, that someone else has already worked on something means the audience for extensions of those results is at least one (besides oneself) and it is always positive to reach others with one's work. So the productive/constructive response to discovering that one has rediscovered something is to push it farther. This really works in practice. My most recently accepted paper started this way - I worked out something, it seemed so natural that I thought this surely is in the literature already, and, sure enough, there it was, published 5 or 10 years earlier. It was a disappointment, but I kept thinking along the same lines, and it was possible to build on it to obtain something new. Also it brought me into contact with the authors of the previous work, which for me was also positive.
Finally, I would recommend that you get in touch with the mathematics department at the nearest research university. Usually someone is happy to help out an enthusiastic and talented student.

It would be good of you to expand the last paragraph. Describe a bit about what the OP might expect and might ask for. And, for a HS student it needn't even be a research university.

It's a little late, but thank you so much for answering my question.  To update the situation:  In the few months I had left to submit, I managed to solve a non-trivial generalization of the previous work, and through my project I became a Regeneron STS finalist!  Looking back, it was a life-changing rollercoaster of an experience.  Thanks again for helping.

First of all, congratulations on continuing to look for related work. Good job finding the right search terms.
If you were going to publish or submit for a competition you would have to edit your paper to describe the prior work and reference the forum post. I suggest editing it accordingly. Now evaluate your paper to see if it meets the requirements for the target venue.
If not, do not attempt to publish. You still learned from doing the research, so don't think of it as a waste of time.
If you do decide it meets the requirements for some venue, you can submit it with a clear conscience provided you discuss and reference the prior work.
In the long term, Internet searches will only be one way you will have to find related work. When, as a graduate student, you are required to publish original research, you will have an academic advisor who has contacts and experience to help you. You will take courses, read journals, and go to conferences, during which you will learn about alternate approaches to your specialization. It is not 100% - there are plenty of cases of results being discovered and published more than once - but you will have more resources.

Mostly agreeing with Dan Fox, so only going to comment on top of his answer.
In short, my advice would be: don't try to push the paper out too hard. Do publish it, but on your website or arXiv. Be sure to emphasize that it is a rediscovery and be generous with credit to the first paper. Here are the reasons why i think this:

If you've rediscovered something, chances are that somebody will again, especially if the first paper is indeed hard to discover. You publishing this anywhere visible, perhaps using more current terminology in the title/keywords, might save the needless work to this somebody.
Being such a young researcher, you have very little pressure to produce journal publications for now. A few years down the line when you perhaps decide to pursue an academic career, it's hard to imagine one ranked paper will make the difference in a hiring process.
Going fully transparent and not trying to 'milk' the work as much as possible might actually give you credit for being honest. Yet it still increases the visibility of the work, which (assuming it's useful as such) benefits both you personally and the community.

One more comment, this time more general. I believe that young researchers today focus too much on 'producing results'. And understandably so, given how overly competitive science has become. I see this trend especially among fresh PhD students, and sadly, their advisors often fuel this as it obviously benefits them too.
I'm not saying this is your case, but regardless, try to resist being pulled into the vortex too fast. Early stages of a scientist's career should mainly be about discovering new things, studying as much as possible, and developing complementary skills. Publishing top papers might often conflict with that, because it requires undivided and long-term focus.
Becoming a scientist is a noble goal, but one that shouldn't come ahead of becoming a well rounded person with developed world view, ethics and such old-fashined things. And if it seems i'm preaching too much, well perhaps so, but i'm simply saddened how many young and talented people succumb to the fashion of rushing into scientific limelight while on the inside their egos are stunted and suffer.


text:
Applying for MS, what role should a cover letter have?
I'm interested in applying for a MS in the natural sciences with professors some I have worked with in the past and other new ones. What role should a cover letter have as I reach out to these professors? My goal is to follow standard procedures but also not be excessive in my approach, thus I'm wondering whether to send one or not in the following context:
I'm not formally applying yet, rather I am early in the scoping process, reaching out to potential advisors to state my interest and request a meeting to discuss opportunities and options to work with them. I figure I will include my resume in an email reaching out to them, and that email itself is like a brief, informal cover letter. I have prepared a cover letter that I'd use in my formal application, but it is like a longer, more formal version of the email I'm sending to these professors.
Maybe for some or all cases it is more appropriate to send a cover letter and resume, letting those attached documents speak for themselves and keeping the email very brief? Some professors I'm reaching out to are people I cross paths with once or twice a month and am on a first-name basis with, some I have studied with in the past but they may only remember my face and not much else, and some I've never interacted with before.

A brife email with your attached CV is enough for information email communication with professors. unless you are applying formally to a MS program that define the length and the scope of the needed cover letter, you do not need to send one to your professors.


text:
My university's policy is to consider only the most recent grade for a failed course that has been retaken, how should I declare my GPA?
Suppose that I am submitting my application form for admission to a PhD program in USA/Canada. When I am asked to declare my GPA, should I declare it the same original way that my university has calculated it in my transcript?
Here's the thing: I have a failed course in my transcript that was retook the next semester and I have passed it with a good grade. According to my university's policy, when a student retakes a failed course, only the most recent grade is considered in their GPA. So, the GPA that my university calculates is a little bit higher than just averaging all my grades. Should I declare the GPA that my university has calculated as my GPA? Or should I write down the average of all my grades and calculate it on my own?

I have seen many schools with the policy of replacing grades, so I don’t think it will look strange.

Not all universities have a grade replacement policy, at some (mine included) both failing grade and retake grade factor into the GPA.  Regardless, the OP should be reporting their GPA the way their university reports it, and leaving the judgment to the graduate school.

when a student retakes a failed course, only the most recent grade is considered in their GPA

In my US experience, this is the most common way to compute GPA.  Report the GPA as it appears on your transcript (as the university reports it).  NEVER calculate it on your own as the University's calculation is what it will be checked against.

Schools very commonly instruct applicants to recalculate their GPA according to the criterion they want. For example some will say to treat all A+'s as 4.33, or 4.3, or just 4, and so on. Don't recall if they gave instructions regarding failing grades though.

@SimpleAlgorithm - I've never heard of a school instructing an application to calculate their own GPA.  That seems wildly insecure.  Universities do examine transcripts, and may do their own GPA calculation, but they should NEVER ask an applicant to do this work for them.

mine does. And schools I applied to did, just as I described above. Do a google search for "calculating gpa graduate admissions". Of course you should check that they seem plausible. And yes I have caught students trying to pull a fast one in their calculation in applications.

Always do it the way your university calculates it.  When applying to graduate schools, they are aware that different universities will have different ways of calculating GPA, and often will make minor recalculations to fix your GPA against other applicants.  So don't waste your time fretting about this.
Of course, if you feel it's necessary, you can explain somewhere (either via recommendations or your statement of purpose) regarding the failed grade, but if it happened in your first semester or two, generally it's understood as long as the rest of your application is good.


text:
What are reasons to update your website and CV frequently, when not on the job market?
When I was looking for jobs, my website and Curriculum Vita (CV) were more or less updated in real-time, since I needed to make sure recruiting committees were aware of my latest work. Since landing a position, I have become a lot more lazy about putting up my latest papers on the website/CV. I was wondering if there are any compelling negative consequences to my tardiness. For context, I am in a field where everyone uses the arXiv, so I would imagine anyone interested in my latest work will just look there.

Everyone is always on the market. Just because your ask is higher than the markets valuation of you, doesn't mean you should assume you are not on the market. Doing so puts you in a bad position. I guarantee you that your hr department is actively "on" the market - even if they are not hiring. They even consider it a valuable performance indicator for how attractive the company is. Yearly raises are not meant to be nice, nor are they meant to reward performance, they are a reaction to the market. A company with a negative salary evolution across the board - is not very attractive.

Not really worth a full answer, but let's say you get a popular media interview or in a paper at your university. I guarantee you they'll Google you to look up basic things like where you got your PhD, where you're from, etc. Many academics post research summaries on their webpages. If yours is massively out of date, it won't be very useful in that situatino.

I think Jeromy’s answer is very good, but that there’s a second angle worth considering as well: it’s easier and better to update your resume regularly than all at once.
Let’s say you have a job for 5 years and then think about leaving and so update your resume. Are you really going to remember everything you’ve done? The dates of the awards you’ve won, the details of the projects? It’s far easier to update it when you make the accomplishments than have to remember or look up everything.
It’s also less burdensome. If you go five years without updating a resume, updating it would take several hours at a minimum. Counting refreshing, looking things up, and fact checking it can take a day of work even! I know a lot of people who don’t update their resume because it seems like a massive hassle. And for people who go long periods of time without doing it, it is a massive hassle. Amortizing that work over longer periods of time makes it easier.
Finally, I want to challenge your idea that everyone will just look you up on arXiv. I would generally rather read your list of papers on your website. I just don’t love the arXiv interface. That said, many people have terrible academic websites. Do put effort into making your website usable and pleasant to look at. At the end of the day, people who get discouraged are far more likely to go “whatever I’ll stop” than “maybe I should try a different website to get this info from.”
Also, making a google scholar profile and listing your publications on your website in addition to having them on arXiv makes it way easier for someone to come into contact with your body of work. Just because you exclusively find things through arXiv doesn’t mean that the people reading your work do too. The more places it’s published  and the more coordinated those places are the easier time people will have finding your stuff. Again, make it too hard and people will just pass you by.
Finally, think about students. Students and wannabe-students look up professors all the time. In my experience, the first place to go is a personal website, and generally the second is Google scholar. GS is particularly popular because the “sort by citation count” feature makes it easier to find the major work you’ve done for someone who doesn’t know how to tell which papers/journals are impressive. Heck, many wannabe PhD students don’t know about arXiv, or aren’t very familiar with it. Less so in math, but even then there are people who never hear about it by the time they graduate undergrad. Again, putting yourself in the most places is key.

A CV in academia is useful to you and others in many different contexts.  Applying for jobs is a very small component of that.
CVs are useful to you and others. Keeping an academic CV up-to-date will often make your life easier, other people's lives easier, and may also open up opportunities for you.
Here are a few ways that having an up-to-date CV is helpful:

Communicating achievement to others: The decision of others in relation to you may be influenced by perceptions of your experience and achievements. Your CV documents this (although google scholar profiles and personal websites can also serve this purpose). There are many examples that could be given: (a) another academic is working out whether to invite you onto a paper and wants to understand your expertise, (b) potential phd students are looking for a supervisor and are trying to understand whether you've supervised before or how much and how well you are publishing, (c) your colleagues at your own university are trying to understand what you do.
Grants: When you apply for grants, you will need to incorporate information about your track-record and achievements. Your CV can be an up-to-date source of this information. Furthermore, you might be part of a grant that others are leading. The grant will often require a lot of information about the investigators on the grant. These other people may be able to fill out relevant sections directly from your CV.
Annual performance review: If you have an annual performance review, it is often helpful to share your current CV.
Internal promotion: Systems for promotions and levels vary throughout the world. In Australia/NZ/UK you typically have levels A to E. If you want to move up a level, you need to document your achievements. Having an up-to-date CV can help.
Course accreditations and related matters: In some cases, your department or university might be seeking accreditation as an educational provider in a particular area. These often require documenting number of staff, educational attainment of staff, evidence of research active status.
Annual or other reviews of programs: In addition to performance reviews, programs, larger research groups, and departments often compile documents reviewing annual (or other timeframes) achievements (e.g., publications, grant funding, outreach, etc.). Administrative people can go to your CV to get this information. Or it may be that you open up your own CV and copy and paste a bunch of things.

You may update your CV and website on time just in case there was a work application that you only have short time to apply for before its deadline. now you maybe free a bit to do that but you may become busy later and not have the time to get the update done. you may do it in hurry and forget one important project you would include if you did it on time. Organization is wonderful skill and this is one way of enhancing it.


text:
Advice for research and taking graduate classes for undergraduate student
there are multiple questions in here so please bear with me.
I am currently a freshman undergraduate student at a large public university in the US. Looking at my coursework and credits, I noticed that I am a bit ahead and will graduate within 3 years.
1.) What should I do with my fourth year?
I am interested in pursuing an MD/PHD, and was wondering if I should take additional graduate classes, take some time off to prepare for the MCAT, or just directly apply after my third year.
2.) Should I pursue a thesis or try to go for some publications? One of the things that I read here in the Academia Stackexchange was publishing something, for instance submitting a thesis or printing a book, disqualifies you from sending that piece of work towards journals. What are the benefits of doing one or the other and what do admissions committees look favorably to?
3.) How do you deal with failure and discouragement in research? Lately I've failed again and again for the past few weeks. I have created a pretty established protocol tailored for the lab that I am working at and I run the experiment beforehand in my head over and over. After performing a run, I get reproducible results however the data that I get is not what what I am looking for. I then evaluate all the work that has been done and try to see if there are any improvements or things that I could have done better, sources of error that may have affected the results, and refine my protocol. As of right now, I am kind of stuck and do not wish to blindly use reagents and hope for a serendipitous outcome.
Thank you for your time.

For 1), you may find this helpful. http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2709/graduate-early-with-average-gpa-or-later-with-better-gpa?rq=1  For 2), check out http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15457/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-looking-at-others-success?s=1|0.5319, http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2219/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-as-a-graduate-student?s=2|0.5319

I'm voting to close because there are too many questions here, 3) is a duplicate, "Should I pursue a thesis or try to go for some publications?" is too specific to your interests and background, and unlikely to apply to others in similar situations. However, note that submitting a thesis to your school does not typically count as publication, so you can turn your thesis into one or more articles and submit them to journals. You'll find lots more information here.

With regard to the discouragement issue -- if you have an advisor, time to check in with him or her.  If not, you need one, or some kind of research mentor.  Another thing that might help is moral support from a peer who is at a similar stage in his or her academic career.

I am a senior at a large public school in the US, and I believe I can help guide you. To give you some perspective on me: I am part of a program that prepares students for a PhD, and we travel to different graduate schools and talk to the admissions administrators/boards. First thing you should know is that nothing I say is the same for every school, and it is really important for you to look at schools and contact them to see what they desire in an applicant.
For your first question, keep in mind that medical programs are very competitive. To give you an idea, volunteering hours required to get into most schools is incredibly high (varying with 400 hours minimum). You also want a competitive gpa and MCAT, of course. Again, schools will be quite different so take a look at their requirements or contact them.
In regards to research/publishing, the most common thing to do is research in a lab. Both are looked very highly upon (said every school I visited). Since they are both great, then do not ask which to do because the difference to a school is insignificant. It is more about picking which one you enjoy more.
Lastly, are you doing research under an adviser? It is very important to form bonds with professors to learn and eventually receive letters of recommendation. A good way to form these bonds are through independent research under their guidance. You are just starting out so it is important to learn from a well educated researcher and have guide you through your troubles. The advisement is also a form of motivation, because they want to see you do well and you know they will be there for you.
Work hard and be passionate about what you do. Everything is a little easier when you are enjoying it.
Good luck.

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


text:
What is an informed evaluation of resource availability?
I am applying for a postdoctoral fellowship at an American University and I have to submit the research proposal. Besides the usual description of my own research, it is written that I must describe the

resources necessary to conduct the project
  and an informed evaluation of resource availability.

What does this exactly mean?

It asks you to define or list the resources needed for the project and show that you have considered where those resources may be obtained.

"Resources" generally means "money, and things that cost money".  So:

What resources do you need in order to carry out your research?  This could include equipment, staff, students, travel funding, software, computers, books, use of specialized facilities, etc, etc.
How are you planning to get those resources and/or the money to pay for them?  Applying for external grants, sharing with collaborators, internal university funding, etc?


text:
Sending Mail to Professor
When should I send mail to a university professor for a position as a research assistant (RA) or as a teaching assistant (TA)? i.e. after getting successful admission for MS or after applying to the university? If I send mail to the professor for a position as RA or TA after applying to that university, is there any chances to get successful admission confirmation to that university?

What country is the university in?  Are teaching assistantships and research assistantships determined by the department or by individual professors at that institution/department?

Voting to close -- this varies drastically by country; in the US, you wouldn't normally ask about this until after admission; in Europe, you normally get admitted by a professor who wants you as an RA

This depends on the university and the field. In some fields/places the professor has little say in who is a TA or RA. In others, the professor actually hires the RA directly, especially for grant-funded positions.
Likewise, in some places/fields the professor has little say in the admissions process. In others, he/she has a large influence on who is accepted.
So, depending on your case:
If the professor is directly involved in admissions, contact him/her early.
If the professor isn't involved in admissions, but does hire TAs and Has directly, contact should come after you get admission. You can write earlier to express interest, of course, but not to request (or expect) and action.
If the professor isn't involved in either admissions or funding, you can probably wait until you actually arrive, though expressions of interest can come earlier.
If you send too much to a prof too early in the process it will probably be ignored since they may have no influence and so evaluating it is just wasted time. After you are admitted, it becomes more meaningful to them as well as to yourself.
How and when you get confirmation depends on all of the above as well as the rules of the university. And different fields have different traditions.


text:
Is it suitable to ask for extra work concerning my bachelor thesis?
I study computer science and going to write my bachelor thesis during the next weeks at a very practically working chair.
At my university most students are not able to write simple programs or algorithms (of course they are able to design them in theory).
Because I also work in the field of computer science I have many years of experience in programming. Therefore I think that the tasks I have to do will be very easy and bore me.
Furthermore, during my next semester I have enough time to work on my thesis more than maybe is necessary. I do not want to get a better grade or something like that. I just want to gain new knowledge and work in an scientific environment.
So is it suitable to ask for more difficult tasks and say to my supervisor that I would like to invest more time in my thesis than necessary? Or does it sound arrogant?

The answer to this depends partly on how supportive your supervisor is. In general, yes, it is fine to ask about making your thesis more challenging, but make sure that you do so in a tactful way, and be prepared that you might be told "no". Bear in mind that this is not just something that you are investing your own time in, someone is going to be marking your work, and this has several implications:

If you go well beyond the requirements, the marker may or may not have the required expertise to judge it effectively.
If your extension ends up involving more material, it will be more time-consuming to mark.
The task that you complete will still need to meet certain core requirements, otherwise it cannot be marked fairly against other students' submissions.

These are all barriers that can be overcome - for example, the more difficult task might involve extending the core results of the thesis in an appendix. That way, if necessary in terms of the assessment, the main part can be judged on its own merits. As long as your supervisor is reasonably supportive, have the conversation, and see what they suggest. It may be that you need to bash out an unremarkable thesis in order to meet the course requirements, but that your supervisor can suggest separate, interesting tasks to fill the extra time that you will have.

Thanks for your advice! He wrote me a mail that we should meet on Monday to discuss possible topics. He thinks that he has some interesting work for me which is not too complicated. Would it be okay to answer like "During my next semester I've more time than maybe is necessary to work on my bachelor thesis. Therefore I'd also be happy to do some difficult tasks. But that's up to you!"? If he is okay with that he has time to think about further appropriate topics.

@ElasticLamb Yes, something along those lines sounds fine. I'm glad you found my answer useful. Although in the end it's up to you, normal practice here is not to "accept" an answer so quickly since it might discourage others from contributing or voting. If you want, you can "unaccept" for now by clicking the green tick. You can always re-accept later (maybe after a day or so) if no one else answers or if this remains the most suitable response.

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


text:
how to handle a problematic previous advisor?
Luckily I got in academia after having a serious conflict with my previous advisor.  The problem was that he gave my dissertation proposal to his previous student (another his previous student said that he loved her a lot).  She even got $100,000 NSF grant with the proposal.
I said it was unfair.  Then he did his best to kick me out of the school (he even called the police for the reason I was shown up in his office; contacted all people to say that I am not qualified for a Ph.D. and so should be kicked out).
A school dean saved me and so I graduated. However, for the conflict, I couldn't get in my field (I am in totally different field); still I need to take medicine to get in a sleep, to meet people and to control my anger.
Anyway, I'd like to go back to my own field again because it is too tough to struggle in a new field.  Any advise?  Also I'd really like to pay all back to him regarding what he did to me.  What could be the best way?
Anyway, he is a full professor in a well-known research school; also he is a big name and so about 30% of faculties in this field are his previous students & 50% of senior faculties are his good friends.

What are you asking? If it's "how do I get revenge on my former advisor" then you likely won't get the answers you're looking for here.

Are there other people in your field who know that he’s a jerk?

Another previous student had a similar problem as I heard.  However, he became a good friend with all the other senior faculties and so he was well-proteced.

They say: "revenge is a dish best served cold". I say: Revenge is a dish left over, which you first put in the refrigerator. Then, thinking twice, you move it into the freezer. There it stays for a few years. And then, you clean it out and throw it away, because you will really regret it if you actually eat it. Vinegar will not get better with age, but it never was wine in the first place. As for the constructive part of your question: It is not a good step to "flee" a field and then return. Better to see if you can combine your expertise in the new field with the old - making yourself unique.

It is very interesting that all of the users put on hold are faculties.  Hopefully  my posting does not make you uncomfortable for the reason you are faculties having students like me.

I'd like to go back to my own field again. If that's what you like and want, go ahead and do it. Stop thinking about that person. He is not a god. You can make your own way. It will be hard at the beginning, but try to publish a paper even as a single author. Then, people can trust your abilities and start working with you.

Get on with your life. Best way to get revenge would be for you to become successful and renowned in your field despite conflict with previous advisor.

I've had a very egocentric MS advisor who stole my work. However, I got the MS thesis published against the odds. Do you have data from your previous work that is publishable? If so, go ahead and publish them. What are you working on right now? Is it something you like better than what your did earlier? If so, focus on what it matters now. Getting a stranglehold of your new research discipline and getting things published will be the best form of "revenge."

I am in statistics - no data at all. We just propose and prove what we propose.  anyways, thanks for your advice.


text:
Possibility of acceptance when the editor clearly states that another revision will likely lead to a rejection
I received reviewers' feedback after the first round of major revision. One reviewer recommended acceptance, but the other is still not satisfied. The unsatisfied reviewer discounted what I have revised and pointed out specific questions that were not asked in the 1st round.
I feel his/her comments are quite biased and subjective. Unfortunately, the editor agrees with him/her and invited a major revision. However, the editor clearly stated that the chance of getting accepted after a 2nd revision is very low. I am not sure whether I should proceed with a revision or a just withdraw. I personally think my work might have been misjudged.

Unfortunately, the editor agrees with him/her and invited a major revision. However, the editor clearly stated that the chance of getting accepted after a 2nd revision is very low. - What is the actual wording used (redacted okay)?

Probably the editor meant the following: if you don't address the comments, then I would have no choice but to reject the paper.  It could also be that the journal's policy is to allow at most x number of revisions.  I would revise the paper and resubmit if the comments are addressable.

I understood from the question that you are asking whether to do the second major revision or not since the chance of acceptance is low.
I think it's better to go through with the second major revision and see what will happen. If you think the other referee's notes (aside from the one you think is biased) are valid, and doing those revisions will enrich your paper, then do it.
Your relationship with the editor do not end with publishing this paper or refusing to publish it. You may probably deal with the editor later in your professional life, and you might submit another paper to the same journal despite how this paper will end. So you wanna maintain a relationship with the journal editor. Stopping the communication about this paper without providing a valid reason is not good idea.
Good Luck!

I think withdrawing the paper without providing a valid reason is unlikely to damage one's relation with the journal. After all, they have no authority over your paper - if you withdraw it, you're effectively saying "I no longer consent to have you publish my paper", and they can't complain.

The editor's doing something weird. If the odds of acceptance are very low, then he could have rejected the paper. So the fact that the decision was 'major revision' is sort of saying that there's still a chance of acceptance.
I think it comes down to whether you still want to publish in the journal. If not, then you might as well withdraw now and save everyone's time. If yes, then make the revisions and try again. Worst case scenario, your paper gets rejected, but the revisions should still be helpful if you submit it to another journal.


text:
When is it enough? Final year PhD student with an abusive advisor
How do I know if I've had enough?
I am scared to take this further, since my supervisor is quite powerful (millions in funding) and goes back and forth with abusive behavior. Plus, I only have a couple months left to write up.
What would be considered an unrefutable evidence of abuse?
I am experiencing all sorts of difficulties at the moment, but I'm unsure of their significance in this generally challenging academic environment.
Thanks,
EE

Could you provide the country you are in? What can be done can differ a lot.

was there any similar cases with other students ? did anyone tried to do anything ?

Emilie - In the UK, but I'm an international student.
N00 - Yes. attempts to speak up have been done before, but no sucess. They all were international students too.

Have you consulted your ombudsman?

Unless the abuse is legally actionable (sexual discrimination or abuse, racist comments, etc), it is likely that your best course is to put your head down and just write. You may be able to get some advice from a local office at your university, however, or, in some cases, from the head of department.
If it is legally actionable, then you need to talk to a lawyer, either inside the university system or on your own.
It is difficult to deal with powerful bad actors and difficult to avoid all negative consequences. But you probably need advice and support from someplace closer than this forum and with whom you can be more open.
But if you can just finish, somehow, you can leave the situation behind, though you may still need allies to deal with recommendations, etc.
However, if the abuse is continuing, you should try to document it, even if it is in a journal in which you date occurrences with a clear description. If there are witnesses, it would be good, if possible, to get statements from them as well.
I also wonder if the professor's colleagues recognize this as an issue and could serve as your surrogate in correcting the problem. He or she may have power over you, but not over the entire faculty. Allies.

Thank you. I am recording every meeting now..in case it keeps escalating..


text:
Accepted conference paper but changing job before the conference
I am a researcher at a company C and I'm going to submit a paper as main author in the next few days for a conference next spring. The thing is, I applied to a University U for a PHD and still waiting for an answer. So in spring, I might not be in the company anymore and they will have no reason to pay me the trip and the conference. So if the paper is accepted, I can guess 5 scenarios:

C still pays me the conference (very unlikely I guess)
U pays me the conference (However this team never published to this conference so it is unlikely)
I pay for it (I don't think I would, it is really too expensive (other side of the planet))
C pays for the second author to go and present the paper at my place
My submission is cancelled

What do you think is the more probable scenario. How does Universities and Companies usually handle this? C doesn't know yet that I am looking for another position. Should I renounce publishing this paper? I have been working on that for more than a year and this is a good journal.

I'm not sure there is a 'usual' way this is handled, each case has its own differences. For my (US national lab) group I would support the conference attendance, assuming no weird circumstances. But, this is similar to other questions on such cases (grad->post doc, post-doc->staff, ...).

Your title and body talk about a conference but you say "this is a good journal." What do you mean? Are they somehow the same in your field (they're not in mine)

I understand in some fields, it's possible for a third party (not an author) to present the paper if all else fails.  E.g., maybe you have some other friend or colleague who could do that.  Is that an option?

@AzorAhai Yes in my case it is the same. There are two kind of submissions possibles for this conference: conference paper or journal paper. In both cases I have to present the paper at the conference. But a conference paper is published in this conference proceedings while a journal paper is published in a journal (which publishes the best works from several conferences). So it is harder to get a journal paper accepted than a conference paper.

@NateEldredge The second author would be able to present the paper yes. However I don't know if it is very common that a paper is not presented by the main author.

If you can say what field you work in, maybe there is someone who works in that field who will have some experience with this.

It is indeed common that a paper is not presented by its main author.  In particular, I usually insist that the least experienced coauthor gives the talk for any particular paper I'm on, because they need the exposure most.  (On the other hand, there's no such thing as a "main author" in my field.)

@NateEldredge I am in the computer science field, graphics and interactions.

The only thing that can be said for sure is that the conference is unlikely to cancel the submission. I don't know of any conferences that would do such a thing.
But whether anyone wants to pay for attendance is another question altogether. It can be explored with the company and with the university. In many cases either would be happy to help you attend as it increases their own visibility. In other cases they would not. In some situations the institution (company or university) won't pay anyway depending on the paper and the cost.
The safest thing for you is to assume that if you want to attend then you will have to pay yourself and to hope that, upon asking, either the company or the university will pay instead. It isn't then end of the world if a co-author presents in your stead. You still have the publication on your record.
Withdrawing your name from authorship seems to me to be the worst option as you have done the work but won't get credit.
It is also possible that you can submit something in addition to the conference and have the university pay on the basis of that, instead.

Buffy's answer is a good one. I also wouldn't withdraw the submission, or even attendance until you know for sure that there's no funding. It's certainly worth asking the company and the new research group (if you get the position), but success is obviously not guaranteed.
However, there's one more option worth pursuing: try to apply for an external travel grant. Sometimes one might be available from the conference itself, from a professional organization, or as a stipend. The new professor or department likely has some ideas on available options for your field. Maybe you can cover all of the cost that way, or at least part of it.

Been there, done that, but with University 1 and University 2.
Normally, you would put up the affiliation with U2 in the final version, mention in the acknowledgements that the work was done at U1, e basta. Typically, U2 is expected to pay for the conference.
Unfortunately, in my case the timing was screwed up and the final version went out when I did not have a contract with U2 yet. So, U1 was on the affiliation. U1 refused to pay for the now-foreign person (they were not nice), U2 did not pay, because it's not credited (fair, I guess). I ended paying for the travel and conference myself.
(It was nice and fun, but going to Japan from Europe for work on my own money (and being not able to extend the stay, because I was a poor postdoc) was not my definition of a good vacation, which the travel essentially replaced that year.)

U pays me the conference (However this team never published to this
  conference so it is unlikely)

Why unlikely? IMHO, this is the most likely situation. Once the paper is accepted, i.e. several months from now, you can change your affiliation in the paper, and U will sponsor you presenting it.

C pays for the second author to go and present the paper at my place

This is also very likely if you cannot go. Come on, you have a new wonderful job, why caring about presenting 1 paper? You will have more papers to present.


text:
Why are you required to pay or have a university relation to access most research journals?
High school student here...
I came here to ask this question since it seems geared more towards academia and I normally spend my time on Math.SE. Anyway...
I have a huge passion for math, I read about it and work on problems every day. At this point in time I'm even considering going into academia for math research (although it seems incredibly difficult to land professorship based on the things I've read here.) In my ongoing research, I've noticed that there are very few places to freely read mathematical papers. I tend to turn to the arXiv so this isn't so much a problem - except for the times I come across a paper with a particularly interesting abstract, only to find its host site asking for one of two things:

An association with an institution or research group
Monthly payment

So my question is do any of the academics here have any insight as to why that is? Are the authors of the papers compensated with part of the payment received by the journal?
(Sorry if this question comes across as very naive but, admittedly, I am.)

Did you try searching this site for an answer? I'm sure this has been asked before

Why does your local paper charge you to get a copy?

@Jon Custer Are you asking seriously or in an attempt to provide reasoning for my question?

Thank you for providing the link. I'm currently reading over the thread now.

I just marked as duplicate.

There's a bit of a difference between asking about the requirements for accessing journals (simple answer: they prefer to sell access rather than support their business via ads or something, and only research libraries want to pay for that access), versus asking why the researchers themselves continue to freely give their content to such journals.


text:
How to cite an authorless report in JabRef/Bibtex
I am learning to use bibtex/jabref in the context of a literature review and would like to cite the following report:
https://www.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/379567.pdf
The report is compiled by the USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers) and does not have an explicit author. In the summary report it is mentioned that this report was a result of "workshops" with a "panel" of experts. It includes the expert's names however no indication whether they actually contributed to writing the report itself.
The way I'm logging this into JabRef is as follows:
@TechReport{USACE2015,
  author      = {{US Army Corps of Engineers}},
  title       = {North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive: resilient adaptation to increasing risk physical depth damage function summary report},
  institution = {US Army Corps of Engineers},
  year        = {2015},
  file        = {:10A_PhysicalDepthDmgFxSummary_26Jan2015.pdf:PDF},
}

However, I'm a bit annoyed that I have to mention USACE in two distinct required fields, namely the author and the institution. Is there a more correct way to cite "authorless" technical reports using bibtex/jabref? Perhaps this is not a technical report at all?
Thanks in advance for your help

In the end, you should format your citations according to the style guide of the journal you are targeting. Which BibTeX fields you have to use depends on the bibliographystyle you are using in your document.
For example, IEEE journals require that the name of the institution appears after the title of the report, see here on page 7.
With the ieeetran bibliography style, the author field is printed before the title, while the institution field is not printed at all. In order to fit the journal style (institution name after title), one needs to remove the author field and enter the institution in the type field, which is a bit of a hack:
@TechReport{USACE2015,
    title       = {{North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive: resilient adaptation to increasing risk physical depth damage function summary report}},
    type      = {{US Army Corps of Engineers}},
    year        = {2015},
    file        = {:10A_PhysicalDepthDmgFxSummary_26Jan2015.pdf:PDF},
}

produces the desired output:

In short: check the citation style of your target journal and try to mimic that. If you also want JabRef to sort your references properly by institution, you will also need to include the institution in the institution field.

I am not targeting a particular journal in this case. Rather trying to harness JabRef in order to build up a personal database. Your answer is nonetheless very helpful. Thanks


text:
Do university departments take on additional faculty members for existing lab groups?
I am coming into (hopefully) the last year of my PhD and starting to think more seriously about next steps. I am really enjoying my research, as well as several teaching assistant experiences that I have had. I would like to continue doing academic research and so I am thinking about applying for faculty positions. As I am looking around at universities/departments to apply to, one question I have is: do university departments tend to take on additional tenure-track faculty members for existing lab groups, and under what circumstances?
Would I have a higher chance of success in applying to a department that doesn't already have an established lab group in my specific area, rather than proposing to expand an existing lab group?
To illustrate with an example:
Let's say my research area is small satellites (it's not). I'm looking at the Texas A&M Aerospace Department and they already have a lab group that is researching small sats (I don't know if that is actually true). Is it possible they might take me on as an additional junior faculty member for that group (if I have done some impactful work in that area), or would that be very unlikely?
To clarify further:
By 'lab group', I mean a small-ish group of researchers (~5-15) who are collaborating together in a fairly specific sub-field. It could be theoretical or numerical, I don't mean to imply that they are necessarily doing experimental research.
Also, my focus is primarily on research groups in the US.

Here what do you mean by group? Institute? Center? Lab?

Is this "lab group" concept something that you're aware of being formally recognized anywhere in academia?  Or even that you think you perceive anywhere?

@JohnBollinger I had initially used the term 'research group'; however, I changed to 'lab group' because that seemed to cause confusion about the size of group I was referring to. I'm currently doing a PhD at a US institution and the grad students there tend to be separated into small-ish groups, often referred to as 'lab groups', which are focused on a fairly narrow sub-field and tend to be headed by one PI/faculty member.

@Time4Tea, I've been around academia a long time, and the terminology "lab group" is new to me.  The terminology "research group", on the other hand, is very familiar.  These vary greatly in size, from just a few people to dozens, but they are invariably led by a single faculty member.  In the sciences, at least, many faculty do hire postdoctoral researchers into their research groups, and that is a common career step in some fields, but posdocs are not faculty.

@JohnBollinger I accept your point. But again, as I mentioned, I had used the term 'research group' initially and that was criticized by others as being rather vague. That is also why I added the clarification at the end of the question, to be more specific as to what sort of group I am referring to. Perhaps it's possible the terminology might also differ by country?

@Time4Tea, certainly terminology differs, necessarily so where English is not the primary language.  But I think the main source of confusion is that you're asking about an alien concept.  Faculty members engaged in academic research have their own groups with which to perform it.  They do not join others' groups. This is a distinguishing characteristic of being faculty.  At universities that expect faculty to perform research, ability to create and lead an independent research program is one of the criteria on which faculty candidates are judged.

Have you considered talking with your Ph.D. advisor about your career goals and how to approach them?  Many Ph.D. advisors consider such career assistance to be part of their mentoring duties.  Even if yours doesn't, they are much better attuned to the norms in your particular field, and to your particular strengths and weaknesses.  They can give you better advice than we can.

@JohnBollinger I hadn't understood several of the things you have mentioned - hence my question. I think it would be best not get into an extended discussion in the comments (which is against the SE rules). Perhaps you could contribute some of these points by posting an answer?

No.  It is considered inefficient.
The rare exception would be:  When hiring a very famous faculty member (such as a Nobel Prize winner) the new faculty member may be promised the opportunity to hire a few assistant professors over a few years.
Cluster hiring is a thing but it means hiring several different research groups with a related theme over a few years.
If a faculty member is entering retirement gradually, a replacement might be hired before the retirement is complete.  The replacement also might never be hired.
My answer is for universities influenced by the US and UK.  I think it's quite different in German-style universities.

Ok, I appreciate your insights. However, if an existing lab group is active in a research area that is rapidly growing, is it not possible that the size of the lab could grow to the point where the number of students is too much for a single professor to handle?

That professor hires a lab manager and postdocs…

Professors always think they can handle more.  I know a university that caps the number of PhD students per professor, but the cap is very high it is easy to cheat.

What you do get in the UK is research fellows within (or attached to) an existing group. These fellows, whether internally or externally funded have some independence of their own (unlike postdocs, generally).  Whether you can map this situation onto "faculty" in another systems is a semantic question.

When you say "lab group," are you thinking of physical lab space with expensive equipment?
A university would probably rather not dedicate the space to having 2 copies of e.g. a very large & expensive microscope. So if your research relies on such lab equipment, and somebody's lab there already has it, your job application would have to be clear about how you plan to collaborate with existing faculty -- how you will augment their skills & research directions with your own ideas, but share the tools nicely. (Ideally, these other faculty would already know your work and be inviting you to come work with them.) Otherwise, if you know you'd be competing rather than collaborating, you're probably better off applying somewhere else that doesn't already have such a lab.
On the other hand, if what you have in mind is more theoretical, it probably doesn't matter as much. If your work is in a particular field of pencil-and-paper theoretical mathematics, and you're applying somewhere with other faculty who already work in the same field, you wouldn't really be competing for resources. You can each run your own independent "labs" and hire separate grad students or postdocs, but still benefit from being in the same department e.g. by inviting colloquium speakers who work in this shared research area.

Thanks for your answer. Your initial question is why I had initially used 'research group' rather than 'lab group', because I hadn't meant to necessarily restrict to an 'experimental lab'. However, that seemed to cause confusion. What I really mean is a small-ish group of people (~5-15) working a particular (fairly narrow) sub-field of research, within a university department.

OK, then my last paragraph might be more relevant. The hiring process for faculty (at least in USA) is usually not at the lab level, but at the department level. If you aren't planning to duplicate resources or compete with others for resources, then you just need to convince the department you'd be a good fit & good colleague. (On the other hand, a postdoc or a lab technician would apply to the lab PI directly, not to the department.)

When you say "research group" that is not an "experimental lab," the example that comes to my mind from my own prior experience is the CMU StatML reading group: http://statml.cs.cmu.edu/people.html When the Statistics or Machine Learning departments hire new faculty members, they are welcome to join the reading group; but they wouldn't be hired "by" the research group. It might make sense for your application to discuss how your research makes you a good collaborator for StatML group members, but "join that lab or not" is completely separate from how CMU would think about "hire or don't hire."

That comment seems helpful, that a junior faculty member is hired by the department, not by a lab group. However, if I were hired by a department, would the general expectation be that I would be starting my own 'lab group', or is it possible that I could join an existing group, if there were one that was a close fit to my research area?

In the fields I've seen, you would not join some other faculty member's lab. You'd start your own. When you are hired by a department and start advising grad students or postdocs, you can simply declare that you and your students are now the "Time4Tea Lab at XYZ University." Maybe this is different in your field -- if so, please share a concrete example of the kind of lab or research group you have in mind, because it's hard for me to imagine what you mean. You mention Texas A&M Aerospace; their webpage lists a bunch of "labs" but most are "one professor + students + postdocs."

Ok. That seems to be consistent with most other answers that I am seeing - that a new faculty member joining a department is generally expected to be fully independent and start their own 'lab group', with their own funding, students etc.

Most university faculty hiring is to fill some perceived need. Mostly that would be bringing in new ideas to an existing group. As faculty near retirement, new people can keep the vitality of a research program going. This is a fairly conservative approach. Continue to do what you know how to do.
The exception would be when some new research field emerges, such as is currently the case in some aspects of CS (big data, generative AI, ...). But note that even there universities might be quite conservative. A new, untested, faculty member in a new field can be seen as a risk, thought the tenure process mitigates that to some extent.
But for advice in the job market, I'd look for things that match your skill set. Most ads are pretty clear about what they are looking for.
If you have a lot of grant funding success in some area then you might be able to sell yourself to a place that doesn't already cover your field well, but, otherwise, that doesn't seem to be the best strategy.  Doing research alone can be very difficult. A university looking to break into a new field will probably be looking for people already successful. Not universally true, of course, but not much is.

The above applies primarily to research universities. In teaching colleges and universities there is probably more emphasis on breadth of coverage of a field, though research takes a lesser role at such places.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

Collecting and expanding on my comments on the question:

Do university departments take on additional faculty members for existing lab groups?

TL;DR: no, but faculty do sometimes hire Ph.D.s into their research groups.

my focus is primarily on research groups in the US.

And so is this answer.

By 'lab group', I mean a small-ish group of researchers (~5-15) who
are collaborating together in a fairly specific sub-field. It could be
theoretical or numerical, I don't mean to imply that they are
necessarily doing experimental research.

You seem to be coining the phrase "lab group".  At least, it is not one with which I am familiar.
What you describe is similar to what I know as a "research group", and I recognize that you used that terminology in an earlier revision of the question.  From comments, I think that's indeed what you mean, but in that case, the question belies an unfamiliarity with the conventional organization of academic research that seems surprising in someone approaching completion of their Ph.D..
I suspect that's among the reasons that your question has been difficult for many of us to understand.  No, faculty are not ever hired into existing research groups, because at academic institutions where faculty are expected to perform research, they are expected to do so by forming and leading their own research groups.  The ability to do so is one of the criteria on which such institutions evaluate faculty candidates.  Running an independent research program is one of the defining characteristics of being faculty at a research university.
Thus, when you ask about faculty being hired into existing "lab groups", we're primed to think that you mean something other than "research group".  In fact, in the laboratory sciences, it's relatively common to use the term "lab" interchangeably with "research group", so a "lab group" could be interpreted as some kind of higher-level group of multiple faculty members' research groups.  And collaboration among research groups is very much a thing -- often, even, across multiple institutions.
Alternatively, the term could be interpreted in the sense of access to physical laboratory facilities.  It is indeed common for research institutions to share some equipment, especially expensive equipment, among multiple research groups.
But neither of those interpretations seems to be what you mean, so going back to "research group": no, faculty are not hired into existing research groups because that's inconsistent with being faculty.  However, it's fairly common, at least in the sciences, for faculty to hire post-doctoral researchers into their research groups. Postdocs work under the direction of the supervising faculty member, but they generally have more independence than graduate students.  Perhaps that's the kind of environment you're looking for. And in some fields, it's hard to get a faculty job without first doing a postdoc stint or two, which may be another reason to be looking in that direction.
Any way around, your Ph.D. supervisor is the best person to advise you here.  No one else is as well attuned to both the norms in your particular field and your own personal strengths and weaknesses.  Many faculty consider providing such career guidance to their students to be among their mentoring responsibilities, but even if yours doesn't consider it a duty, I certainly hope they would be willing to have such a conversation with you.

‘lab group’ is a very common general synonym for ‘research group’ where I’m from, across the sciences. they haven’t coined the phrase

I wouldn't dream of denying your personal experience, @user438383, but I've been around academia for a long time, in multiple sciences, at multiple institutions, interacting with colleagues from all over the world, and I never heard "lab group" before.  I'm familiar with "group", "lab", and "research group" as synonyms, but not "lab group".  None of the other answerers seem to recognize "lab group" as a synonym for "research group" either.  Make of that what you will.

Thanks for your answer and valuable insights. I think part of my initial confusion is that, in my department, there are at least a couple of what seem to be higher-level 'umbrella groups', which include several faculty members working in a similar area. I had viewed those as 'research groups' containing more than 1 faculty member, but I now understand that those faculty members are each independent, with their own funding and students, but collaborating in the same general area.

@user438383 Yes. I'm doing a PhD in highly-regarded US research university, and in my institution, the terms 'lab group' and 'research group' are used more-or-less interchangeably.