text:
Is it possible to change the application area of research while looking for a postdoc position after PhD?
My PhD is in materials science in the field of environmental remediation (water decontamination) using different advanced materials as adsorbents. I also have expertise in computational chemistry and currently, I am doing some DFT calculations on electrocatalytic water splitting using some transition metal selenide hybrid materials. And this work has been published in a good ACS journal.
I am interested in seeking a postdoc and expanding my horizon in the field of energy production (water splitting, lithium ion batteries, hydrogen production and storage, etc.) using materials as catalysts (both experimentally and computationally).
How should I back my research profile while seeking a position in this field with no prior experience? The postdoc openings demands a desirable candidate with extensive record and experience in batteries and handling elecrodes, etc. which I clearly do not have.

For whatever it’s worth, I changed my field between PhD and postdocs as well.
In my case, my main goal was to find a thriving field (where I could make some use of my skills and that would match my general interests).
My general rationale was this:
Most fields produce enough qualified and willing PhD graduates to fill their postdoc needs, against which I wouldn’t stand a chance.
The only exception to this is a strongly expanding field.
Hence I just applied to interesting positions and concluded that if I would get a position the respective field would be sufficiently thriving.
(And indeed many other people in my current field came from other fields.)
As you appear to have a specific target field in mind, it may also help to get insights from professors in that field as to how saturated the postdoc job market is.
If you are up against an army of competitors with more experience, seeking jobs here may be a waste of time.
If on the other hand, your main goal is to leave your current field, you can hedge your bets by being open about potential target fields.
Now, there are some exceptions, alternatives, and caveats to consider:

Sometimes, a postdoc is hired with the explicit goal of transferring or applying knowledge from another field.
However, in this case, the job ad will state corresponding requirements.
Whether saturated or not, postdoc job markets are only feature a small number of candidates and positions, and thus they are strong subject to statistical fluctuations.
It may thus easily happen that a professor cannot fill a postdoc position even in a stagnating field, and settles for somebody less qualified than they hope for.
(On the other hand, you are still in a stagnating field then.)
It is possible that a vacancy remains unfilled due to the professor being known to be scientifically or socially incompetent in the field.
So, watch out for red flags.

So, I would suggest to just apply to positions that interest you (if only to get application routine).
I would be upfront about the fact that you are changing fields, and focus on your enthusiasm for the target field and general scientific skills, in particular anything that demonstrates that you can adapt to a new topic and are good at scientific work in general – which after all is at least half of what a good PhD should be about.
Getting a job while lacking a required experience is a disaster waiting to happen.


text:
Distinguishing between my personal acknowledgements and those of all authors
I am an undergraduate student and intern publishing a conference paper with a company I have been working with for about a year now and am trying to nail down the acknowledgements. I have never written a paper before. I have a few specific questions:
I am the only student-intern author and also the head author – how do I separate the acknowledgements of the group from my own personal acknowledgements?
Is it acceptable to thank the co-authors for guidance, encouragement, etc.?

Generally, any acknowledgement should be from all the authors. If there's an exemption, then it could be handled by writing "X would like to thank Y." However, by doing so, you are hinting that your co-authors don't want to thank that Y, which might not be desirable.

@user2768 there is nothing wrong or unusual about "X would like to thank Y", and it does not hint or imply anything other than its literal meaning. But as I explained in my answer, it does not make sense for X to thank Y in Y's own coauthored paper.

@DanRomik, I did not claim it was "wrong," I did claim it hints. That is actually too strong, I should have written "might hint," which you surely cannot contest. (I did not contest that it does not make sense for "X to thank Y", where Y is a co-author.)

@DanRomik, BMC Medicine write "acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship," thus, it seems only natural that acknowledgements are generally from all authors. Indeed, if only one author acknowledges someone who contributed towards the article, then the reader is left wondering why the co-authors aren't acknowledging that contribution.

@user2768 your two comments are quite at odds with each other. If you don't find author-specific acknowledgements wrong or unusual, why would you make statements such as "Generally, acknowledgements should be from all the authors"? I'm sorry but I completely disagree with that statement, and with your implication that there "might" be anything "not desirable" being "hinted".

@user2768 what "seems only natural" to you seems far from natural to me. My own papers, and many papers I've read, have many examples of one coauthor acknowledging someone who helped them specifically with no negative connotation or implication of the sort you imagine. Well ok, maybe our disciplines have different conventions about such things and readers in medicine will read something into such an acknowledgement that readers in math do not. Another possibility is that one of us is simply wrong.

Is it acceptable to thank the co-authors for guidance, encouragement, etc.?

No, not really. Well, it may be going a bit far to say that doing so would be unacceptable, but I can say two things:

I have never seen an author thanking one of their coauthors.
Thanking your coauthors in your own joint paper with them is illogical. The purpose of the acknowledgements section is to provide a space where the contributions of people other than the paper's authors, which were of too minor a nature to merit authorship, can be acknowledged, so that those people would get some minor (mostly of a psychological, feel-good nature) credit for their help. Your coauthors are already getting a much more major credit than that, so an acknowledgement to them adds nothing.

To summarize, if you want to thank your coauthors, do it in person. I'm sure they would appreciate it.

Apparently different people have different opinions about this... and, indeed, usually one joint author does not thank another. But in an extremely unsymmetrical situation such as yours, I'd think it perfectly fine to say something like "the first author thanks the other authors for their mentoring and advice". After all, joint authorship does not necessarily mentoring, for example.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Dipl. Math requirements
I would like to know what are the (academic) requirements (in general) of a Dipl. Math.?
What Dipl. math. Is good for (in math Academia)? More general what is a Dipl. Math.?
(Some reference for cover letters for Dipl. Math.)

What does "Dipl" stand for? I'm assuming "Diploma"?

It depends on where you go to school.

Which country are you asking about?

I refer after earning a bachelor. Germany, USA or Uk.

Dipl. Math isn't a degree that you'll see being granted in the US.  I also don't think that you'll find it in the UK.

Nor in Germany anymore.

At least in the U.S., you will find degree requirements posted clearly on the department's website.

Dipl.-Math. stands for Diplom-Mathematiker. It is a German academic degree and equivalent to a master’s degree.
Before Germany adopted the bachelor/master system, a Diplom (diploma) was awarded to students after finishing about five years of study and writing a thesis.
Almost all German universities now award bachelor’s and master’s degrees, but at some universities, students can choose to have their degree called Diplom after completing a master’s program.

Sounds like a Diplom would be roughly equivalent to an accelerated Master's in the US, which is a 5-year Bachelor's+Master's program.

The answer would be country specific. For example: in India, such a degree never existed. Rather, there is something equivalent such as "Master of Philosophy" or "M.Phil." for short. You could consider it as a "Pre-PhD" degree. It is mostly for 1 year, but there is no course and mostly full of research (though it again varies from universities to universities). Note that it is not mandatory to have an M.Phil. degree for Ph.D. admission. For M.Phil., the requirement is that the student must have a Master of Science (M.Sc.) degree.
For Germany and other countries, this being already answered.

A diploma of mathematics is about equivalent to a Master in mathematics. It permits you to write a dissertation in mathematics.

can you add a country name?

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


text:
How far into the program should a doctoral candidate transfer to a different school?
I read the thread about PhD students transferring to a different school. How far into the doctoral program can or should such a transfer be done?
Related:

Is transferring to another university an option for an unhappy PhD student?
Can a PhD student transfer to another graduate school after advancing to candidacy?

This is gonna get closed as a shopping question, but pretty much all schools allow students to apply for new admissions even if they are already accepted elsewhere.

what's a shopping question?

I have seen students following a head-hunted professor transfer with their basic exams accepted, or with one accepted, and the other still to do.  I think that ABD would be too late -- in this case, it would make more sense to finish up and defend at the original institution.  //  If you are still in your first year or two, just apply fresh.  You might want to bring in some transfer credits, but basically, as a PhD student, you are responsible for learning what you need to learn.  So, in the new school, you would not waste your time re-taking coursework you're already solid about.

The shopping question is: "Can anyone suggest schools with doctoral programs which allow such transfer?"  -- we don't do lists on stackexchange.

The too personal portion is: "I have what I think are valid reasons. ...  I am doing a PhD in Chemistry, with a GRE score of 330. I'd really like some options."  -- we can't address your personal situation.

I removed both bits and hopefully it's now an answerable question.

You read "the thread" on PhD students transferring? Maybe you could link to it?

Added link to previous questions on transfers.

There really aren't "transfers" at the PhD level as there are with undergraduates. What might happen at best is that you:

Get some credit for coursework done, or for core-course requirements (like stats, etc.)
Rarely, a student can come in with their MA/MPhil and waive coursework and advance to candidacy.

But everything at this level is ad hoc. Sometime, students can switch programs -- especially if it's in the context of their advisor moving from University A to University B and taking their students with them, other times it's impossible.
It's all up to the university, the program, your advisor, and the alignment of the stars in heaven.
Otherwise you apply as a new student and start off at zero. Most students who do this do it in their first or second year, it becomes much harder the more advanced you are.


text:
Why are "Graphical abstracts" advantageous?
Although it is optional, many publishers recommend creating a graphical abstract. According to some, this can provide greater exposure of your article:

its use is encouraged as it draws more attention to the online article

Why?

Example of an abstract including graphical abstract, from a recent issue of ACS Synthetic Biology:

Memory and Combinatorial Logic Based on DNA Inversions: Dynamics and Evolutionary Stability
Jesus Fernandez-Rodriguez†, Lei Yang†, Thomas E. Gorochowski†, D. Benjamin Gordon†‡, and Christopher A. Voigt*†‡

Genetic memory can be implemented using enzymes that catalyze DNA inversions, where each orientation corresponds to a “bit”. Here, we use two DNA invertases (FimE and HbiF) that reorient DNA irreversibly between two states with opposite directionality. First, we construct memory that is set by FimE and reset by HbiF. Next, we build a NOT gate where the input promoter drives FimE and in the absence of signal the reverse state is maintained by the constitutive expression of HbiF. The gate requires ∼3 h to turn on and off. The evolutionary stabilities of these circuits are measured by passaging cells while cycling function. The memory switch is stable over 400 h (17 days, 14 state changes); however, the gate breaks after 54 h (>2 days) due to continuous invertase expression. Genome sequencing reveals that the circuit remains intact, but the host strain evolves to reduce invertase expression. This work highlights the need to evaluate the evolutionary robustness and failure modes of circuit designs, especially as more complex multigate circuits are implemented.

Personally, I find "graphical abstracts" extremely useful, both as an author and as a reader of scientific papers.  Even when I am not asked to provide a graphical abstract, I try to get an iconic figure onto the first page of my papers, where it can symbolize and summarize a paper to potential readers.
The reason for doing this with scientific works is the same as the reason for putting images in book covers, web links, and many other things: to communicate more effectively to people who are browsing.  Since the scientific literature is so large, there is no person who can simply sit and read through all the possibly relevant papers in an area.  People perform a triage as they search for information that is significant to them, typically beginning by skimming titles and abstracts, then looking at figures; if those are interesting enough, then they may begin to read the paper.
A graphical abstract effectively puts a figure out front, with the titles and abstracts, increasing the efficacy of information presented while browsing:

From a cognitive perspective, this is extremely effective because it engages another input channel on our brains (imagery is handled through different neural pathways than text), making it easier to comprehend and remember something briefly glimpsed.
Images also allow non-linear relationships to be presented succinctly, while text is strictly linear in structure.
Text abstracts are often highly constrained in their structure and content, while graphical abstracts allow much more freedom in how the authors choose to convey an impression of their work.

They do, however, require new skills that textual abstracts do not, and a bad graphical abstract might be even worse for a paper than a bad textual abstract.

I think it may be a substantial advantage. While I've never had the chance to create one, I really like them myself for a number of reasons.

When searching through volumes of literature, they are much easier for a reader to take in at a glance than a traditional abstract.
They often provide substantially more information about methods and results than can be packed into a traditional abstract.
They are ideal for sharing on social media such as twitter, making it easy for you or others to promote your work.

And after all, a picture is worth 1000 words. Which is more than one gets in some glossy-paper journals these days.

I haven't found graphical abstracts useful either as an author or as a reader, but we include them when we have the option because I assume it makes the paper stand out more in the index.  I'm glad to read that others actually find them informative, but I personally much prefer text abstracts and then good figures in the text.  I particularly dislike journals that hide the text abstracts from their index pages when there is a graphical ones and don't give you a way to turn that off.
To really answer your question, I assume journals include them because they generate more clicks.

Or it makes the journal appear to be innovative.


text:
Planning for physics PhD apps - Classes vs research?
Question: I'm planning for PhD apps a year from now. Do I skimp on classes and further research, or do I further my studies to learn the theory that I personally want to develop?
Some background... I'm a physics masters student in the US. Technically, this is my third year in the program as my bachelor's degree was not in the sciences; I've essentially completed an undergraduate degree worth of prereqs. I'm taking grad courses now. The school is not renowned, but it has a history of physics research. (I was unable to compete with stronger schools due to my lack of prerequisite knowledge a few years back). Anyway, I'm a rather strong student (4.0) with some research. Nothing is published yet, but I'll be hopefully named on one paper in the spring. I'm looking to apply to top 40 schools in mathematical physics or applied mathematics, and professors have said I have a good shot.
My research adviser is pressuring me to take fewer classes and focus on research next semester. I'm conflicted, as other professors have suggested that this is the class to take! The course my RA suggests I drop is E&M Jackson. I want to learn this material, and I find my studies more compelling than my current research. My RA argues that if I drop the course, then I can commit more time to research, and furthermore, I have less chances to receive a poor grade that could alter my GPA. My RA goes on to suggest that schools do not care whether I have yet to take certain courses like E&M.

If you're going to stay with this department and this advisor, then let yourself be advised/guided.  Otherwise, consider input from all sources, and then make your own decision.  Good researchers have the courage to follow their instincts.  In the worst case, you would have wasted only one semester.  Keep in mind that this research advisor is not in a totally objective position in this case -- there is some self-interest potentially involved.  See if you can get advice from some other members of your department.

Research experience and track record is more important than courses you have taken.  You will very likely be required to take Jackson E&M for the PhD program.  You might be required to repeat it if you took it before, depending on the program's rules.  Keep in mind that classes you take (or research you perform) after you apply for the PhD program usually do not change your admissions decision.
In sum, I recommend postponing the E&M course.


text:
Plagiarism and academic dishonesty
Yesterday I was accused of plagiarism by my professor. who earlier in the  week I had called him out for one of his policies being against  the school policy. I feel like now I'm experiencing some kind of personal vendetta on his part. Then yesterday that professor pulled me aside  and said theses are the facts and said I had deliberately done falsification and plagiarism and It was a bit overwhelming at that point . so I took a few minutes to collect myself then marched myself into his office and sat down and tried to discuss the matter with him. He began to show me what I did and I had always thought plagiarism was not giving credit to the authors but I had done In text citations and a bibliography citing the authors and I was under the assumption that this was a research paper so I was just putting in the cold hard facts and didn't think I was committing any academic dishonesty. Then my professor  gave me two options the first one was to take it to an higher authority which he repeated several times that it would not be wise for me to do so and if I did he would tarnish my academic reputation at this university  2nd was to go through the rest of the class and act like nothing happened and know I would automatically be getting an failing grade at the end of this semester. I feel like I'm being black mailed here idk what I should do.

Hi, and welcome to Academia.SE!  Can you please take a deep breath, calm down a little bit, and explain your question more clearly?

Idk if I should seek higher authority or take his way out. My father and I feel like I have not been academically dishonesty and I feel like I'm being black mailed by my professor.

What did you expect to gain by  "calling him out for one of his policies being against the school policy". Are you an elected representative of the students?

I didn't expect to gain anything. I was just trying to understand his reason behind it and understand why his policy was different than the university's official policy..

If you were "trying to understand his reason behind it" you do not call people out but you discuss matters privately with them.

Would you explain what was the policy? Sometime, the professor can indeed have his own policy. It depends on the situation.

Yes I see now I should of done that. But now that's beside the point I am being wrongfully accused of academic dishonesty. And I believe he is black mailing me into submission.

Yes he said his policy as a teacher allows him to do so durning that conversation and after that I saw that he must be in the right and  I withdrew my question. I should not have questioned his policy and put him on the spot like I did That was wrong of me and I see that now.

Regardless of your "calling out" I am not sure what your question is. Have you had a homework and you verbatim copied paragraphs or large chunks of text from research papers (even if you cited them)? If yes, did you do it in 1-2 paragraphs or did you do it in many places? Please clarify, if you want to get meaningful answers. And why does he accuse you of falsification? Is there anything that justifies that?

I copied the quotes and facts from the websites and that was all I  copied for the assignment. Each fact and quote was copied but each supporting argument was directly from me putting my findings into my own words baised off what I had read from these websites. In the time crunch to turn this in i had accidentally mixed up some of the authors  for my intext citations. Because I usually go back and throw in the citations when the paper is done.

But the question is should I try to challenge this through academic due process even though the professor does not want me involving higher academic authorities. Or should I take his plea bargain

What is there to challenge? You copied verbatim texts and quotes from the internet and for some of them you accidentally forgot the corresponding citation. Am I correct? Although you claim you did it by mistake, this is (to my understanding) still plagiarism and depending on your school policy you will probably fail the course or possibly worse.

I didn't expect to gain anything. I was just trying to understand his reason behind it and understand why his policy was different than the university's official policy. — Life Lessons 101: Spend more time worrying about the policies that have a greater impact on you (e.g. your school's plagiarism policy) than the policies that don't.

Wait: you're an expert on school policies and what a professor can and cannot require, but you don't know that you can't copy quotes off the internet for a research paper? At this point you need to decide which is worse in the long term: a justified sanction for plagiarism, or a failing grade in a course. From what you've told us thus far, you'll be ending up with one or the other.

The first thing you should do is calm down, and realize failing a class, or even getting kicked out of school, is not the end of the world.  (Note administrative punishment for plagiarism will probably be worse than just failing a class, though I think most schools would not expel you for a first offence.)
The second thing you should do is make sure you understand what plagiarism is (see also, e.g., here), and understand whether you truly, intentionally or not, committed plagiarism.  Here the main question is: does it look like you were trying to pass off someone else's work as your own or not?  It seems that your professor thinks so, though it is possible he is being more strict with you.
After you do the first two things, you should apologize to your professor (in person) for what you have done wrong.  This includes (a) confronting him in a rude way about his policy, and (b) improper citations.  Your apologies should be sincere, explain your original intents (at least assuming you didn't mean to be disrespectful or dishonest), why what you did was wrong, and show that you know now what you should have done.  During this meeting, you should try to be as respectful and non-confrontational as possible.
If your professor then seems somewhat placated, and convinced of your sincerity, you can politely ask him if there is something you can do to make up for this, such as redoing your assignment.  If he says no, you have to accept his decision.  Unless it is clear from your assignment that there was no intent of plagiarism, it probably is a bad idea to take this issue higher up.

+1 I must say you turn a bad question into a good Q&A. I retracted my close vote because of your nice answer.

authors: مدحت ابواحمد


text:
Should all subsections of a paper start on a new page?
I am finalising a paper that is around 85 pages long. It consists of six main sections with a bunch of subsections. Should every subsection start on a new page? What is the convention concerning this? And should a subject also start on a new page after an introductory paragraph of its parent section? For instance:

3. Balloons are funny
In this section I will first present reasons why balloons should not be used on occasions that are depressing. For
instance, bringing balloons to a funeral will not cheer people up.
Secondly I will discuss different colours that can lead to different
reactions. As an example one should not bring red balloons to a bull
pen. Lastly I will make clear why clowns should always have balloons
with them as to not come across evil.

<-- PAGE BREAK? -->

3.1 Balloons are not a go-to cheer up tool
When confronted with a sad or depression situation, a first reaction might be to try and
cheer everybody up. One should be careful with the methods he uses
though. Do not tell a joke about cancer patients if someone just
deceased after months of chemo. Do not bring balloons to a funeral.

Hopefully this ad lib writing makes my question clear. (If it is any help, my institution uses APA as a style guide.)

Related question on Graphic Design SE: What is the purpose of always locating/starting new chapters on odd pages?

Depending on the length and complexity of the work, you choose the top level sectioning.

For short works -- scientific paper, lecture notes < 80 pages, etc., you in general use only sections and lower.
For longer works -- thesis, long lecture notes, books, etc., you in general use chapters, sections and lower.
If your long work has multiple sort-of separated parts, you can add parts -- notice, however, that usually, part numbering is independent. Therefore for instance Part I contains chapters 1, 2, 3 with some sections, and Part II contains chapers starting from 4, ...

Now, the standard way to go is to start parts and chapters on a new page, and leave sections running through the pages.
Needed to say, most standard publications (articles, conference abstracts, theses, books by standard publishers, ...) have to comply with some guidelines provided by the publisher, and these guidelines are usually very restrictive.

In general, publishers (e.g., books, journal articles) and universities (e.g., theses) have style guides. They vary in the degree to which they provide comprehensive recommendations (e.g., about exactly when to insert a new page). In the absence of any style guide from the publisher, or where the style guide does not provide direction, many disciplines have style guides (e.g., APA style). And beyond that, you can probably infer rules from conventions or use common sense about clarity.
Here are some general rules that I have seen regarding page breaks:

Chapters start on new pages. This is true whether it is a book or a thesis.
Sections of a journal article or chapter rarely start on a new page either at submission stage or in the final formatted manuscript.

In APA Style, when you are preparing a manuscript for journal submission. Abstract, Introduction, References, Appendices, Tables, and Figures all start on new pages. Other subsections (e.g., Method, Results, Discussion, etc.) do not start on new pages. Note these rules (particularly regarding tables and figures) are different when preparing an APA style thesis (e.g., tables and figures would typically be presented in text and not on new pages).

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


text:
How to analyse the following reviewer comments?
How can I improve a paper which has the following comments from the reviewer:

There are missing references to recent literature, which are closely related to this submitted work. A proper comparison of results and the methodologies among these efforts, as well as clear motivation for the incremental progress is typically required.
In addition, the submitted paper has several typographical and organizational errors.

Is the reviewer asking me to cite more references?
What does it mean for a paper to have  "typographical and organizational errors"?
Can someone tell me what is the reviewer asking me to improve?
The decision is "reject".
Should I resubmit to the same journal after making corrections or to a different one?

@Roland; i have one question? suppose i sent this paper to a lower standard and the same reviewer gets hold of the paper, will his/her review change subject to the journal

Concerning the possibility of getting the same reviewer at a lower-ranked journal: It is entirely possible for the same reviewer to say "reject" for one journal and "accept" for another. (I've done that.)

@AndreasBlass It is possible, though I'd assert that not engaging with the existing literature, and typos and organizational errors, are not the kind of things most reviewers will be fine with in a lower-ranked journal.

@AndreasBlass;thank you very much

Either you actually missed important literature, or you just missed the unrelated work the reviewer published him-/herself...

@Mark; I guess the second reason is true

These are all fairly clear.

There are missing references to recent literature, which are closely
  related to this submitted work.

Exactly what it says on the tin. The reviewer believes you are missing references, and importantly, recent references in areas close to what your paper is on. You should find them, and include them. More importantly...

A proper comparison of results and the methodologies among these
  efforts, as well as clear motivation for the incremental progress is
  typically required.

Your reviewer is asking you to put your paper in research in context with those papers. What does this add? Why did it need to be done. What is the motivation of the work?

In addition, the submitted paper has several typographical and
  organizational errors.

This, again, means exactly what it says. The reviewer has found what they believe are typographical errors, and errors where the paper isn't well organized - for example, possibly where a section relies on something not yet introduced.

The decision is "reject".
Should I resubmit to the same journal after making corrections or to a
  different one?

If they wanted you to revise and resubmit, that would have been the decision. A flat "Reject" decision means you will need a new journal, though I would suggest taking the reviewer's comments to heart. It's possible they're correct, and it's possible you'll get the same reviewer again.
To expand a bit on your comments, because replies are a bad place for nuance:

I have one question? suppose i sent this paper to a lower standard journal and the same reviewer gets hold of the paper, will his/her review change subject to the journal

This is very unlikely. You might get away with it if the primary criticism was about the novelty or importance of the paper, or not fitting with the right audience. But, to be direct, the reviewer's comments are things that would be fatal flaws in most respectable journals - just going down a tier won't fix them. Instead, I'd strongly suggest you mull over the reviewers comments, go looking for the recent studies they mention, etc.

I have one question? suppose i sent this paper to a lower standard journal and the same reviewer gets hold of the paper, will his/her review change subject to the journal

For comments like these? Unlikely

So then what should i do ?

Take their comments to heart and fix the paper

But the problem is i find that i have included references and motivation,i dont know what else to fix

I would strongly urge you to take another look - if you have included those things, then you didn't include them in a way that resonated with the reviewer.

@Learnmore If you think that you did everything right, analyze your paper for possible reasons why the reviewer may have thought that you didn't do it. Finding the reason will give you the information needed to avoid making this impression in the revision of the paper.

@DCTLib; i will try to do it

The message is that the reviewer doubts the originality. In case of a resubmission you have to clearly state, what is the difference to other similar work that was recently done.
In addition, the reviewer criticises the presentation.

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


text:
How would you classify these types of research publications
This question relates to medical publications but it is surely relevant to other fields. Consider the following publications:

The first is a textbook type of paper, its goal is to describe the best practice in a field and it contains minimal, if any, original research. There will be a vast breadth of citations from different topics.
The second is a medical study by a single team where they perform a repeatable process to learn more about subjects. They will mention N=500 or however many subjects they have.
The third is a medical study that reviews several studies of type #2 above. The goal is to aggregate multiple single case studies (N=1) and other studies with N>1. The goal of this paper is to increase reliability by having a higher N, or it may be to repurpose the data into different categories. E.g. it may take five studies of N=100 and then separate them into N=250 females and N=250 males.

Are there a commonly-used terms that describes these three situations?

I think (1) might be called a survey, review, or systematic review.  (3) sounds like a meta-analysis.

Category #1 I would call a literature review (or survey.)
Category #3 is a meta-review (aka meta-analysis).
The papers in category #2 tend to be described by their methodology (case study, experiment, etc).

+1, but I think "meta analysis" is more commonly used than "meta review".


text:
Do research professors earn additional money from externally funded projects?
Do research professors generally earn additional money from externally funded projects apart from their university salary? I ask because I'm wondering whether this explains why many professors – who have tenured, relatively well-paying positions – spend so much time applying for and executing these projects.
I am primarily interested in European universities, however, I would also be interested in answers that address whether things generally work the same way for researchers at private companies.

I consolidated some of the comments into an edit to the main question. I also removed some answers-in-comments; please put your answers in the answers section, even if they're short.

At least for the case in the United States:
Professors are generally only paid for 9 months per year by the university. If they have external funding, they can pay themselves for the remaining months -- so having grant funding increases the annual salary by up to 33%.
Second, faculty who repeatedly obtain external funding are clearly doing something right, which translates into promotions that then raise their salaries.
Third, at most universities, faculty salaries are not fixed but grow based on faculty member's annual evaluations. If someone gets a 3% raise every year, then their salary after a few years will be substantially above those who receive 1.5% salary raises every year.
Finally, if you repeatedly get large grants, you become attractive to other universities. They may try to lure you away with a negotiable salary that is higher than your current one, and your current university may try to retain you by raising your salary.
In the end, all of this leads to different faculty being paid differently. For example, full professor salaries in my discipline (mathematics) at typical research universities range between $100k and $150k for 9 months. The ones at the upper end are generally those who are good at receiving grants. But they can then also pay themselves in the summer for the remaining three months, so their salaries are in the range of $200k/year whereas those who do not have summer salary may be stuck closer to $100k/year. Both are of course good salaries in the grand scheme of things, but it is nicer to be at the upper than the lower end of that spread.

the last question is unanswered.

@user366312  This is why we prefer one question at a time.

And if you don’t bring in those other 3 months, you’re not likely to last long or ever get a raise or tenure at that university. Also, those grants tend to cover the salaries of the grad students that work on them and their tuition. So, unless you can do you research solo……

@BillBarth I suspect that in most disciplines, having three months of summer salary is actually the exception. I would venture the guess that in math, for example, the median is one month of summer salary.

@WolfgangBangerth having or needing?

A good list but it misses one of the most common reasons:  Some people are just workaholics.

@BillBarth Both. We don't absolutely require people to have a grant to get tenure, though that certainly raises questions if they don't. But in math, most grants pay at most one month of summer salary. I don't think any of my pure math colleagues have more than one month of summer salary -- it's at least very unusual. Of course, in general, NSF doesn't allow faculty to draw more than two months of summer salary, even if they have grant money coming out of their ears.

@WolfgangBangerth, thanks for the clarification. I'm only a Research Scientist which is sort of tenure light with none of the guarantees, and having at least co-PIed some grants was part of the package. The Board of Regents rules defining my position requirements are a bit open to interpretation.

Government research grants would not usually offer any monetary bonus to a researcher beyond the funding that goes towards their salary.  Research grants commonly cover some or all of the salary costs for the researchers in the grant, including the PI.  This can lead to an indirect monetary benefit, insofar as a researcher in possession of grant-funding will find it easier to secure a higher level academic position than one who lacks funding.  Typically, when an academic wins a major grant they will apply for promotion and get it, unless they are already at the top level.  (To see why this would occur, look at it from the perspective of the university.  When a university knows that a substantial amount of salary will be paid by an outside agency, they are more willing to offer a high-level position because they bear less cost in funding it.  They also know that other universities will be willing to do the same.)
I'm assuming that the PI in this case is probably already a full professor, so it might be that he is already at the top academic level available.  If this is the case then it is unlikely that he gets any monetary benefit from the grants.  It is likely that the grants would pay some or all of his salary at the university, which would give him secure employment.
As to the case of researchers in private industry, the situation is not all that much different.  The main difference is that there is no set pay scale in most private firms so there might not be a strict upper limit to the salary of the researcher.  As with the university, if a researcher can win a grant that contributes money towards their salary, that puts them in a good negotiating position with their employer with respect to their position level and salary (although grant funding is unlikely to transfer with the researcher in a private company).

+1, though note that even full professors may have various salary "steps" that they can earn into (and, as you say, winning large grants puts them in a good position to negotiate for advancement to the next step).

One thing the professor does gain from having multiple grants on the go is a robust research team.  Overlapping grants allow continuity while even a short gap between grants can mean losing postdocs just when they're most useful.  Plenty of money also means a big research group.  Both lead to more output with benefits for the professor's career (and ego).

Do they get an additional salary for each funded project, which could explain this behavior?

As others have explained, salaries are mostly only indirectly based on grants; having grants may allow professors to fund themselves for otherwise unfunded months of the calendar year, to "buy out" teaching responsibilities to spend more time on research, and to argue for promotions.

Even though the job might not be as secure as academic researchers, do industry researchers earn more money in this regard?

Industry researchers are also paid by salaries; they are on average paid much higher salaries than academic researchers but miss out on many of the perks of the academic life. This is fairly basic economics of supply and demand: there is a high supply of people who want academic jobs because they are perceived to be better in many intangible ways, so high salaries are not needed to attract people to those roles.
Every company can choose how they compensate their employees. Just like academics, though, this is most often going to be indirectly through salary.

Why do some research professors take on so many funded projects that it kills their entire spare time?

I haven't yet met an academic researcher who was primarily motivated by money. If people are motivated by money, they're going to find a much easier time fulfilling their goals in the private sector.
Researchers in academia find their work important. When asking for grant funding, they must make a case to the funding agency that their specific work is more valuable than other applicants for those funds. They are not merely raising money towards cancer treatment, or number theory, or quantum physics, they are getting money to try their specific approach to cancer, their specific problem of interest in number theory, their specific theory in quantum physics. The more grants they earn, the more work that can be done towards the very specific topic that they are most personally invested in.
Grants also often go towards paying other people. Academics with a large research group need to maintain their funding to keep paying the people that work for them, and to keep attracting new students to influence the next generation of academics. Doubling grant funding in a lab doesn't mean doubling the time the professor works towards the grant; the more grants a professor has, the smaller the time is that they personally spend on each, but the more opportunity they have to pay others to do the work.
In addition, many academics don't see as much of a distinction between "spare time" and time spent on work: the magic of an academic position is that you have more freedom than a typical worker to work specifically on what you want, to do exactly the work that you would most want to spend your spare time on. I think most people still prefer some balance between pure leisure, time with family and friends, and productive work, but the relative balance towards work can be higher when the work is part of a personal investment rather than merely a means to a paycheck.
There's nothing wrong with working for a paycheck, but I would highly recommend against a career in academia if that's your primary motivator. There are much easier ways to earn an academic-level salary.

...[My PI's wife left him for being a workaholic with poor work-life balance]...

There are workaholics in every profession, not just academia, and not just academics working on government-funded projects.  Though, yes, strong competition for finite resources (funding, promotion, etc.) will tend to self-select workaholics (and often amplify the behavior).

Do research professors obtain any monetary benefit by executing government funded projects? ... Why do some research professors take on so many funded projects that it kills their entire spare time? Do they get an additional salary for each funded project, which could explain this behavior?

You seem very keen to try to understand this purely in immediate monetary terms.  It is almost as if you are asking "We're all salaried, so why is PI putting in so many hours overtime? Does he get a second paycheck for government-project hours?".  You are essentially asking for the rate at which your PI is trading hours-away-from-family for Euros/Dollars to explain their behavior... which is most likely the wrong frame of mind to be understanding your PI's personal motivations.
Your PI presumably views this mostly as a deferred gratification optimization problem.  While working "overtime" hours in the present may not show up concretely as a larger payout at the end of the month's paycheck, it likely will lead to securing more/bigger/prestigious funding in the future and will likely influence faster promotion (be that tenure, a prestigious chair, and/or moving on to bigger and better universities) - all of which are likely to lead to larger paychecks earlier in the future based on an accelerated career trajectory. (To say nothing of non-monetary goals like prestige/standing/esteem/etc. or the ability to tackle bigger more-interesting projects with greater amounts of funding.)

Some universities give the PI a financial incentive to apply for grants, either by giving them the opportunity to put some extra salary in the grant (e.g. with the argument that this buys them out of teaching, but it can still be a net raise), or by giving them a salary raise for the duration of certain (typically prestigious) grants, paid either from the overheads of the grants, or sometimes also from other funds.

Since this is about salary in Euros, my American-centric understanding might not apply. There are several benefits this professor might be enjoying, not all are directly related to their salary.

As others have noted, many faculty contracts are for 9 or 10 months (but may be paid out over 12 months) and grant money can include salary for those summer months.

As others have also noted, bringing in a large amount of research funding will be beneficial in terms of promotion and raises. I expect that you have a very strong negotiating position for a larger annual raise when you are bringing in millions of Euros to the institution.

Some positions are only partly funded by the University (e.g., 50%) and require the researcher to bring in sufficient funds to cover the rest of the appointment to bring it up to full-time.

Some research institutions allow a professor to "buy out" of teaching a course through research funds. So a professor with something like a 2-1 teaching load might be able to buy out a course or more and have a semester where they can be more focused on research.

Research funding can pay for the salaries of research assistants. This can build up the number of graduate students they are working with, usually leading to more research results, leading to more prestige, promotions, etc.

Research grants can include money for equipment, travel, hosting of conferences, etc.

It might be negotiable through the department or university that the research funding can be traded. E.g., this professor's grants funds the research assistants of another professor in exchange for X amount of funds that can be used differently.

To be clear, I do not have direct knowledge of most of these activities, so I am unsure of the specifics, but through my time in graduate school and in academic research I have heard of these situations occurring.

2 is not really the case in the US. It is hard to get any sort of raise beyond a “cost of living adjustment” and maybe an additional 1% for merit without an outside offer. You can’t just say “I deserve 10% more” at most institutions.

Why do some research professors take on so many funded projects that it kills their entire spare time?

‘cuz they like it and this is what they would rather do in their spare time.

Do they get an additional salary for each funded project, which could explain this behavior?

Maybe, or maybe not directly, but there are lots of indirect benefits, such as promotion, performance increments, travel to various conferences and meetings, and possibly the ability to effect lasting changes at various levels.

Even though the job might not be as secure as academic researchers, do industry researchers earn more money in this regard?

Not sure that jobs as academic researchers are all necessarily “secure” (some positions might be soft $$, some might not yet be tenured) but this is difficult to answer in general.  Some industry research positions are very well compensated, some academic positions are also very well compensated.  Most researchers will have a PhD, and the private sector recognizes it needs to pay for this expertise.


text:
What is the difference between doing a PhD in a small university versus a big reputed university in Germany?
Take for example Brandenberg University of Technology versus Technical University of Darmstadt.
Does the size of a university play any role in someone's PhD research experience in Germany?
What would be the impact on someone's post-PhD career if he chooses the smaller one versus the bigger one?

How can research experience correlate with the size of an university?! That's not even wrong... Most of the universities in Germany are technically well equipped, not as good as an ivy league university, but much better than most colleges.

Location compared to location of personal support network...

Choose most reputed university or most reputed-and- opportunity-giving supervisor. The latter might be even better, and the supervisor not necessarily has to be very reputed, an emerging one can be the best.

@SolarMike in germany there are very few graduate schools/personal support. Your PhD is meant to be a one-man show/responsibility. Support you get in the best case to use/learn necessary faciliites, in best case you have collaboration when you work in bigger funding projects during PhD, but autonomy is expected for a PhD "student" (which has obtained mostly a master degreee)

@MichaelSchmidt I figured that most people reading would think of family, friends, relatives etc IE the "human" contact side - not the academic / technical side...

Does the size of a university play any role in someone's PhD research experience in Germany?

First of all, I am assuming that your PhD does not contain any course components, because that’s the norm in Germany. Otherwise, it gets complicated and strongly depends on the PhD programme in question.
When doing a PhD, the vast majority happens within your group. The money and facilities you have available here mostly depend on what funding, facilities, etc. the professor managed to acquire. This might slightly correlate with the power of the university, but the fluctuations between groups are much higher. It makes for more sense to judge the group in this respect.
Aspects of the location that affect your PhD from outside your group will be:

Are there more groups in your general field? If yes, there will be more opportunities to interact with visiting researchers, get quick feedback on certain aspects, have a secondary supervisor who at least somewhat knows what you are doing, etc. It is a small drawback if your group is isolated at your university. (Note that you sometimes have to take neighbouring universities into account here. There are not few cases, where parts of the next university are easier to reach than other parts of the same university.)
Does the university have all the facilities that go beyond what a single group usually has, like a workshop to create special devices, analysing facilities, a supercomputer, etc.
Will you have any teaching duties and if yes, what are they? You probably want to gather some relevant teaching experience, but not spend too much time on this.
Are there enough students for your group to regularly have bachelor and master students doing there thesis? This may give you the opportunity to gather advising experience and benefit from the research output of delegated side projects. Depending on your field, however, this may also be just a huge time sink.
Many if not all universities offer workshops or similar for PhD students about teaching, scientific writing, searching for postdoc jobs, writing grants, etc.

You will get more reliable information on most of the above when you directly ask the professor you are applying to. Moreover, most of this depends on your department or faculty, and not on the university. For example, if you are doing your PhD in computer science, it does not matter whether your university hosts faculties or departments of social sciences, engineering, law, medicine, agriculture, biology, etc. (unless, of course, you are doing research about direct application to those fields). In particular some faculties have run pretty much independently over centuries; they just share a common administrative backbone, location, and name and sometimes some of their researchers collaborate with each other.
At least in Germany, the variability between individual groups within a department is higher that the variability between individual departments and faculties within a university, which in turn is higher than the variability between universities.
The main thing you probably need to consider will be whether your future potential employers are aware of this, but that really depends on what you want to do with your degree and where:
Some people just like easy categorisations like having high- and low-quality universities, even though these are completely oversimplifying things.

very good answer/explanation to a very misconceived question/view. In germany it is much much more about picking a good group than a reputed university in comparision to US/UK, also we have now started an excellence program to award single universities and clusters with more public money, but this shouldn't be a point of decision to choose your PhD location.


text:
What is the difference between preparing a research proposal and writing the actual thesis in the case of theoretical research?
In some countries, whenever someone applies for a Ph.D. admission, the universities ask for a research proposal. A research proposal includes a literature review and bibliography.
If the research is paper-based research, i.e. no popular survey or experiment is involved, I see no further need for research work.
For instance, say, someone wants to redefine and redescribe the origin and purpose of British colonialism in India.
In this case, if the researcher has already read the needed resources and done his desk-research, the only task left is writing a thesis that may take at most three months.
What is the difference between preparing a research proposal and writing the actual thesis in the case of theoretical research?

In general a research proposal (separate from the literature review) is a description of the questions that you wish to answer in the research and a description, perhaps preliminary, about how you intend to answer those questions. it doesn't include the results, which, we assume, aren't available yet.
The literature review asked for will probably be less complete than the one that later appears in the dissertation, since all that is needed here is the papers, etc, that you have read that lead you to ask the question and support the idea that they are important questions that haven't yet been answered. You will possibly need to do more in a formal literature review once the research begins.
You seem to imply in the question that all research questions have already been answered before you make the proposal. That is normally not the case. In the example you state, your proposal should also include how you intend to support the conclusions you reach. This might include additional library research or interviews with knowledgeable people, etc.

Even if we imagine that the information of interest is perfectly and unambiguously presented (which is not reliably the case...), it is absolutely NOT the case that all the logical implications are easily obtainable.
(See K. Godel's completeness and incompleteness theorems, about first-order predicate logic.)
Another aspect: even though one can perhaps conceive of a project, and see no obstacles to its completion, that is very different from execution of the project. E.g., conceiving of moving a huge pile of sand from one spot to another, versus literally moving it.
And, also, there's the question of "what questions we didn't think to ask" :)


text:
If I have a German doctorate (“Dr. X”), can I call myself “X, PhD” in Germany?
As far as I understand,

In the USA, they use "X, PhD."

The rest of the world use "Dr. X."

In Germany, they use the latter form.
If someone completes an interdisciplinary (chemical sciences and computer science) PhD in Germany, can they use #1 in Germany, if they want to?

Actually Germany is pretty formal (or was). And don't let Dr. X seem to imply a medical doctor. That usage varies and is some places regulated.

Your understanding is incomplete. Both forms are used in the US in different situations. So if you want to ask "Can I call myself user366312, PhD in the US after getting a German PhD?" the answer is trivially "yes," but you might be after something different.

The question was edited to reflect OP is asking about using what they call the "US form" in Germany. I don't know anything about that, but bullet #1 is still imprecise.

I assume that the academic degree in question as granted by the faculty is “Dr. rer. nat.” (or similar). There are some faculties in Germany which grant you a “PhD” either exclusively or in addition to a “Dr.”, in which case the situation is clear.
First of all, we have Section 132a of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) which says:

Whoever, without being authorised to do so, uses domestic or foreign […] academic degrees […] incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine.

Since PhD is clearly an academic degree, you can only use it when authorised. Usually, this authorisation can stem from the degree itself or the nostrification process, which can authorise you to use a foreign doctoral degree. Apart from such individual processes, there are state-wise laws governing the automatic conversion of degrees and similar. Unfortunately, there are sixteen of them and their content and structure differs. For example:

North-Rhine-Westphalia has §69 Hochschulgesetz and Verordnung über die Führung von akademischen Graden und von Bezeichnungen im Hochschulbereich.
These are mostly about foreign degrees and mention nothing of automatically converting Dr. to PhD.

Bavaria has Art. 99 Bayerisches Hochschulinnovationsgesetz, which says (translation mine):

Die von staatlichen oder staatlich anerkannten Hochschulen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland verliehenen akademischen Grade dürfen nur gemäß der Verleihungsurkunde oder in der sonst festgelegten Form geführt werden.

Academic degrees granted by the federal or federally certified universities in the Federal Republic of Germany can only be used according to the diploma or in the otherwise specified form.

There is a separate law about converting foreign PhDs.

While I haven’t checked all sixteen state laws, they are usually homogeneous in such respects.
This is confirmed by this article from Der Spiegel about PhD vs. Dr. from 2004, which mentions (translation mine):

[…] So wird aus Dr. Heinzel wie selbstverständlich Heinzel PhD.
[…] "Das ist nicht okay", hält Holger Conrad von der Kultusministerkonferenz dagegen. "Akademische Grade dürfen grundsätzlich nur in der Originalform geführt werden, wie sie an einer Uni erworben wurden." Zwar kann beispielsweise ein PhD aus England oder USA hier zu Lande in den Dr. umgewandelt (im Fachbegriff "nostrifiziert") werden. "Umgekehrt läuft das aber nicht", so Conrad. "Wer das nicht beachtet, begeht eine Ordnungswidrigkeit oder Straftat und riskiert eine saftige Geldbuße."

[…] This way, Dr. Heinzel naturally becomes Heinzel PhD.
[…] “This is not okay”, conters Holger Conrad from the Kultusministerkonferenz [conference of ministers of education]. “You may only use academic degrees in their original form in principle.” There is a way to convert a PhD from the UK or US into Dr. here (“nostrification”), but Conrad says: “This doesn’t work the other way round. If you do not adhere to this, you commit an infraction or crime and risk a hefty fee.”

Now, this article is from 2004, but I could not find anything that changes this.

Degrees that were awarded as PhD are styled as such in Germany and written after the name. Doctoral degrees that are awarded in Germany or the EU can permit you to shorten from "Dr. rer. nat." to just "Dr." before your name. Using a doctorate that you have not been awarded is a serious crime in Germany and can bring stiff fines and even a year's jail time. See StgB § 132a.
Doctorates awarded outside of the EU have to be formally recognized by the state education ministry and then the name of the granting university has to be appended. For example, our Russian instructor uses:
Dr. (Staatliche Kuban-Universität)
If you have defended your doctorate but haven't published your thesis yet (mandatory for using the doctoral degree in your name) you are permitted to write "Dr. des." (designated). You also don't have to correct people who mislabel you "Dr." anymore.
If you went to the Czech Republic or Slovakia and got one of their PhDr degrees thinking it was a doctorate, you lose. For bizarre reasons, it is only recognized in Bavaria and Berlin as being worthy of the "Dr.", not in the rest of the states. The former Minister of Transportation was thus "Dr." when leaving home in Munich, not "Dr." during the flight to Berlin, and "Dr." again when he landed.
If you have two doctorates, then Dr. Dr. is used. If you have a professorship (and only then, not when you are just an instructor) then you may use Prof. Dr.
At Universities of Applied Sciences you may still encounter the style "Prof. Dipl.-Inform.", which is what I was until I got my doctoral dissertation published.
When speaking German, you research and use the proper titles. People on the same level (i.e. professor to professor, doctor to doctor) do not use any titles. Speaking English will vary by field. In Computer Science we generally try to avoid using titles, if we have to and are speaking "up" we would use just "Dr." or "Prof.". If you read German, there is a nice long article, and of course many more at sites that sell phony doctorates.
Some relevant comics for English: PHD Comics - What should I call my professor?

Very cool. Weird, but cool.

There is an apocryphal story about a famous German math professor (last century) who was living intimately with one of his students. He told her that she didn't need to call him Prof. Dr. when they were alone.

@Buffy: One might be tempted to believe that the German fetish about academic titles is as weird as it can possibly get - but then, at some point in time and completely unsuspectingly, one happens to travel to Austria...

@JochenGlueck, I've heard that too. Also you get ostracized by your neighbor tenants if you don't have enough geraniums on your balcony.

"When speaking German, you research and use the proper titles." Hmm, I'd add that this really depends on the context, and maybe also on the subject. Most mathematicians I know are actually quite relaxed (at least for German standards) about titles.

@Buffy Also you get ostracized by your neighbor tenants if you don't have enough geraniums on your balcony Knowing this should be enough to be granted Austrian citizenship unconditionally. If you know, you are as good as a native. (Also: shush, that's a need-to-know-basis info you're leaking here!) at al.: There have been some high-profile cases of "stolen academic valor" in Germany - people using titles they haven't quite earned. It was a serious matter, it seemed, at least in public reception.

I think the claim that you are obliged to correct people who incorrectly address you as "Dr." is an urban legend. (The story is different if you take advantage of them believing you have a degree, of course: But this is just fraud, regardless of where you are.) Also, in natural sciences, the "using titles when addressing upwards" is not generally standard - when I was studying, we would never adress the professors as "Professor", just by "Mr. X". I have the feeling this got more formal recently, at least  in some places.

If you have defended your doctorate but haven't published your thesis yet […] you are permitted to write "Dr. des." (designated). – This depends on the university (and maybe other factors). I can call myself Dr. Wrzlprmft nowadays, but I never was Dr. des. Wrzlprmft. — You also don't have to correct people who mislabel you "Dr." anymore. – Do you have any source for this? This does not only seem wrong but completely infeasible. For an extreme example, I certainly wouldn’t have corrected every predatory journal spam addressing me as Dr. Wrzlprmft.

Using degree titles next to your name is regulated by law in Germany, and there have been cases where people got in trouble due to being careless - The federal law forbidding the use of an academic degree that you don't have lists imprisonment as a possible punishment (not sure if that happens often, though).
IANAL, but as a rule of thumb, you are not free to choose the abbreviation for a doctoral degree to your liking. You have to use the ones you are allowed to use. To make these matters complicated, these are regulated in the laws and regulations of the respective state.
For instance, for the state of North Rhine-Westfalia, you can find the rules on who is allowed to use "Dr." that extend the respective law here here - as you can see, it's complicated.
While I currently don't see it spelled out, it is unlikely that calling yourself a ", PhD" is allowed unless your degree was conferred with this abbreviation because that looks like listing a degree that you don't have. German PhD certificates will state the correct abbreviation.
Note that it is however perfectly legal to call somebody "Doktor" who isn't. So after a doctoral defense, the members of the committee will often call the person who just passed "Doktor" while it is customary for the head of the committee to remind the candidate that he/she is not legally able to call herself a doctor until he/she has the respective certificate in her hand.
Oh, and until you have the degree certificate in hand, calling yourself a "Doktorand" if you are working towards a PhD is the (safe) way to go!

I shall take myself as an example. I received a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Cambridge. This lets me use the following styles in Germany:

Dr Arno Pauly [which is what my German passport says]
Arno Pauly, PhD [because I have a certificate stating that I've got a PhD from a recognized university]
Arno Pauly, PhD (Cantab) [if I want to highlight that my PhD is from Cambridge]

I am not allowed to style myself as "Dr rer nat Arno Pauly", despite the fact that German doctorates in Computer Science have the "rer nat" designation. This is because I don't have any certificate stating that I do have a "Dr rer nat". [There is a process how I can obtain such a certificate though.] Dually, someone who received a "Dr rer nat" can go with "Dr Rer nat X Y" or "Dr X Y", but not "X Y, PhD" - because they have a doctorate, but not specifically a PhD.
There is a further complication, and that is the mentioning of the awarding institution. You can only drop it if it is a fully recognized doctorate at a fully recognized university (everything in the EU is fine, and there is an official list). There is also a category of universities where you are allowed to list the doctorate, but ONLY in combination with the name of the awarding university.

The rule agains calling yourself "Dr. re. nat." seems at least slightly reasonable. Neither computers nor complexity classes nor lambda calculus nor ... are ordinarily regarded as res naturales.

Short answer: you are allowed to use the academic degree in exactly the way it is stated on your certificate ("Promotionsurkunde") and in no other.

This is a poor answer. The certificate doesn't say where to put the name of the degree - front or rear.

As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.

This also doesn’t account for abbreviations (e.g., “Dr.” instead of “Dr. rer. nat.”), which are certainly allowed.


text:
Should I attend a conference even if I don't have a paper accepted there
Attending conferences is considered one of the perks of working in academia, for a variety of very good reasons:

networking, meeting new people
cutting edge research results and new directions
advertise your own research (while networking)
(often) nice venues

In some domains, such as computer science, conferences are (becoming) the main exchange site of top work. In some other domains, conferences are considered entertainment. Next to this quality ambiguity, there are some downsides:

travel costs can weigh on budgets of smaller research groups
conference papers more likely to be dismissed by hiring committees than journal papers

A consequence of the first downside is that many groups only allow researchers to attend conferences if they have accepted talks/papers, which is difficult in top venues. A consequence of the second downside is that some researchers prefer to submit top work to top journals rather than top conferences.
I do consider the second con relevant to the question, as this is one of the reasons for ending up wanting to attend conferences without having any accepted papers.
Given the ups and downs, I would like to assess the importance of attending top conferences (even without accepted talks/papers) for both individual researchers as well as their research groups.
My field is machine learning, but answers concerning other fields are more than welcome.

It's hard to tell what kind of answer are you looking for. What's your specific question, given that you've already laid out pros and cons of attending conferences? Do you want an answer that's experience-based? Research-based? Something else?

@ff524 both, ideally. The pros and cons I've listed are based on my own experience, I'm sure there are relevant aspects I haven't considered. For instance, as a junior researcher I have no idea of any considerations by heads of research groups with regards to conference attendance policies of the researchers. Frankly, though I know it is discouraged here, I am also keen to hear personal opinions on this matter (e.g. how do researchers rank attending top conferences in their todo lists).

@CharlesMorisset I know what the top venues are and that attending differs from publishing. Most questions on this SE regard publishing, mine is about attending. Should (young) researchers focus on attending as much as possible, even without having publications at the conference? Should research groups in general promote such things or doesn't it help them?

@CharlesMorisset I have modified my question as per your suggestion. I did not remove the points, though, as I believe they remain relevant.

There are other things to do at a conference besides present, and that may be useful to a career: volunteer to moderate a session or judge poster presentations (if that's done), join a committee that meets at the conference, etc.

Once again, there's no definitive right or wrong answer here. There are times where it makes sense to go to a conference where you're not presenting (if you're a beginning graduate student, or it's relatively inexpensive, or you're just getting started in a new research area and want to get an overview). There are also times when it doesn't make sense (you're already attending a lot of conferences, or budgets are tight, or there are institutional policies against funding such travel). A conference that might not be worth attending one year might be worth attending in a different year.
The best thing to do is to talk to your supervisor (if you have one), and ask for her opinion about what the best course of action is.

I work in computational condensed matter and have attended both computational (or theoretical) and experimental-oriented conferences. When you submit an abstract for a conference in this field it usually does not imply that you are committing to publish that work in the conference proceedings or that you thereby refrain from publishing that work in a journal. Top conferences (in this field) will encourage and give you the chance of publishing in their proceedings, but will not require it.
What usually happens, is that if you can get the paper published in a reputable research journal you do that, and either 1) choose not to submit a proceedings paper or, the option that I find most interesting, 2) submit related technical work that, while still sound and rigorous, might not get published in a journal but will get accepted as a conference proceedings paper.

The OP seems to be in CS, where conferences are often considered to be the main publication venue: that measn that if you don't publish a paper with the conference (or do not get your paper accepted), then no talk can be given at the conference (except for invited talks). So most of your answer seems to be not applicable.

The OP also clearly stated "but answers concerning other fields are more than welcome".


text:
Have people been prosecuted for using fake degrees?
Diploma mills sell degrees at any level, ranging from bachelor to PhD. The way I see it, the sole purpose of getting milled diplomas is to deceive others. As such, I expect the consequences of getting caught to be sufficiently severe.
I wonder if there are known cases of people getting prosecuted for using such fake degrees to land a certain job. I know there are plenty of cases where said people got fired, for instance here.
I am mainly interested in the consequences of obtaining fake PhDs and subsequently using the supposedly obtained titles. In Belgium and the Netherlands, for instance, the formal title of 'Doctor' is legally protected, so unjustified use could lead to prosecution. I assume this is also the case in some other countries (examples are most welcome), since we have a lot of questions pertaining 'can I call myself X in country Y after obtaining Z'.

I guess not what your interested, but I think related, not even taking the time to get a fake degree, with, what I understand, is no consequence http://finance.yahoo.com/news/yahoo-ceo-apologizes-bogus-college-024008546.html

@user1938107 Well, he was fired. So there's that consequence.

A fake medical doctor got two years of jail in Finland last year (http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/10423-fake-doctor-handed-prison-sentence.html).

See here for one case:
http://www.employeescreen.com/iqblog/fake-degree-leads-to-arrest/
And here's the official announcement:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doi/downloads/pdf/pr46feraca05_26_2010.pdf
Apparently, in the US, one can be charged with "criminal possession of a forged instrument" and "offering a false instrument for filing".
However, this case concerns a fake degree from a real institution. As noted below, the Diploma Mill case is much more complex. See here for a discussion of the legal issues:
https://journals.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/stanford-law-policy-review/print/2010/01/gollin_21_stan._l._poly_rev._1.pdf

While entirely correct, I don't think this is in the spirit of the question. I think the OP specifically wants to know whether one can be arrested for using a Diploma Mill degree, not a faked one of a real university.

Good point. I've added an additional answer.

As @xLeitix correctly notes the original answer was not completely what I am interested in, though it is related and quite interesting to read!

As it stands, this still doesn't address the diploma-mill question, other than saying "it's complex, here's a link to a US legal discussion." We're looking for answers here to address the question, and to provide information here in the body of the answer. While links elsewhere are useful in supporting such an answer, an answer that is barely more than a link is insufficient.

How's this? http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_22172914/cirilo-chilo-madrid-case-goes-jury-thursday

All links provided are dead now.

You should probably just read the wikipedia article on Diploma Mills in the US.  Here's my short summary.
There are a few legally protected titles in some states.  For instance, you can't call yourself a Doctor, Lawyer, or Professional Engineer in Michigan without having passed the relevant licensing tests and have obtained a degree from an accredited educational program.
This essentially forms a chain of trust.  For a profession engineer, the state requires you obtain an NCEES license, they perform testing and also require an educational degree from an accredited institution, and they only trust a handful of accrediting agencies.
One accreditation list is maintained by the US Department of Education.
For instance, the University of Michigan is accredited by an organization that the US Department of Education trusts - the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, The Higher Learning Commission.
Thus there is a chain of trust.
Diploma mills come in two types, accredited and unaccredited.  The accredited diploma mills get their accreditation from fake or otherwise invalid accreditation agencies.
The unaccredited diploma mills simply call themselves schools and claim authority to hand out degrees.
There are no federal laws that would unambiguously prohibit diploma mills, and the terms "university", "college", etc are not protected so anyone can use them for any purpose.
Some states have fairly tough laws that prevent diploma mills from claiming that state as their home, requiring accreditation from an institution recognized by the US Department of Education, for instance, before being able to award educational degrees.
This is not universal, though, so you end up with diploma mills setting up in states that do not have such protections. This helped initially, but then the internet became very popular, and diploma mills started extending their reach more aggressively outside their states.
In states where such mills are illegal, sometimes the degrees and use of them to promote yourself is also illegal.  However it appears that these laws may be unconstitutional.
Conclusion

If you award fake diplomas, you can be prosecuted in some states.
If you promote yourself using a fake diploma you are unlikely to be prosecuted, but there are laws under which you could be prosecuted.
If you use legally protected terms requiring license in your state, such as doctor, lawyer, professional engineer, etc, you may be prosecuted under state laws.

Related and slightly closer to the specifics of the question would be the term "graduate engineer", which many states reserve to individuals having an ABET-accredited engineering degree, but not a license.

First off- I'm not a lawyer.
My understanding is that in the US you generally cannot be prosecuted for claiming to have a PhD when you do not, or when that PhD was conferred by a diploma mill. Both of these actions are protected by the first amendment. However, you can be prosecuted when you lie for the purpose of personal gain.
Federal law and all 50 states have some notion of the crime of fraud. Fraud is generally defined to be deception for the purpose of personal gain. When you can prove deception you can build a criminal case, but where you can't prove a deception occurred it is much harder. This is why it's easy to find cases where someone fabricated credentials and was caught (e.g. claimed that Harvard gave them a degree when they in fact did not, and a simple call to Harvard verifies this). However, if you have a PhD from a diploma mill you can honestly say that you have a PhD, it just happens to be that the degree is worthless.
This is complicated by the fact that some people apparently believe (or can plausibly claim) that their diploma mill degrees are somewhat legitimate. There are a host of phoney rationales that these organizations use to mitigate peoples' sense of moral hazard. For example, "Your accumulated life experiences equate to a substantial amount of degree credit." It sounds reasonable to some people- especially since it's something that one would want to believe. Thus, someone may honestly believe that they have a Ph.D. and are an expert through the benefit of accumulated life experience.
I would compare this situation to the Stolen Valor laws in the US that attempt to punish people who falsely claim to have served in the military. The original law punished the act of falsely claiming you had military service, but was struck down by the supreme court on the basis that the first amendment protects speech even if it is a lie. (Some specific types of speech are excluded, such as lying under oath.) As a result, a revised version of the law was created that specifically punishes lying about military service for the purpose of personal gain.
Note that some states have passed additional laws specifically concerning or criminalizing diploma mills, or criminalizing the use of diploma mill degrees in certain contexts such as job applications. However, the majority of states have not.
What this all adds up to is that employers have to be diligent about tracking down and verifying people's credentials and asking the right questions. Consider the difference in specificity and potential for deception between the statements "I have a PhD." and "I have six years of postgraduate study in computer systems engineering that culminated in a dissertation." There are basic questions that could reveal a diploma mill applicant even if the interviewer didn't have an expert background in the topic. The questions "How long did you study for your PhD" or "How long were you a full-time student at your graduate university" or "Describe the degree requirements at your graduate institution" have a set of expected responses that can be followed-up upon if something sounds out of the ordinary.


text:
Unsure of German PhD salary
I have been offered a phd position in Germany at 75% TVL-E13. It seems very difficult to get a precise figure for what this is in Euro. From a Google search I have figures for this position ranging from €21000 right up to €30000 on various websites dating back over the last couple of years.
I have a deadline on my decision so I really need to know what this 75% TVL-E13 rate amounts to in Euro at the moment so I can weigh it up against offers in other countries. Is this a 'good' rate for a PhD? Is anyone on this rate at present or does anyone have a good idea of how much this salary is currently worth in Euro?

Although I live and work in Berlin since 6 years I don't understand much about these matters, but, while doing a PhD in Biology here (so 6 to 3 years ago) I was paid at a rate called "BAT IIa/2" which left me (once the taxes, the charges and the insurances were removed) with ca. €1100 a month to live.
Now a BAT IIa/2, as the name indicates, correspond to half a BAT IIa, which is said to have been replaced in the current scale by TVL-E13. From that I gather that a 75% TVL-E13 should end up leaving you with a "Netto" (i.e. tax-free, charge-free, insurance-free) salary of ca. €1650 per month.
And indeed according to the website http://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/tv-l/, it should end up in this range: i.e. an annual salary of ca. €31k (gross) / €20k (net).
The exact sum will change according to many factors, including in which region (Land) you end up in, etc.

It is in southern Germany, I don't know if that brings it up or down.

It should make it slightly higher than in Berlin: http://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/c/t/rechner/tv-l/west?id=tv-l&g=E_13&s=1&zv=VBL&z=75&zulage=&stj=2015&stkl=1&r=0&zkf=0&kk=15.5

Southern Germany...I believe it is €2610 a month base, I don't know how that corresponds to the figures you are using for the calculator.

It s still the same: southern and northern are both western, which is what matters in this case. Berlin is the lowest anyway. You have pretty good explanations on how to use that online calculator in this answer: http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/44699/9664


text:
To resubmit a rejected paper or to choose another journal? How to decide?
Last week I received the decision on my paper which I had submitted to a high rank physics journal. Their response was:

These comments suggest that the present version of the manuscript is
  not suitable for publication in the ... However, if you
  feel that you can refute the criticisms, we will give further
  consideration. Please accompany any resubmittal by a summary of the
  changes made and a brief response to all recommendations and
  criticisms.

My supervisor wishes to resubmit this paper to the same journal. How can I decide whether to resubmit to the same journal or to another journal?

If you think you can revise and refute the criticisms, why not do so?  If you think you can't, don't and go elsewhere.

@jakebeal what if the reviewer of the lower ranked journal is the same?

@Barefeg Never resubmit anywhere without addressing valid criticisms!

The editor could have rejected your paper but instead he's giving you a second chance. This means if you can satisfactorily reply to the reviewers your paper will probably get published. If you can't reply to the reviewers then your paper needs changes or a less prominent venue, depending on whether the concerns are technical or of relevance.

You didn't mention how long this report took to arrive. That's relevant, because it might take as long the second round.

The main point to consider is probably that of success. The relevant questions here are:

Can you address the justified criticism?
Can you convince the editor or even the reviewers that the unjustified criticism is really unjustified?
Do you think that you can convince the editor to consult the opinion of yet another referee?
How much of the rejection is based on predominantly opinionated aspects, such as relevance and scope (e.g., “not enough physics”)? Apart from some exceptional cases (e.g., if you can actually add something to the manuscript that increases the relevance), such criticism is difficult to address.
Are the reviews criticising the same or different aspects?

Some examples:

You have three reports. All criticise a lack of relevance. They may or may not criticise other aspects. – Resubmitting is very likely a waste of time. Lack of relevance is a killer argument and most of the time, swaying a referee means convincing them that they erred in their assessment, which even in academia few people are capable of admitting. And you probably have to sway at least two referees. Moreover you have to convince the editor that you properly addressed the issues, so there will even be another round of review. It’s unlikely that the editor will consult additional referees.
You have two reports. The first one only criticises the lack of relevance but has no other major point of criticism. The second one finds the manuscript relevant but strongly criticises a technical aspect, which you can address. – The second referee can probably be easily satisfied. Unless the first referee has overlooked something essential, it will be difficult to sway them. However, the referees are one-to-one on this matter and by addressing it, you may convince the editor. Another possibility is that the editor consults the opinion of a third referee.
You have two reports. Both are negative but outrageously sloppy: For example, they criticise claims you never made, base their criticisms on misunderstandings they could not possibly have noticed as such or ask you to discuss alternative approaches which you did already discuss. – You can easily address the criticism and possibly sway a referee that is more awake during the second round. If you make your case clear, you may also convince the editor to consult new referees.

Another aspect to consider is that of time:

If at least some referees will be used again in the second round of review, this round is usually going to be faster, as it reduces or eliminates the time spent on finding appropriate referees and waiting for referees that decline to review. Moreover a referee that is already familiar with a manuscript needs less time to review it.
If you manage to convince the editor that some of the referees from the first round were not properly doing their job, this may lead to a speed-up of the next round.
If a major hurdle is the editor accepting your rebuttal, you waste little time if you fail, as such a decision usually happens quite quickly.
Depending on the constraints of alternative journals, submitting your manuscript there may require some rewriting work.

Therefore, even if you consider a resubmission to be less likely to succeed than a submission to the next journal, it may result in the least average time to publication.
Finally, you have to consider the number of journals that exist on the desired level and that are appropriate for your manuscript in terms of scope, length and possible other constraints. If there are only few such journals, you are more likely to exhaust your options and thus resubmitting is more likely to be worth the effort and time.

@MaxQuantum: I cannot possibly answer this without knowing your paper, having experience in your particular subfield and knowing the spectrum of publications of Physical Review B. This is really something only your advisor, colleagues and similar can help you with. However, as already mentioned, “not enough physics” is a killer argument and you need really good arguments to at least convince the editor. Just “adding some physics” to the discussion is unlikely to suffice.

@ Wrzlprmft Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. I think I need to have a good chat with my adviser. Anyway thanks :)