text:
Can I post my article publicly on researchgate?
My article which was just published in the subscription model by a Springer journal, yet it was made freely available by the publisher in the journal website. However, on Researchgate, no public file was added by the publisher.
Can I add the public file on Researchgate to increase the visibility of my research, since it is already being made available for free on the website? or would that be a violation of the terms imposed by the publisher for the subscription model?

It is likely that Springer has the copyright, so you can no longer freely publish it without permission.

You can ask an editor or just carefully read the license that you have from Springer. I'm doubtful, though, given ResearchGate's reputation.

It depends on copyright (as Buffy said), but also on licensing. If it's open access (not necessarily on your own merits, see Project DEAL), then you can publish it. If not, there are often some embargo time frames. For a concrete answer we'd need your country, journal name and year of publication. A general answer would be too vague and unclear.

Likely duplicate of: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/52488/75368

@Buffy and given Springer's reputation...

Assuming your article isn't open access, then the answer is probably not.
See Springer sharing policies. You can share an accepted manuscript via non-commercial hosting platforms after 12 months. You can't share a published manuscript (note there is a difference between a published manuscript and an accepted one).
Note that just because the article is free right now does not mean it will be free forever. This changes if your article is open access, in which case it will be free forever, and you are free to share it wherever you want (there can be open access articles in subscription journals).
You are free to share the preprint on Researchgate, though, if you still have it.

Being "freely available" doesn't imply that it isn't under copyright.


text:
What happens to a paper with a mathematical notational error, but has otherwise correct prose and results?
I was part of a paper where the section I wrote for my contribution (as an undergrad) was edited by the person mentoring me. The prose for this section explains things correctly, but the mathematical notation doesn't quite make sense or add up to me. I initially wrote the mathematical notation differently (to back up the prose), but they changed it. I raised this once verbally, but that didn't end up going anywhere -- I wasn't sure if I just didn't interpret the notation correctly (as I am an undergrad after all) or if it wasn't quite correct. The section also contains work which was built upon and improved by the person mentoring me (they made modifications to the original contribution I had made) so in some sense, I thought that they had intentionally changed it with that in mind. It's been nagging at the back of my head though, and as of now it is heading into publication (it passed peer review). I assumed because it passed peer review, that I was incorrect about the mathematical notation (and it was indeed acceptable).
What are the consequences if this is a mistake? It feels like one, but I am not sure. The results of the paper are not changed in any way -- the prose and psuedocode explaining the algorithm are fine, but there's 2 lines of mathematical notation which do not seem correct to me.

I agree with the accepted answer, but all coauthors are jointly responsible for a paper, so usually your mentor should try to answer your question; ideally you should get to consensus, or he should explain why that's not possible, sth like — "yes, I can see why that's confusing, but this notation will make sense once you've learned  in a few semesters, and it's too hard to summarize for you"; and even then, will the readers know. (I know category-theoretical notation that'd qualify).

Probably nothing happens unless there is really an error and someone notices and contacts the corresponding author who, I assume, is someone else. Then it might get corrected.
But a lot of sophisticated readers might just ignore the error, if it indeed exists, and be guided by other things, such as the prose.
People make errors, others recognize them. Not every error needs formal correction.
You seem to have done what you could and the overall responsibility lies elsewhere. Let it go unless someone points it out to you and then you can provide guidance as needed.

Some journals will publish an errata page for published papers. This implies that someone has pointed out errors to them and asked for correction. This would most often be the corresponding author, though it might be others. But someone has to at least think the error needs correction and the editor needs to agree.

Ah, thank you so much! Very relieving to hear something like this.

I'd echo the point that more sophisticated readers will look at the (information-theory-wise) more robust prose, where a spelling or grammar error is usually easily correctible, as opposed to the relatively fragile formulaic stuff, which is more fragile due to its being more information-dense. So, don't worry.

Not sure about mathematics but in physics a mathematical notation error will usually get an erratum -- a set of short statements that "equation (14) should have had X instead of Y", for example. These corrections are common and expected.

@ShernRenTee you should post this as an answer.

@qwr (1) It was (implicitly) covered by Buffy under "Then it might get corrected" (2) It therefore didn't add that much content on its own (3) It was physics-specific; I don't know how errata / corrigenda / et cetera work in other disciplines.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Whether or not move upward to better universities: What factors should be considered
Short version: For tenured professor in small and less prestigious universities.
What are the factors to be considered and balanced when
making the decision on whether or not to try hard to move to
bigger and more prestigious universities?
Long version:
I am a (recently tenured) professor
in a small regional public university
in the northeastern part of United States.
I am fairly happy with my current situation:

I have an active research program;
I kept up with newest research trend
and established myself as a leader in a subfield;
I have an NSF grant (for now) and, thanks to the PUI status,
have good record of getting grants;
I don't mind teaching,
and sometime even find it fun;
Service expectation is low;
As long as my research is going well,
I can usually pick some light service responsibilities
that I enjoy;
I am well respected in the department and college,
and (when I have a grant) even the provost seem to like me;
The politics in the department is quite simple;
There are occasional problems, but the department is so small
that, at the end, everyone needs everyone else;
My salary is not high,
but with the low cost of living,
living condition is pretty good;
The student body is such that I feel I'm actually making a difference in their lives;
And I have tenure.

However, one in a while,
I also feel the urge to move "upward".
To list some cons for staying in a small lower-tier undergraduate-focused university...

I have no chance to academically reproduce;
It hurts my ego (occasionally);
I won't get to work with the best students;
My salary is low and will probably remain low forever;

These are the cons I can see.
My questions is: Are there other factors I should consider in such cost benefit analysis?

Have you considered that workload in R1 universities may be significantly higher?

The main difficulty of such a move is that you are in a "tenure trap": Most hires are at the tenure-track level and most places will be reluctant to hire a tenured person for a tenure-track position. There are ways to overcome this, but these require some serious work on your part since, chances are, when looking for a better position you will not be going through the "standard" process (checking job ads in your area of research and then applying to a bunch of places), even though, there are, less frequent "open rank" or, say, "associate level" job openings.
Here is my suggestion: If you have contacts in better universities, inquire discretely if they would be interested in hiring you. If you are well-known and liked in your research area, chances are that some of your contacts can convince their departmental colleagues to have and open rank hire (in your area) or a more targeted hire at the associate/full professor level. I have done this when I was already a full professor and, after having job interviews in several places, got a job elsewhere. (But I also applied for positions in places where I did not have contacts and which were advertised in my professional publication, Notice of AMS.)  The main drawback to be aware of is that people in your department will likely find out. How it will affect your relations with departmental colleagues I cannot tell.

Just one: are you happy at the place you are currently at or not. "Happiness" is a very composite notion though and different people place different weights on different factors when computing their overall "happiness score", so nobody can help you with that computation.
Some disadvantages you mentioned can be remedied by collaborating with people outside your university and taking active part in the supervision of their students (not necessarily formalized in any way).
As to "ego", you are what you do, not what stamp you have on your forehead (or your CV, or...). So, if you feel that you are involved in some interesting and meaningful activity and derive some decent income and fun from it as well, it doesn't matter whether you are known as "a distinguished senior professor of Harvard" or just as "some Springfield guy/girl". Actually it doesn't matter whether you are known at all.
My own idea of evaluating things is just setting a clear threshold and reject everything that is below it as "unsatisfactory" and accept everything that is above it as "good enough" without trying to engage into the wild goose chase for "the best" option. Yes, the grass is always obviously greener on the other side, but why should you care if you side is green enough for you?
If you just want to feel the general "hustle and bustle" of academic life, go to conferences and research workshops more often and make new acquaintances. The secret is very simple: people (with rare exceptions) are always eager to speak of what interests them at the moment and are not so much interested in talking about what interests you. So just let them talk and think of their questions in honest, and you'll acquire collaborators in no time. You'll also learn many new things as a bonus this way.
In other words, my advice is to move only if you feel forced to move. But if you do feel forced to move, indeed, you shouldn't hesitate to do so.

There are more 'sharks'.  Yes, students are better prepared, but they also have more options, meaning they are harder to retain.    Further, there is no guarantee that you will get to work with the 'best students'.  They may be more politics, though that's the same for any institution.

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


text:
Master thesis biochemistry
I am looking for a topic for my master's thesis in the field of biochemistry, but there is a problem, how can I make sure that the topic I have chosen is not repeated? Because there are many sites, journals, etc.  Should I search all of them to make sure that the research topic is new?

Do you have an advisor?  Helping with this should be part of your thesis advisor's job.

One part of most theses is a literature review. This should probably be begun before you settle completely on a topic to avoid repeating work already in the literature. There will be a period of refinement as you close in on the topic, depending on what you find in the literature.
Few people already know enough about any topic to write a thesis without a review of the literature. Part of the process of extending knowledge is obtaining a solid sense of what is already known.
In some cases the lit review will cause you to drop or modify the topic and certainly any hypotheses you make. The review might lead to choices of methodology.
But, yes, you need to do a search. Both an advisor and an academic librarian can help. The advisor should be aware of the obvious things to avoid and the librarian can help you find relevant material on a given topic.


text:
How to view undergraduate studies in maths?
I am a undergraduate studying maths at the moment and I have been enrolled for 3 years almost. As I have not fully finished with the degree, I still have time and courses to take and there is this question/issue in my head that I don't always really feel comfortable with.
(This are all my perception)
I think during undergraduate you don't become a mathematician but you lay the ground. At times I can get chance to see how is graduate life, how is doing research like and it sometimes look a bit like a fantasy to think that you can be productive in graduate years due to:

Tho learning maths can be easy or hard, what you learn in undergraduate may not make you ready to do research or even read papers and feel comfortable.
Even if you excel at undergraduate,
solving unsolved problems is different from solving assignments and this if you think about it might make you feel like imposter that you are 'useless' actually.

I was wondering how to view undergraduate studies during your undergraduate years and benefit from it in a smarter way. One good advice was to go broad and get the big picture , you will have time to dive deep. And I just am looking for thoughts of people on the matter.
I am pretty sure this thoughts are common, so any link to similar issues or etc are welcome.

For the most part, what you study in undergraduate in most fields has been known for a long time. The same is true in maths. In fact, lots of things more than 100 years old aren't touched on at the undergraduate level.
Beyond that, maths are currently a vast field. It has been about a hundred years since it was possible for a single person to understand all of that (there are references to that, I'll let you look - see Henri Poincare, for example).
There are three things that you can learn as an undergraduate. The first, and simplest is what you mention in the question - a bit of skill in problem solving in a few of the major, basic, fields.
Beyond that, is gaining practice in "a mathematical way of thinking", or reducing complex problems to simpler parts that can be attacked with the tools available. Thinking in terms of patterns and relationships.
Still a bit further, and not always achieved as an undergraduate, is true insight into a few of the important mathematical concepts. What is the deeper meaning of, say the derivative, or of an axiomatic system. This includes something about the limitations of mathematics.
If you can achieve all of that, then the undergrad days provide a good foundation for moving forward and to go deeper into some, probably quite narrow, subfield.


text:
Google Scholar / Articles manually-listed on personal profile don't appear in search
I have a Google Scholar profile (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2vlGfLcAAAAJ). I have manually added missing papers, and they are listed on the profile. However, they are not indexed and do not appear on Google Scholar search.
I have reviewed all instructions on Google Scholar's help pages and could not find a solution to the problem. Any thoughts why this is so and how to fix this?
I will much appreciate your kind advice.

That's really a question you'd need to ask the google scholar folks...


text:
What is the correct way of writing academic degrees and Professional license after the name?
What is the correct way to write academic degrees after the name? The degrees are RN (registered nurse) MAN (Master of Arts in Nursing) MBA (Master in Business Administration) and DBA (Doctor in Business Administration

This is just a suggestion for those places in which there aren't firm conventions. If a single person held all those degrees, which cover two fields, I would just list the highest degree in each field, with doctorate(s) listed last. So

Katherine Rose Arciga, MAN, DBA

Since MAN is less common than many others, further explanation might be needed in some contexts.
If you need to list them all, then listing in the order earned is one option (later, last), perhaps grouped by field. But, again, the it is useful to list the highest degree last.
If you are in a very formal place (Germany, Austria, Switzerland,...) then local conventions and, perhaps, even laws apply, so find out what the requirements are locally. A university might have someone to make that clear. The "Registrar" of records might help.
Professional licensing is a different matter. It might be good to list those before the degrees unless they can be assumed in the titles. So a licensed medical doctor might list M.D. before the advanced degrees if any.

In nursing, the RN is frequently listed with the degree as well.

@AzorAhai-him-, I think RN requires a license. In many places, it is a two year program, not a bachelors. So, yes, a bachelors in nursing is something beyond an RN.

Yes, that's why nurses often list both the license and the degree.

This is somewhat country specific. In the UK there are a few commonly referenced conventions for post-nominal letters (first two require purchase):
Titles and forms of address: A guide to correct use (2007). London: A. & C. Black.
Debrett's Letters After The Name
This guide is followed by Oxford University.
I have never compared these, but I suspect they are very similar.

Actually, it is very country specific and laws apply in some places (Germany IIRC). The US is pretty informal.


text:
How do I customise MS Word 'manage sources' (creating reference lists) to do what I want it to do?
I am using the 'manage sources' facility in Microsoft Word to create a reference list/bibliography (Harvard) but am experiencing a number of problems such as:

I cannot include italics for species names
The automatic bibliography insertion will only include the first initial of each
author (which is not always the one they are most commonly known by)
How do I get the bibliography to include the DOI? (and other fields
of my choosing)
When inserting citations, Word includes the full list of corporate authors, which may sometimes be extremely long. How do I reduce this to 'XXX et al'?

Apologise that this seems like 4 different questions but I will be grateful for any pointers at all on how to use 'manage sources' more productively. I have googled this but the answers that come up only deal with basic stuff on how to insert a reference. I can't find anything that offers more detailed help.

Quite likely Word does not have those features. You could convert all references to plain text and then manually edit them. Or use a different reference manager.

Have you seen this web page?

Are you committed to MSWord? If so, then ignore this. If not, then maybe look at LaTeX.  https://www.latex-project.org/

This question would probably be better asked on another Stack Exchange site: https://superuser.com/

@BobaFit Unfortunately yes, but thanks anyway

@Nobody Thank you, it looks like it's only offering the basics again (which I already know) but useful for the pointers to other referencing systems

How about using something like Zotero? You can still edit the article in MS Word, but use something else for the bibliography like @Oliver882 and Nobody suggest.

@DavidS Thank you, I wasn't sure which SE to use but thought there might be other editors on here with the same problem. The name 'superuser' isn't very helpful when searching for the right site!


text:
How can a conference paper publication be guaranteed? Is such a "guarantee" even possible?
My cousin, a freshman in college, recently heard from a private education institute that a conference publication will be guaranteed if she joins their research tutoring program. In their program description, they mention that their student will be promised to have their paper published in Scopus indexed conferences.
This intrigued my curiosity- how can someone promise that a college student who has never done any research before will be granted a conference publication? I don't think they would dare to write the paper on behalf of the student.
So here comes my question - how can a conference paper publication be guaranteed?

Sounds like a misunderstanding. Can you reproduce the exact information from the institute? In academia, there no such thing as "granting conference publications", contributions are submitted to conferences and assessed by independent peer reviewers, which may or may not lead to the publication of the paper. Your follow-up question is very broad. To a big extent, the purpose of a PhD is to train you to get your conference paper published.

I assume that the paper will be submitted, and, if accepted, they might "grant" the travel to the conference? Might that be their meaning?

@lighthousekeeper the institute advertised that students who join their program will be guaranteed to have a paper published at one of the Scopus indexed conferences.

Your question had attracted some close votes, so I rewrote the title and eliminated the second question, which was too broad to be answerable. I also recommend you give a better answer to @lighthousekeeper's question: rather than summarizing their advertisement, it would be better to provide the exact words, so we can rule out a misunderstanding.

It isn't that difficult. All that happens is that a private university pays an association (IEEE or something else) to host a conference. Then since they host it, they can choose to publish conference proceedings, with a journal sponsor. That is how most special issues work.
A more comprehensive answer is here

This was my thought as well, but OP claims they were promised publication at a Scopus-indexed conference.

Wouldn't make that much of a difference right? If a major journal is a sponsor, they can easily have a special issue covering just the conference proceedings; which means the proceedings are also "Scopus Indexed" since the parent journal is.


text:
How do I salvage my thesis and move on with my life
So I am a MS student somewhere on the east coast US as an international student. I have a rough draft of my MS thesis.
I have been struggling really badly with motivation. I feel like I am able to the bare minimum to by and am honestly surprised that mentality and bad work ethic has gotten me so far in life.
I am having trouble accepting it and still am in denial perhaps, but I was diagnosed with MDD ~10 months ago (if I can remember). My plan initially was to submit my thesis long back, but the severe lack of motivation is really hitting hard. I am not sure but I somehow have managed to get by this far with minimal motivation, or doing a majority of work that I need to do (exams, project which was the basis of thesis, etc) in random bursts of motivation. The draft I have now was a product of those bursts of motivation, late night sessions, and moments where I felt like the smartest fella around.
But I guess my luck has all but run out -- bone dry -- and I need to get my proverbial s%%t together and fix this situation. I haven't had a burst of motivation etc over the past 4 months, and the thesis is stagnant. I know the severe consequences of not doing it in time, and losing the job I am at - job at an org that I only dreamed of being in as a kid, and work that I seem to be enjoying. It has costed me dearly, both literally (in tuition fees) and figuratively. The fear of deadlines, nor the interest with which I seemed to work on it before, none of them are around anymore. At some point I was hurting myself to write a page or two, before I felt zero motivation again, and realized this wasn't sustainable. So I swallowed my ego or disbelief etc and got on medication a few months ago which apparently was supposed to help with focus and lifting mood and spirit in general, but months in, it doesn't seem to be doing anything. I'm falling back on my old mechanisms to crank out work.
Now, you might ask "well if you were that bad, why even go to a foreign country?" and that would be a valid question, but I did not know what I was doing was not normal. I guess my luck ran out after I arrived here. Everyone has been really kind to me -- I don't know why -- despite being such a disorganized individual who probably does not belong here, wasting resources, both of my family and the countries. I sought help due to some of the more physical symptoms, perhaps due to the symptoms of my diagnosis (bad sleep eating habits etc.), got on medication as a "last ditch effort" because I had nothing else to try. I am really ashamed of myself, for being like this despite having pretty good circumstances and no reasons to feel this way.
I have sought advice in other places, but haven't gotten anywhere. I feel like I'm grasping at straws, and want to try a little before I ultimately give this up. I guess this question is one of those desperate attempts to try and find anything useful to help me get back on track with my thesis. I understand this isn't the place for mental health advice, so I am looking for academic advice. What can I do to trick myself or somehow motivate myself, even a little, to get something done each day, so that they add up and I eventually finish it.
What have I tried?
I was speaking with a counsellor on campus, but haven't found the motivation to figure out insurance and research places to seek LTT. I tried various techniques, breaking down big goals into small more manageable ones (fix typos on page 35, then break this passage into 2 ... and so on) to try and accumulate small wins. This has given me the most success relatively (after hurting myself) but am running out of time, progress isn't fast enough. I also tried bribing myself with food etc when 10 or so small goals are met, but I can only go so far when it feels tasteless. Tried to make a stringent timetable to do things, a flexible one that says "do this do that", motivational TED videos, motivation from family and friends. I just need to write things up! I'm starting to think I'm not cut out for the adult world, and want to give it all up.
I feel like I am at the end of my rope. Am I just making excuses? Am I not being harsh enough with myself? Am I just procrastinating without responsibility? Please share advice on techniques that people in academia use to get back on track. I maybe do not deserve the things I have (my job and internship experiences, for example) considering the effort I put into things compared to my peers, but I do not want to let it go to waste. I want to try a little more, before I give up.

What motivated you to go to foreign country to seek master's degree in the first place ?

I had a topic I was interested in, and I wanted to learn more about it. I even worked on a personal project that helped me in an interview, along with the project. I cannot for the life of me figure out how and where things went wrong. How was I motivated then, and not now? I try explaining my work to the walls to try and get that spark back and perhaps a few lines that I can add to my thesis. It kinda works, but progress has been painfully slow

Go back to the counselor or a doctor to see if they can tweak or update your medication.

Have you talked to your thesis advisor ? Did they say how much more would be needed for a master thesis ? Remember you are writing a master thesis, not a PhD thesis. It's not supposed to be this hard. I suspect you are pushing yourself too hard.

How much do you really need to add if you have a draft? Can it just be turned in and you can accept it is not A work?

@mkennedy yeah I did I was bumped up on dosage and it has been about 3 weeks. She recommends waiting for about 2 more weeks for it to "kick in".
@ Nobody I haven't told him about the made-up issues I'm facing, but he has been really helpful when I asked for a review. Need to get through the changes and write a couple more pages.
@ Dawn I expect around ~10-15 more pages. And reviews for that and the rest of the doc.

@leonos I had considered that, but I feel like I'll just disappoint more people if I involve them. I also worry my lack of progress and motivation will rub off on them and stall their progress too. I feel like the sinking one in the saying "Drowning men will drag you down if you let them. Sometimes, to survive, you have to let them sink." I do not want to consciously make that decision and put someone at risk.

I've been told that it's not uncommon for people struggling with depression symptoms to try 2-3 different medications before finding something that works for them. If you've seen no improvement in your symptoms after more than a few months on this particular kind, it seems like a good indicator to try another kind of medication. If your psychiatrist disagrees, I'd suggest getting a second opinion. Good luck: you've made it this far!

"I understand this isn't the place for mental health advice, so I am looking for academic advice." My academic advice is that this is very clearly a mental health issue related to your MDD diagnosis. "Techniques" will not help you beat your depression. You cannot "trick" depression out of existence. If you are having trouble motivating yourself to seek better help, please talk to a trusted family member of friend and tell them what you told us. Forget about the thesis for a while, your #1 task is to truly come to terms with the fact that you have a mental health issue that you need to address.

Your post sound very much like you are trying to a run a race with your shoelaces tied together but instead of properly acknowledging that this is impossible, you are trying to figure out what the correct "trick" is for running with one's shoelaces tied together. I understand that for a certain mindset it's easier to spend ten times as much mental effort as other people on forcing yourself to proceed ten times less efficiently rather than getting someone's help with getting your shoelaces actually untied, but the truth is that there simply is no such "trick".

This is very difficult to answer for people with no specific training and who don't know you. But it is probably not something that you can just do on your own. Find the help you need to get through this.
There are several different kinds of help available:
Your advisor may be able to help, even if it is to give you extra time to complete and to let you work through the issues.
A medical advisor probably can help, though you seem to have done that already.
A psychological advisor can probably help by exploring both the root of the issue and advising on strategies to overcome the problem.
Note that many people have different sorts of issues, some similar to yours, though perhaps not quite so much of a block. I once suffered from burnout and from extreme introversion. The first required changing institutions as my advisor there was no help and had his own issues. The other was overcome through a kind of group counseling that helped (and continues to help) me act effectively in public situations. Your issues seem to be different, but there are experts who can help. Many universities (larger ones especially) will have an office that can put you in touch with them.

And, yes, rewriting from a draft is hard, often boring. I left one project for a few years because of that.

Here are some ideas that I hope will help:

Find a location that you don't associate with anything to work on your thesis. Don't do anything else there. When you decide to take a break, find somewhere else to take your break.
Figure out how long you prefer to work without taking a break, not rushed nor overwhelming. Find separate blocks of time in your schedule of one-and-a-half times that. If you want to have multiple blocks consecutively, take a relatively long break between them, and don't work on your thesis during the break. Come up with goals that you think will fit in that length of time. If you finish a goal in significantly less time than expected (less than half), work on more goals until you've exceeded half the time you expected. If you finish in approximately the amount of time you expected (within 50%), call it enough and move on to something completely unrelated. If it's taking too long (more than one-and-a-half times the time), put it at the end of your list of goals to return to once you've done everything else, go do something unrelated, and work on a different goal next session.
If you come up with ideas when you're not actively working on your thesis, add it to a list of ideas. Write down everything you're thinking of, but don't do any research beyond what you need to put it into words (or drawings!). Once you have enough ideas that aren't part of existing goals, add a goal to your list to go through your ideas.

Depression is difficult to endure and there's no one right answer. However, along with seeing a counselor, talking to friends and family, and keeping up contact with medical professionals, I do want to mention something else that might potentially help you on your road to recovery. If you were recently diagnosed with a medical condition, you can request accommodations through your school's accessibility center. That might help alleviate some of your stress, if you don't need to worry about finishing your thesis within a certain amount of time.
In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) covers a variety of neurological and physical disorders, including "emotional illness," as is referred to by the United States Department of Health and Human Services:

An individual with a disability is a person who has a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities; has
a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such an
impairment. Major life activities means functions such as caring for
one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing,
speaking, breathing, learning and working.

To me this doesn't sound like an academic problem so I won't give you academic advice. The issue could be your thesis or any other major responsibility that people have. The fact is that you're unmotivated to engage with major life activities.
There are many angles you could approach this from: depression and therapy; a broken brain needing medication; a change in lifestyle habits (sleep, nutrition, exercise, exposure to daylight); life coaching to examine your life plan and learn how to "get stuff done"; a spiritual/existential depression; a medical problem.
You mention hurting yourself twice. That points to the urgency of your situation. Rather than trying to improve your school performance, which is not working, I think it might be better to take a leave of absence from school while you're solving this problem. ***If you're actually hurting yourself, your safety takes precedence over your degree!
I would approach this from two directions: (1) The small things you can do for yourself every day, starting today: sleep, nutrition, exercise, abstinence from all substances, fresh air, enjoyable activities. Simply ask yourself, what do my mind and body need right now? What can I do to help myself right now? (2) Larger supports. I can't advise you on this because I have personal biases about what kinds of help actually help people. List your options for major supports and choose the one(s) that you think are most likely to help you. Starting making contact with those people or facilities immediately.


text:
How much should I be in conversation with department faculty after acceptance?
I was accepted to a Ph.D. program in the States after being waitlisted. Throughout the process, I've have little to no direct communication with current faculty besides the thank-you emails I sent post-interview. This includes with my intended POI, who wasn't at my interview and hasn't responded to any of my requests to chat (I've since learned that they are probably leaving the University, which is also an issue that I've tried to bring up with other faculty). I would be more than happy with a 30-minute chat via Zoom so that I can at least get a sense of these faculty members, and find it very weird that other current students also didn't meet with faculty after being accepted.
I would really like to consider enrolling in the program, but the radio silence from every faculty member I've reached out to for weeks has basically scared me off. I'm an older learner, and I'm also eager to ask more brass tacks questions rather than just the general marketing jargon that some University reps have shared.
My experience with other programs has been extremely different, with phone messages and immediate invitations from them to meet via Zoom. I didn't expect this situation and feel very disappointed about the circumstances. I also don't feel comfortable committing to a program whose faculty might not have the time to engage with their students?

Will you be entering with a bachelors or a masters?

A bachelors degree.

This seems normal. I wouldn't worry too much about the post-admission silence. There are so many aspects that could change at or after you join, and its understandable that advisors would want to discuss the brass tracks after you physically join the department.

This is normal for US doctoral admissions, especially if you will have only a bachelors on entry. The first task in most fields is to take advanced coursework that gives you a broad, advanced, view of your field and enables you to pass comprehensive exams. It is rare, but not unheard of, to start research immediately or to need a dissertation advisor for a couple of years.
This gives you and them a chance to look one another over.
Since this is the norm, faculty will wait until you have a few courses before wanting to talk seriously with you. It also gives you more information at the time it becomes necessary to choose. Relax.
Until you pass comps, all is tentative and conditional.

The bigger issue at this point is that my intended POI is leaving, and I'm not sure if anyone else has the ability to support my (regionally-based) research. I would like some dialogue about this since I have other offers.


text:
(How) Can I switch from field X to field Y after getting my PhD?
This is a special community wiki 'canonical' post, which provides a comprehensive answer to this commonly-asked question. See this meta discussion. Questions about switching from X to Y may be closed as a duplicate of this if this post provides a "general case" answer. We realize that askers may have hoped for advice tailored to the fields X and Y; however, our experience over the past decade is that these questions almost never receive field-specific answers.
I am an early-career academic: I am finishing / finished with grad school, but have not yet found a permanent position. My work so far has been in field X, but I would like to move forward in field Y. Can I do this without sinking my academic career? If so, what is the best path?

First, you should consider: what is your motivation for making this switch, and why do you think you will be successful? Is there some compelling need to make this change (such as limited job prospects in field X, or a better lifestyle in field Y)? Do you have the key aptitudes at a sufficient level to be successful in field Y? Have these aptitudes been objectively measured? And finally: are you already familiar enough with the state of field Y to know that it is a better fit? Note that by being familiar with field Y, we mean having some concrete experience such as a research project or a class, not just anecdotes or guesswork. Remember, you are comparing a field you know very well to a field you know less well, so it may be that the grass just seems greener on the other side.
Our best advice is to talk to experts in your field, especially those involved in hiring for field Y. Things vary widely by field, but even more so by candidate: switching from (say) theoretical physics to pure math might make sense for one theoretical physicist but not for another.
We will also emphasize from the beginning that drastic switches between fields are to be avoided when possible. Beginning students sometimes have complicated plans to start in field X, then switch to altogether different field Y and eventually end up in field Z. Such plans are rarely realistic. Switching fields certainly may be doable, but it is rarely an optimal path. In particular, choosing field Y simply because it is “hot” at the moment is rarely a good choice. Being hot implies that there will be a lot of competition and from people likely better prepared than yourself at the moment.
We will break the remainder of our answer into three cases.
X and Y very closely related
It is probably not necessary to formally “switch fields”. Rather, you can simply continue your current research in X while also adding collaborators in Y. As lighthouse keeper wrote: “Have your fingers in several pies. Build up some new expertise while working on some low-hanging fruits from your existing background that will lead to immediate results.” Indeed, as Dave Clarke wrote: “Some shifting of topic is not only permitted, it is required.” Switching to a new topic will let you expand your network, gain new skills, and think about new problems; this is a natural career progression.
The hardest part may be finding your first position in field Y, as Buffy tells us: If you have already finished your PhD in X and are searching for a post-doc or professorship in field Y, it may be difficult to compete with candidates who are already experts in Y. If you are not willing to take a position in X and slowly transition toward Y, you will likely need the support of a professor in Y. Once you have publications and contacts in field Y, no one will care that your degree was actually in X.
X and Y less closely related
This is more difficult. As Wrzlprmft tells us, you need to identify a reason for the PI to hire you rather than someone who already is familiar with Y. There are basically two options: either your background in X will give you a unique perspective on Y, or there are not enough “homegrown” candidates in Y and so the PIs will need to be less selective. The latter also indicates that you are moving into an expanding field, which is likely to offer good job prospects later in your career.
Note that it is generally not necessary or advisable to do a second PhD. Remember, a PhD does not teach you everything there is to know about X; rather, it teaches you how to do research in X. Your understanding of the fundamentals, competence in relevant research methods, and ability to rapidly get smart on new topics should enable you to switch from X to Y without needing further faculty supervision. And there is generally no need for a formal degree in Y, as quarague tells us: it is sufficient to state that you have a PhD in X and a strong background in Y.
In some cultures/fields, it is common to take a short master’s degree, summer school, or “boot camp” in field Y to come up to speed and make some connections. The UK, for example, offers conversion courses, as Sammy Gerbil tells us.
There are also some instances in which universities will try to “redeploy” staff such as post-docs at the end of their contract, and this can often involve field switches. For example, Ian Turton describes having run a computational geography group in the UK that would “snap up chemists, mathematicians, and anyone else who could think and write papers. We have loads of people to teach them geography when they arrived.” However, this is far from a global norm; in other cultures, post-docs are expected to make their own arrangements for what to do when their contract expires.
X and Y completely disjoint
Again, you should consider whether there is any overlap between these subjects. Even apparently distinct subjects like law and religion have considerable overlap. This will allow you to continue your career in X while also becoming active in Y. Interdisciplinary work like this can be very interesting.
But in some cases, this is not possible (or is not aligned with your interests): there is not much overlap between particle physics and 17th-century Dutch paintings, for example. In this case, you should really think about what switching fields means to you. Do you really intend to apply for professional research positions in field Y? If not, there is likely no need to formally switch fields; you can simply pursue your interest in Y during your spare time.
But if you really do intend to apply for research positions in field Y, you probably will have to start over, starting with a second PhD. As Scott Seidman tells us, this will raise some concerns, for example about your decision making or the possibility of perpetual-student syndrome. So, you should be prepared to address these concerns. All students should think carefully about their long-term career plans (particularly given how few PhD graduates will succeed in finding a tenured position), but this is doubly true for students beginning a second PhD.
Please feel free to edit this answer to improve it. Please add content to this answer rather than posting additional answers.


text:
An error in my graduate school application that the application system allowed me to retroactively correct after submission
I applied to several master's programs in the same school system two days ago. While everything else on my application was correct, I only noticed an error in the number of credit hours I had entered in for my undergraduate GPA when, after submission, I read obscure help center information about scaling quarter units to semester form.
Fortunately, the application system allowed me to edit my GPA after submitting my application, so I did so and sent the update to my campuses through the same system.
Now, however, I fear that I may have shot myself in the foot with this correction, and I am wondering if I should notify each admissions office of this change, especially as the application deadlines are two months away at the earliest. Would it be prudent to do so, or should I avoid forcing the issue?

I don't understand, how would this correction "shoot yourself in the foot"? If the application system lets you make edits, why do you need to do anything else?

Application season is stressful. But this isn’t something to stress about.

Thanks for the answers. You are right—I shouldn't worry about it too much, as the application system is somewhat lenient. Perhaps my fear has more to do with what each campus will see when they review my applications, so I want to be as transparent as I can with them about the correction in case it does not show up on their end.

You do not need to do anything else.


text:
Where do i find trusted scholarly articles for historical events
As a new hobby, I am wanting to read more and stick to the facts only.
I recently became interested in the public education system and many sites and YouTube videos claim that the modern American public education system is based on the Prussian system of indoctrination after Prussia lost to Napoleon.
None of them provide sources. How do I go about in my research to find sources for these claims?
Are there scholarly websites that publish articles on such events?

Did you try a google books search? Most anything you get before 1925 is freely available, and the snippet views (and the sometimes-available page views) will help in locating possible more recent accounts that you can then investigate more thoroughly -- maybe reviewers at amazon.com will help; maybe reviews of the book at JSTOR will help (under "Item Type", select "Reviews") -- for possible acquisition (archive.org, library or inter-library loan, purchase, etc.).

Many websites exist to catalog Academic History Journals. The best known of these websites is JSTOR. However, JSTOR is a paid membership though if you have a university affiliated email, you'll likely bee able to view and download sources. If you don't have a paid membership, you can use their open access site here.
Another great idea would be to search individual university libraries. For example, I have an interest in Irish American History, and was able to find open archives at Villanova, NYU, and Indiana University that had digitized their primary sources on Irish America. These were all available for free and most were available without sing-up! If you want to go down this route I would try and figure out Universities that have leading department on the history of education in the United States and begin checking their libraries, then google "[University Name] Digital Archives" or "[University Name] Digital Collections"
Finally, the Federal and Stat Government agencies often have large digital collections. For example NY States' DoE. To find these google "[Agency Name] Digital Archives" or "[Agency Name] Digital Collections."
Research can be really tedious, but the key is to stick to it. If you find a topic interesting, odds are there are thousands of people who also find it interesting, and at least some of them have helped centralize a collection of primary and secondary sources. Good Luck!!!

This might require some travel, depending on where you live.

Talk to an academic research librarian, say at a university library. They will know of some resources to get you started. More recent books and papers will cite older work, so take it from there.

Visit a university with a good Education department/school and ask the chair (after making an appointment) who it would be good to talk to about your interests. I'd guess that many such departments have a specialist or near-specialist in the history and philosophy of education.

See if you can take an actual course in the history and/or philosophy of education at some local university, or online. You will probably get ideas that you can then follow up on.

Note that such people normally have networks of others that they can depend on for answers they don't have themselves: both research librarians and professors. Even my village librarian, who is not an expert in such things networks with other more "academic" librarians and has found me resources on occasion.


text:
Should I copyright my figures in my report?
I am writing a report for an assignment in which I have used Tikz/LaTex to make several plots, block diagrams and figures in general. Due to the hard work that has gone in to making them I do not want anyone else to just steal them willy-nilly. Which is why I placed a Copyright mark on the images in such a way that it doesn't obscure the main contents but it is impossible to take it without the copyright mark. Now this copyright itself is meaningless since I don't have a copyright license.
The report is for a course assignment and this issue is not too big of a deal for me but if it is reasonable then I would like to keep the copyright symbol in. However, the issue is I am not sure if such a thing is reasonable or not especially without a copyright license. What should I do?

I think, if someone steals your figure, they are more likely guilty of plagiarism than of copyright infringement.  Unless they credit you when they use it.  And then wouldn't that be to your advantage: your figure is used with credit to you?

In the US, the copyright symbol adds no legal protection whatsoever to a copyrighted work, it simply serves as a notice to others that you hold the copyright and do not want others to infringe upon it. Generally, you hold the copyright simply by creating the work, and do not need to mark or file anything further to hold the rights. The copyright mark is fairly meaningless, but not because you don't hold the copyright - because you very likely do hold the copyright regardless of the mark.
Adding the copyright symbol would strike me as a bit overzealous - it doesn't do anything other than declare that you don't want people copying your figure. I imagine it would be pretty unlikely for someone to lift figures from your school assignment, even less likely for them to be dissuaded by the copyright symbol if they did want to, and vanishingly unlikely for you to discover infringement and actually enforce your copyright against anyone.

Alright I guess it is best to remove it altogether. Thank you, for your input!

In the United States, copyright exists as soon as an original creative work is fixed in a tangible medium, which includes bits on a disk.  However, you cannot sue to enforce copyright unless you've registered your work.

And removing the symbol will not be difficult at all by someone who wants to ‘steal’ your figure. Which is wildly unlikely.

This answer is opinion-based and needs to be improved to add sources and especially with regard to addressing the comment by @BobBrown.

You can do that, of course, but most places these days it isn't necessary. Creative things published by an individual (or group) are automatically copyrighted in much of the world due to international agreements. See the Berne Convention for example.
Some places you need to register copyrights with the government as was generally true in the past.

Note that the wording suggests that things are copyrighted at creation ("fixed in some medium"), if they aren't published then it is sort of moot (my reading).

In most jurisdictions, your work is copyrighted whether or not you place a mark by it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_symbol and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement
If your jurisdiction requires a mark or license to copyright works, you'll need the advice of someone familiar with the legal system in your jurisdiction. My impression from these Wikipedia articles would be that the only places that might be an issue would be Eritrea, Kosovo, Marshall Islands, Palau, and Palestine, though you'd want to check to be sure (and certainly it's possible that these places do not require a copyright mark, either, they just have not joined the major world treaties that ensure this).


text:
Gap year as a research technician before post doc?
I'm from Brazil and currently taking a Master's in Physiology here.
I have a plan about doing my PhD in a good institution here in Brazil with a period of it in some American or Canadian institution, accordingly with my PI contacts.
But I'm thinking, after this, in taking a gap year (or 2) working as a research technician in an area of interest before trying a post doc position in the same place.
I know that gap years working with research is something that is more common with undergrad students. But during my period as an undergrad student, my experience with research was in an area that don't contributed a lot with my resume and the field I'm working right now. Like, it wasn't so "valuable" for the area that I chose for my master's and that I chose for life in academia.
So I think A LOT in how one or 2 years more of experience would be nice for my professional development.
You think this is a bad idea? I mean, how a PI would look that, cause probably they are expecting that someone already with a PhD wouldn't be someone looking for "more" experience before starting a post doc.
I feel like I didn't knew how to plan correctly my curriculum along this years, feel that I took too many time to discover what I really wanted to do, and started down this path too late, with my master's. Feel like my three years as undergrad research assistant was a lost of time because it wasn't on the area that I am right now, and that this is a big "missing thing" in my curriculum..
Now I know what I want and already started to build a more compatible curriculum, but, still, I feel behind, compared to others...
What do you think?

Why is this a question for you now and not for when you are close to finishing the doctorate?


text:
Advise on selecting between Consultant Position at University Center or Postdoc in Research Institute as step for Professor of Applied Science-Germany
I am currently near the end of my postdoc position, and now have to choose for my next research job. Field of research is Computer Science and in Germany. What I have in hand is offer to work either:

Work as Consultant at university computing center in Germany for 2
years in nearby city (sizeable city).
Postdoc in related field (mainly applying my background to other specific field) for 3 years in national research Institute in small city.

Both will require me to move to different city, with the second one located quite far from my current city (as compared to the first one). I am still within the limit of wissenchaftzeit.
These are the only options I have ATM, since I tried directly applying in Industry with no luck, due to the time limit. I might resume the application to industry, if possible, afterward. However, my primary target is to have one of this job as next step toward professor of applied science in Germany, which AFAIK will require one to have at least 5 years experience (with 2-3 years outside of university) to apply. These 2-3 years working outside of university requirement is the one I need to fulfill (I did not yet work outside of University up to this point after my Master degree).
I Just need some advices, as I want to ensure I give my best shot at this another job. I myself like to teach, but for now I just want to distance myself quite a bit from university, given that I have been there for quite some time. In this case, both are fine, as both workplace are not directly at university (please correct me if I am wrong). My plan is to apply the professorship at applied science university here after working on one of this job (which I think by distance and time, I will already miss to teach the student).
Currently I am more inclined to the second option, due to larger time frame and it is located in small city in Germany (thus I can save quite some of my salary). Also, there I can practice the local language better. However, working as consultant can be helpful in case I might go to industry later on.
Thanks again, and I appreciate your input.

I think you might need to start with a question of what “counts” as outside of university for the purposes of this appointment type. We typically don’t answer questions about what you should pick, but we do answer questions about “what does this vague requirement mean in practice”?

Option 2 seems clearly more promising if you are looking for an intermediate career step towards a professorship at Fachhochschule (I guess this is what you are looking for?). I know several people who did exactly that. Depending on what kind of research institute it is, it could also develop into a permanent researcher position there. Normally positions at a research institute should formally count as being outside of university, although a hiring committee at Fachhochschule might prefer a "real" industry experience.
For option 1 it is not even clear to me what kind of position this is, it sounds more like a technical support position, not research. In that case it does not seem to be a good stepping stone towards a professor position, be it at a Fachhochschule or somewhere else. You should continue doing (applied) research for that.

I can answer your question because I had few experience with consulting. So I have done my PhD in Mecahnical Engineering from a German university and have a interest for research and mechanical things... (I like working on my motorcycle).
I have worked for six months as an intern in consulting firm and somehow didn't like it. It's a more boring desk job which I don't like.
Now you say you want to become a Professor and I strongly think you should strive a career into Postdoc because if you don't like postdoc then becoming a professor would be not a good idea. You need to like research, you need to like teaching, you should have a liking.
Now if you like consulting, then go for it.
Remember in life, do what your heart says and the goal will come to you. Don't choose something you don't like to reach your goal.


text:
Academic career advice for overcoming difficulties
Low point in my career pathway for getting into academia
I am a 23 year old student in India who has aspired always to get into academia. I very recently graduated from a decent institution in India and with a Masters in Biotechnology and am currently at probably one of the most difficult phases in my career, 'Getting admission into a PhD in a foreign country'.  I am also currently employed at a local pharmacy college near my home town where I generally do minor research work and also teach second year undergraduate pharmacy students. For the past week, I have failed multiple times and I feel really frustated:
Here's two incidents that happened with me for the past 5 days:

I applied to a university for a PhD and got shortlisted for an interview with a professor. I didn't even mention this professor's name on my statement of purpose but still be agreed to interview me after my profile was shared with him. Interview went really well and he somewhat told me that he was seriously considering keeping me as a PhD scholar in his lab. 1 and a half months after the interview, the university sends me an acceptance, however on the acceptance the university said that they couldn't provide me with a financial assistance, which is given to most PhD scholars and without which it was difficult for me to fund my studies. I again contacted the professor who was interested and was assigned to me, and he said that he maybe able to provide the stipend but not a tuition assistance. This made me leave all hopes of going there.

Three weeks after this incident, the professor e mailed me again that he will be able to cover my expenses i.e full tuition+monthly stipend. I got my hopes high again and contacted the admissions office and requested them for an I 20 form which would be required for my visa approval to attend the uni. Admissions committee told me that they required to see a letter of financial assistance from my guide and requested me to contact my guide again. I contacted him and requested him the letter. After a month of requesting and two followups placed two weeks apart, he responded back to me and also CCed the admissions committee telling that the grant he secured can only be used to fund students of the medical school and not PhD students, hence he can't keep me as a student anymore.
2.This incident happened on last Thursday and it took some time for me to dust myself off the ground and try again. Monday morning was supposed to be a fresh start, when again I received an email of rejection from a journal where I sent my paper in. All the reviewers gave a very low priority rating to my paper. I feel like my name is a bad omen to any type of academic materials
I know that these things maybe common to anyone in their journey towards academia but I am really feeling depressed and desperate. I feel like I am again back to square one and have to redo everything again
I will be really glad if anyone is able to provide me with suggestions of how to get out of this frustration and low.
I hope this reaches the right people

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

It's not quite clear what you are asking but my very general advice is to keep trying. All researchers experience rejection and disappointment regularly (but also acceptance and joy!). Having held an offer that only fell through due to financial regulations is a very good sign.

@Theoretician thanks really needed this..

@Biohub Could you please e-mail me your CV? I have a friend who is a professor of biomedical physics / biomedical engineering at a good school in the US. While the chances are not very high, it certainly won't hurt to show him your CV . You will find my address on my webpage.  [PS. His first question will be if the candidate has taken the introductory courses in physics -- mechanics, electricity, etc. If you have, you may want to highlight this in your CV.]

@Michael_1812 Thank you so much for commenting and your help. I will surely email my CV to you

I feel like my name is a bad omen to any type of academic materials

Avoid this kind of thinking; your brain is inventing fallacious reasons why you're experiencing the misfortune you're in now, clouding your sights and hindering your way forward. Try to look at the situation as objectively as possible, and for this you need a clear mind.

I will be really glad if anyone is able to provide me with suggestions of how to get out of this frustration and low.

You need an outlet to release those bottled worries. Seek professional counselling if you can afford it. Talk to relatives whom you're comfortable opening up. Hang out with your close peers; you can share them your worries, but I find this is not always necessary—just the act of being with them already relieves stress. My personal favorite is journaling. If you felt some relief after writing your post, then this maybe for you.

I feel like I am again back to square one and have to redo everything again

Failing and starting again is a sad reality that all of us need to get used to in our adult life. I can't advice specific to your circumstances, but what I can say you need to develop a resilient mindset and stubbornness not to get defeated by depression. Get all the help that you can. You will not magically figure out everything in one night, but if you keep trying and solve one problem at a time you gain the motivation to solve the next.


text:
Do I need reference when writing a proof paper?
I am in the process of writing a paper which proves some conjecture.
What I want to know is:
Is it standard practice to include general commentary on the conjecture and other research around it as references, even when I didn't need any of it to come up with the proof?
If it is standard, accepted practice, what would be the implications of not including it anyway and trying to publish?

"I didn't need any of it to come up with the proof?" How do you know the conjecture exists? How do you know the conjecture has not been proven? Don't you need reference to answer these two questions?

Well, someone told me the conjecture and that it hadn't been proven.  I then checked wikipedia that indicated it hadn't been proven. Then I discovered a proof for it.  I've already referenced the conjecture itself. I can talk about current research on the problem fairly easily afaik, but wasn't sure how important it was in this scenario.

I think your question is essentially answered in the one I linked above, so I voted to mark it as a duplicate, but if that doesn't answer your question, please say why.

The paper will almost certainly be rejected if you do not provide some context of other work on the problem.  You have to explain why your work is new and what it provides which is not provided by existing works.  Why would anyone care about your proof?  You must explain this in the article.

I would imagine the Wikipedia page you checked references a paper that posed the conjecture in the first place: you should too.

You can't provide a solution without describing the problem first, and you can't describe a problem you didn't formulate without citing whoever did formulate the problem.

Is this paper being written for self-glorification or to add to the overall body of knowledge?  References aren't 100% related to credit for credit's sake. A lot of referencing is to provide a roadmap to the ideas that led to the conclusion.

In addition to all good answers, let me just add that there are also political reasons. People who feel they did something related and are deserved to be cited will not like it that you did not cite them. (Note also that the other extreme where you cite too many people just so is also a bad practice)

If the conjecture is famous enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia, then there is no way to prove it without heavily building on previous work.

I highly recommend reading more papers, as I will gently suggest that you haven't read that many. I don't know of any field in which the standard isn't to list many references in the Introduction that give context and background to the problem, and this introduction style should be second nature to you long before you begin writing your own paper.

For fun, I was looking at articles being famous for being very short, like this counter-example to a conjecture by Euler (https://www.openculture.com/2015/04/shortest-known-paper-in-a-serious-math-journal.html) or this short proof of a theorem by Fermat (https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/zagier/files/doi/10.2307/2323918/fulltext.pdf) but even those ones refer previous work

So sum up a number of these questions. I'm not referring to referencing the original conjecture. That one seems like a given.  I was more considering additional works and papers that advance the knowledge.  Seeing as my proof didn't use any previous work to build upon, I wasn't sure the expectation of referencing this material.  I also wasn't sure  if there was a difference between a proof paper and research paper.  In seems that I should read more papers on the topic and reference these papers to highlighted how my proof is different from exisisting research and how it can benefit the field.

An academic paper is not used as evidence that you can do something so you can be judged on it, like a paper for a course might be. It's meant to advance knowledge in some area. You don't get "points" only by making no mistakes in your proof.
If you haven't shown the current state of knowledge, you've failed to demonstrate how the paper advances knowledge. Your proof might be valid, but you haven't shown why anyone should care, and you haven't demonstrated that you have done something new that no one else did before you. References to other work positions your work relative to the field as a whole.

Put differently, every time you write something you should answer the reader's question "Why should I care?"

If you cannot provide context to your problem, who will be interested?  You also want to show how your proof differs from or builds on the work of others.
Both of these are reasons for desk rejection; in fact one question that is often asked of referees is if the manuscript refers to most recent work on the topic.

I don't disagree, but if I was to, for example, come up with a proof for P=NP, would not the subject itself bare enough interest for people to read? That eing said, how would I determine what references should be added if there is a lot of work on the topic but not related to my proof?

Yes it would be interesting enough, but even then you need to place your work in proper context citing appropriate references.  If there is a lot of prior work, you can choose a sample representing the most important developments and the current state-of-the-art.

@Daniel your paper would rather soon become the most cited paper on the planet. I think you might want to make sure that it is 101% perfect

@Daniel: if there is a lot of work on the topic but not related to my proof -- Perhaps I'm missing something, or perhaps you haven't given enough context, but to get an idea of how background stuff is handled in your subfield it seems to me that you could look at how these other papers on the topic handle their background stuff. Also, you could quickly glance at how background stuff is handled in a few dozen randomly selected papers in a generalist mathematics journal (example 1 and example 2).

@Daniel If you claim to solve a big open problem it's probably even more important that you reference other work to demonstrate your understanding of the situation of the field, otherwise you'll clearly appear as a crank. It's really common in crankery that someone claims to solve a problem and their error isn't that they made some stepwise error in their proof but that they never understood the nature of the problem in the first place, so they've instead proven something trivial and unrelated to the actual problem.

@Daniel - Take your example, you'd still want to cite the papers that show why P=NP is an interesting problem and how your proof actually relates to the problem

@BryanKrause: For the specific case of P≠NP, it also helps to be aware of how not to prove it (although I'm not suggesting anyone should cite that page!).

@BryanKrause You raise a good point. As much as I believe I've solved this problem, I would prefer to be correct and not come across as a crank. It seems I'll need to prioritise further research in the field.


text:
Will there be a problem if I have not mentioned in my PhD application that i am already a PhD student in different university?
I joined last year as a PhD student at a good enough place in India. Here I realised that it's not good enough place to be and I applied to 3 places in US considering my interests.
I was quite under-confident of my abilities and was thinking that I won't get selected and hence I didn't want my current university to know that I am applying. I also didn't mention it in my applications as I knew there are collaborations and they may call up someone here to ask about me.
I have an offer now and I want to know that if I actually accept it, will it be a problem if they get to know that i was already a student somewhere and didn't mention it in my cv? I have written only truths in my application but I just didn't mention what I was doing last year. They also didn't ask me this during interview.
Please guide or suggest.

@DaveLRenfro Thanks for the comment. You are correct, they did ask for all the transcripts, but by the time of application, I didn't even finish one semester so I did not have any. Is it a necessity to display all the transcripts of schools you have ever attended?

By the time of application, I did not have any transcripts from my current university. Now since I will be having one, will it be a good idea to send it to them now, after getting acceptance?

(expanded from an earlier comment) Nearly always (and I only include "nearly" in case there are exceptions), when applying to U.S. universities you are explicitly asked to list all colleges/universities you have attended and those (if any) you are currently attending. You are also nearly always asked to provide transcripts (i.e. list of courses, when taken, grades if any received, etc.) from all such colleges/universities attended, this regardless of whether you earned a degree there. The transcripts usually have to be official (often means having to pay for them), but in the initial screening process personal photocopies/scans might be OK. That said, see also the last paragraph below.
In a comment you state that, when applying, you had not completed a single semester of the Ph.D. program and thus did not have a transcript there. Actually, I think "transcript" includes courses currently being taken, and I think the places you are applying to intend for any currently enrolled courses to be included. You also said that you have now completed that semester. I think you should contact whoever you sent the application to with this information, or whoever you received the acceptance letter from (if different). Since they have already admitted you, I suspect you will still be admitted unless there is something troubling in the completed courses, such as poor grades or some kind of disciplinary or academic concern indicated in the transcript.
You might want to explain that you did not think your current courses were intended, but before you do this, make sure that you carefully examine the exact wording of the application instructions pertaining to this so that you don't directly contradict something that is clearly written in them. My guess [= hunch; conjecture] is that you do not want to use more than two sentences doing this. Also, if you decide to explain why you overlooked this (i.e. if you say something beyond simply that you were not aware that current courses should be mentioned), such as for admission to India universities one would ordinarily not include not-yet-completed courses (I don't know if this is true or not, by the way), then make sure what you say is consistent with any facts that they might have access to and that it does not present you in a negative way. For example, regarding "does not present you in a negative way", if you say that you did not notice something in the application instructions, and that "something" happens to be in large bold-face font, then the admissions committee might view this as evidence of a lack of attention to detail or as an English reading proficiency concern.
Of course, now that you have brought up the fact that you have been in another Ph.D. program, you should also devote a few sentences to explaining why you want leave and study elsewhere. You should avoid saying much bad about where you are, even if it is bad in some ways. Instead, focus more on the "additional opportunities you now realize would be afforded to you in their program" (made-up flowery wording for illustrative purposes), such as ... (give some specifics -- e.g. better labs, opportunity to research Topic X which is not possible where you are at, advice from friends/advisors in your field, etc.).
In the above remarks I've assumed that courses were actually taken, with official records kept. For many non-U.S. universities, as Ander Biguri points out in a comment, there might not exist courses and/or semesters and/or transcripts. In these cases I'm pretty sure U.S. universities would still expect applicants to list any academic programs (in a general sense) that the applicant has attended or are currently attending. Although this does not seem to be the case for the OP, others in a similar situation may need to modify the remarks above as appropriate to their specific situation.

As a comment to generalize this question to other countries: many PhD programs around the world have no "semesters" or "courses" nor transcripts.

Thanks for the detailed answer. In my present country, until you finish the course, get graded and obtain the credits, only then you get a transcript, and hence the confusion.


text:
Debate about whether to use any tables in scientific articles
I have a new boss, who is experienced and has published a number of scientific articles. He is telling me that I should not have any tables in my articles, but rather make graphs for everything.  I agree that graphs are better, but I also think it's ok to add some tables for the less important variables. I tried to google it, but couldn't find that anyone else has raised the question before. It seems that using tables is so normal that nobody is questioning it (apart from my boss, apparently). I'd love to know how other people see this!

What field? ...

Typically you can have a graph if there is a single parameter of interest that varies wrt 1 or 2 input parameters. But if there are multiple result parameters for every input parameter, then you would probably need a table for easier comparison, esp if the result parameters contain data of different types - (time in seconds, memory in MB, method used, etc), etc for each input parameter.

@AzorAhai-him- horticulture research

@NebUzer I guess his point is that you must be able to turn the results into a good graph, otherwise you are not looking at it in a simple and understandable way.

you can also put the graphs in an appendix in case someone wants all the data in an easy to copy form, and then put whatever is easiest to understand/demonstrate in the paper.

It is the wrong question whether tables are good or bad. The right question to ask is this: How do I present the data in a way that makes the point I want to make clearest?
There are many cases where figures are the best way to show a trend, in particular if the numerical data is of low accuracy. If you can only measure things to at best two digits of accuracy, and if the data changes significantly from one time point to another, then a table does not have a lot of information -- a figure (from which you can read about two digits of accuracy) will show the trend much better.
On the other hand, if you want to illustrate that your device can measure the same variable repeatedly to five digits of accuracy, then a graph is pointless: You can't see five digits of accuracy visually, and you need to show the data as a table to allow your readers to compare the repeated measurements.
In other words, whether a table or a graph is more appropriate is not a question that can be universally answered. It depends on what the message of your paper is, what it is you want to show, and how you convey the message best so it is easy for your readers to understand.

Yes, that seems to be a better way of looking at it and probably reflects my feelings better too. The main reason I asked the question is so I can be better equipped for an argument with my boss :)

@Meerkat Then you now have the arguments for that conversation spelled out for you!

I would say that you should include tables when the actual numerical values matter. That is, a graph is great for showing trends in the data, but it is difficult to read the actual numbers from a plot. But if your numerical results matter (say it's the kind of results someone else is likely to directly use in their work) then put them in a table.
Depending on the journal you could get away with just putting the tables in an Appendix at the end to not break up the flow of the text.

There is a tendency among many older academics to avoid the use of tables. The reason for the dislike has more to do with the fact that tables were traditionally difficult to typeset well, rather than a specific preference for graphical displays. For example, historically, the American Psychological Association discouraged the use of extensive tables in their journals, and some APA journals set a specific limit on the number of tables that could appear in an article.
The decision to use tables or graphs should now be driven by your own goals in presenting the material. Keep in mind that you are likely to have the option of publishing on-line supplementary material along with your accepted article, so you can always present explanatory figures in the main text, but also upload files that contain tables of the data on which the figures are based.


text:
What possible consequences could one face for not getting IRB approval for federally-funded research? Could you go to jail?
We have discussed before that consequences for not getting irb approval might include: (1) not be able to publish in a reputable journal, and (2) getting sanctioned or fired by your employer. But I am wondering: what other consequences could you face in really serious cases? Could you lose your eligibility for federal funding? Could you go to jail? Personal liability for any harm? The HHS "common rule" doesn't seem to lay down any possible penalties.
To make this more concrete, here is an example. Bob is a computer engineer who has no real training in human subjects research. He gets a federally-funded grant about using machine learning to detect tumors in  a publicly-available dataset. On the grant proposal, he correctly says that no human subjects research is anticipated. But his initial results show that (say) a certain ratio of potassium and chocolate kills brain tumors. So, Bob gets very excited and gets a bunch of people he knows to take potassium + chocolate in various doses and then draws their blood. He has clearly crossed the line here: among other problems, he is storing human blood and PII. What kind of consequences could Bob face?

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/362/which-aspects-of-human-subjects-research-rules-are-actually-laws-rather-than-con has some info. I'm presuming you are limiting this to the USA, or do you want more broadly. May still be better off over on Law SE.

Thanks for the link, and good point, I have now tagged this USA. But I would not limit the scope to just legal consequences -- for example, the answer may be that there is a well-defined process that results in serious academic sanctions (e.g., ineligibility for federal funding); if this is the case, I'd be very interested in that answer.

It might be important for Bob to be able to prove that his subjects gave informed consent to having their blood drawn. If they didn't, then (as far as I know) drawing their blood would be a crime (battery) and could result in jail time.

Very good point, though I'm trying to constrain the question to "merely" serious procedural violations. Once we have actual complainants or damages, there are many "individual factors," many of them legal rather than academic.

Depends on how far it goes. For example, if it somehow triggers an investigation of your institution, and your institution's Human Subjects protocols are really problematic, your institution could conceivably lose their compliance number, and become ineligible for government funded research.
The procedure for this is described here. In most cases, the funding agency will merely "assist" your institution's misconduct proceedings. However, if it finds that your institution was itself deficient, it can take action against the institution and/or move the investigation to its own misconduct board. As for the researcher, the worst that can happen is getting fired, barred from receiving additional funding, barred from advising the HHS, and forced to return any funds "spent in support of the activities that involved research misconduct." And of course if the research involved other crimes or torts, those may lead to additional consequences.
I'm sure any infraction you're talking about falls well short of this, but I do want to point out if this is serious, coordination with your institution might become important.

This is how FERPA works, as I explained here -- FERPA complaints require the school to respond, and a common response is to say "yes, the professor broke our policies and has been fired." So I can certainly buy that IRB situations like Bob's would be handled similarly. Have you seen this happen first-hand? Would you expect Bob's case to follow this path?

@cag51 I was thinking more along the lines of an Office of Scientific Integrety investigation,  It would be more likely if we were talking about funded research.In Bob's case, he could argue, right up until he went to publish that this wasn't research.  That would be disingenuous, at the very least, but it would be a strong defense.

That's an interesting point....in the Bob example, I did stipulate that he had a federal grant, but it's true that any investigation would have to prove that Bob's illicit activity was tied to the funded project rather than some other work.

I deal with my rib in interesting ways, and they often start with their question "is this research?"  Sometimes the answer we arrive at is "no"

So you got me started down the road to find the reference I was looking for, and it largely agreed with what you said. So, accepting this answer. I also added a paragraph with the reference and a quick summary -- if you'd prefer not to have this paragraph in your answer, just let me know and I'll move it to a separate answer.

The statutes about IRB approval of research are all about eligibility for federal funds and the expected consequences are threats of losing current and future funding for the researcher and their institution. Institutions are expected to (and do) take this very seriously, as serious sanctions could practically destroy an entire university's research program. A criminal case would only likely appear by related activity that is covered by other statutes.
Criminal prosecution for research misconduct is very rare in the US. I am unable to find any cases on the specific situation described here: failing to obtain IRB approval. However, I think another case may be instructive:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17660

Rare is the scientist who goes to prison on research misconduct charges. But on 1 July, Dong-Pyou Han, a former biomedical scientist at Iowa State University in Ames, was sentenced to 57 months for fabricating and falsifying data in HIV vaccine trials. Han has also been fined US$7.2 million and will be subject to three years of supervised release after he leaves prison.

You will not find anywhere a statute in US law that states criminal penalties for falsifying HIV vaccine data, despite the sentence in this article that suggests this. However, further in the article you will read:

In February 2015, he pled guilty to two felony charges of making false statements to obtain NIH research grants

These are the sorts of crimes that could potentially be charged in this sort of case. Not getting IRB approval isn't a felony; lying to the government about getting IRB approval might be. I found at least one example where someone was charged for submitting fake IRB approvals to the NSF, though they settled in a deal that did not require admitting to criminal wrongdoing, only return of funds and restrictions on future funding.
Civil liability is more likely, though plaintiffs are probably more interested in suing institutions with deeper pockets than individual investigators.

The penalties you suggest wouldn't be levied for failure to obtain IRB approval, per se, but certainly could apply to some kinds of research misbehavior. The IRB system was created to try to assure that some sorts of unethical studies aren't carried out in the future, but it is the studies themselves, and how subjects are treated, for which legal penalties could accrue.
I would guess (only a guess) that the same applies to losing eligibility for federal funding and similar administrative penalties. If a study is actually carried out that has unethical elements (that might have been caught by an IRB review) a person might lose eligibility. But it is the study, not the IRB, approval that would seem to be the important factor.
On the opposite side, if an unethical study is carried out after getting IRB approval it won't lessen the potential penalties. Whether it would accrue back to the board itself, I wouldn't know, but it might in an extreme case (guessing again). Culpability would need to be shown, of course.

IANAL, just using common sense and general philosophical principles.

I suspect you are right that this would largely be a contractual issue rather than a criminal one (since the grant is a contract that would doubtless have a provision about IRB approval). Still, I am surprised if there is no well-defined procedure that spells out how serious breaches are dealt with and what sanctions can be awarded. Consider Bob's case for example -- this is fairly serious misconduct; someone could have really been harmed. But since they weren't, I can't imagine the police would get involved, and a civil judgment seems unlikely without damages.

@cag51, among other things, Bob might be sued by any of the participants who assert they might have been harmed and weren't able to give effective consent if they were misled. I doubt that actual harm would have been necessary. But the existing cases of research misconduct might weigh heavily with a jury. Even fraud statutes might apply around the consent issue. And note that, as I said, IRB approval isn't a guarantee that bad things won't happen.

Skipping IRB approval will probably weigh against the researcher during trial, especial in fields where IRB approval is part of legal regulations.  For example, ignoring industry standard practices is often used to establish negligence.

Getting IRB approval is not intended to prevent unethical or dangerous research from happening. It is only necessary to ensure that published research satisfies minimal ethical standards, and it protects the institution to some degree.
In the example you cite, Bob is not only doing unethical research, but is possibly endangering his participants' health. As a consequence, lack of IRB approval is probably the least of his worries: The law will likely contain provisions that make such conduct illegal and punishable. That the resulting research might not be publishable is a consequence of substantially lesser relevance in my view.

This makes sense, but IRBs are generally required by the funding agency too, not just by the journal (at least in the US -- see the "common rule" linked above). And flaunting rules by agencies like HHS can easily lead to serious consequences, which in some cases could include incarceration. But I've never found anything detailing what might happen with this IRB rule specifically.


text:
PDFs in Zotero Web Library not synching with my local Zotfile folder
A new Zotero user here. I use Zotfile to put local Zotero PDFs in OneDrive. If I add a PDF file as an attachment to an entry in my desktop Zotero application, the file automatically shows up in my local OneDrive folder for Zotfile. But if I add a PDF file to an entry in the Web Library, that PDF file does not show up in the local OneDrive folder. What gives?
Thanks!

This question would best be asked on the Zotero forum at https://forums.zotero.org/ . There you will receive expert advice, not only from frequent Zotero users but also from the Zotero developers themselves. You might like specifically to check out this question and answer, ( https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/85560/zotero-online-onedrive ) noting the comment about the use of linked files.


text:
What should I prepare if my potential supervisor told me no extra document need I prepare in the first PhD interview?
Here is what my potential supervisor said: "You do not need to prepare anything, I have kept all the documents you sent me." I only sent my CV, motivation letter and IELTS report to her.
And this is my first PhD interview ever, what will this kind of interview be like? Answering questions like "why PhD" and describing my research experience without PPT? I don't think I can show my research ability without presenting data and figures, so what should I prepare?
This is my FIRST interview and I really love this project, so any advise about PhD interview is welcome!
Plus: should I read the professor's papers? should I ask her about details of the interview, like the number of people I'll be meeting and their names?

You don't need to prepare anything, apparently.

Consider asking some of your current professors you get along with for a few minutes of their time and conducting a practice interview. You may find it helps accustom you to the process, interviews are a specific skill set.

You should just be ready to have conversations about research. Conversations about your research, conversations about theirs, conversations about your research goals, conversations about what you might do with this professor if they become your advisor. There are very few people in the world that share your specific research interests: this is an opportunity to talk to one of them!
You should be ready to discuss your research in a conversation. That doesn't mean you need to memorize numbers or equations but you should know off the top of your head what you've done: what were your hypotheses, what were your methods, what were your results?
Similarly, you don't need to memorize all the papers by the professor you are interviewing with, but you should have some idea of what sorts of things they do so you can ask questions about what you would be doing in their lab.
Remember an interview isn't about the professor "grading" you, you should both be using the interview to determine if you'd be a good fit. There are lots of questions here about choosing an advisor - might be helpful to read through some to get ideas of other questions you might ask about mentorship style, frequency of meetings, etc.

Thank you for your advice! It really helped me a lot when I prepared. And I got the offer today!

@xuehuaan Congratulations! I hope it's a good fit for you!

First of all, don't overthink it -- the professor doesn't expect you to prepare anything, so doing any kind of extensive "homework" and reading all the professor's recent papers really isn't necessary! You could just show up and be ready to talk, and that would be fine.
The most important thing -- and you can think of this as a preparation of sorts, if you like -- is that you should be ready explain your background and why the professor's group makes sense for you. I've found that many students try to read papers, but you may not have the background to truly understand those papers, so it's not necessarily helpful. What's more helpful is if you have a good reason for wanting to join a research project in this professor's area X. For example:

What made you interested in X?

Did you take a class in X or have prior background in it?

What makes you excited to work on X?

This is my FIRST interview and I really love this project

This is the sentence in your post that would make me most likely to hire you -- make sure you mention it!
Excitement about a project is not only contagious, it's almost always a great sign in potential students, and often goes much further than any technical preparation.
Good luck!

Thank you for your advice! It really helped me a lot when I prepared. And I got the offer today!

@xuehuaan That's awesome to hear, congratulations! :)