text:
Is unfinalized information in graduate application considered "misleading content"?
I'm applying for grad schools (in the US) for next fall, and am currently a graduate student elsewhere (again in the US). This semester I was on a leave (with a research position at a third place), and the original plan was to take courses again in the spring semester, so I registered for those courses. Now, it seems more likely that I'll stay longer in my current research position and continue to work on my projects here. So, it seems like there is a high chance that I'll end up extending the leave and dropping my spring semester courses, but I'm not yet certain about that, and that probably won't be finalized before I submit my applications (also it probably won't be finalized before the deadlines either).
So, I am submitting a transcript with the next semester courses ("in progress") on it, because that was my original plan (and arranged with my department), and right now, that's my official transcript. But I think there is a considerable (and increasing) chance that by the time I (hopefully) get the offer and am required to send the updated transcript, my transcript would be different and won't have those courses.
Here is my question:
When I fill in the application forms, in the end, I need to confirm that there is no "false or misleading information" in my application and that I understand that giving such information can result in revoking my admission offer. I was wondering, is my current transcript considered "misleading information"?
++ I did not mention that I attend or don't attend the spring courses anywhere in my application, or whether I'll continue staying in my current position or not (because that's still unclear). Perhaps the only piece of information in my entire application that could relate to that is the "valid to" date on my mailing address, which is the date I was supposed to leave my current position  according to the initial plan. Could that be misleading? Should I change that to the most likely date (which I actually don't quite know when it would be to be honest)?
+++ In case it matters, chances are I might continue working on my projects in my current position until the end of the academic year, and never go back to my current department (if I get into a Ph.D. program this year). I don't think that has anything to do with my question, but I said it just in case someone thinks it does.

It is pretty unlikely that anyone would consider it improper. Things change. If your information is accurate when you submit it that is all you can do. It is what it is.
But you might get questions on why you dropped the course(s). Be sure you have an honest and accurate answer for that.
And if things change while you have an open application, just update the institution when you know the new situation.

So, should I update them with the change if I learn about it after submitting the application, but before receiving the decision? (They often write "Please don't send updated transcripts")

Don't send what they specifically say they don't want. But for any drastic change you probably need to let them know. Hard to judge the particulars from a distance.

I think it's very very unlikely that enrollment in these courses will be meaningful to your application, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. It's also very unlikely that your enrollment in certain courses, rather than evidence of your performance in those courses, would affect your admission.
The two exceptions I can think of are prerequisites and work towards a degree you would complete. If you said you were going to finish a degree (like a masters degree), and did not actually finish your degree, it would be possible that your admission would be rejected: it would appear as a failure as such. Similarly, if these courses are prerequisites for admission and you don't complete them, your admission could be rejected. In both cases, the issue is not completing the work rather than changing plans.
In your case, the programs you are applying to almost certainly have their own course requirements and unless you fall into the exceptions I mention I can't see any likely issue. If anything, it might be better to emphasize the research work you expect to do between now and matriculation, but I wouldn't worry if your current transcript shows courses for the next semester that you may not actually attend.


text:
How does one become an Affiliate Professor?
I've noticed that several faculty members (both in my institution and beyond) are affiliate professors in some other institutions (beside being a professor in their own institution, of course). What caught my attention is that the vast majority of them wasn't in any way affiliated with the institution prior to holding the affiliate professor title (the source are their biographies). Afterwards they naturally collaborate on a regular basis.
Example: The professor did their BSc and MSc at my university X, went to university A in the US for a PhD, returned to my institution X (where they are now) and became assistant professor but in the same year became an Affiliate Professor at university B.
So, how does one become an Affiliate Professor?

I think the process may be very different from one institution to the next.

A wide range of "Affiliate" and "Visiting" titles are often used to simplify bureaucracy in a long-duration academic interaction.  For example, you may have a collaborator who frequently visits, and want to give them access to buildings, networks, and other resources so that their visits are less of a hassle for everybody.  A "Research Affiliate" or "Affiliate Professor" or such status allows the institution to officially put the person into the system so that they can be issued keys, ID cards, access permissions, etc.
The mechanism for actually doing this is typically that a sponsoring professor just calls the appropriate department or fills out a form, and it just happens.

This is one possibility, but some places take affiliate professor positions much more seriously (considering it a faculty appointment that requires outside letters, a departmental vote, administration approval, etc.).  But I think your description is pretty on target for the title "research affiliate".

I would see how this is true for something like a "research affiliate" or a "visiting researcher" or something like that. But are "Affiliate Professor" "titles" really given out as easily too? It is a "Professor" "title" after all?

From what I've seen, the exact title you get often depends on what your title is elsewhere. Thus, for example, "Research Affiliate" and "Affiliate Professor" are likely to mean effectively the same thing except that the "Affiliate Professor" is a professor at their primary  job, while the "Research Affiliate" is not.  Every institution has its own policies and interpretations, however.

The most frequent use of Affiliate Professor appointments that I have seen are for people that have another primary occupation than research. Typically in the medicine field, for doctors who conduct research besides their clinical work in a university-affiliated hospital. These people need a formal appointment with the university to teach, supervise graduate students, etc.
Now this holds for North America, it might be that things are different in your country.

Agreed.  I've seen it used for instructors who do academic work for the department but might only co-teach classes or otherwise work in advisory roles, etc.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
when sharing source code to more than one party, should I notify them that others also were interested
A few weeks after my work was published in a conference, I received an email from a research group from another university asking me to provide my source code. The email was very polite and explained the reasons for the request, i.e. the direction of their research. There was really no reason to deny them. However, yesterday (ca. 6 weeks after the first request), I received a similar request from another group asking for the same code to conduct research in the same field as the first group. (To clarify, I'm in CS, but both groups work in statistics) I see no reason to deny them either.
But should I explicitly state that the code was already asked for and provided to another research group? If so, should I also notify the first group?
I found myself in uncharted territory since I haven't expected anyone to be interested in that code, let alone to receive two requests. Also, this situation has potential to escalate into misunderstanding(s), if information is withheld or provided, but misinterpreted.
PS: I haven't talked yet to my adviser, as he is on vacation and I really don't intend to bother him with this matter.

One possible course of action could be to make the code publicly available on your website, or some public repository system, e.g. github. That gives you no control over the distribution, but provides other important things like public appreciation and (in case of github) widely recognised timestamp.
Since this is your code, you have the right to promote yourself by mentioning that it is widely used. However, it may be not a good idea to share the information about someone else's current research interests, without asking them first. Some areas can be very competitive, and it is better to be safe than sorry. You could ask your "users" if they agree to be mentioned as such.

Sharing the code on some public repository system is certainly the best course of action from a research (!= politics or financial) standpoint.

Also means that any changes (say a bugfix or improvement of some kind) is available to all parties with no extra effort on your part.

There is no reason to inform anyone of anything. Any (non-collaborating) researcher contacting you should reasonably expect that other researchers could ask you the same question, including requests to share code. (This is not true of collaborating researchers, from whom you may want to request permission before sharing code.)
Do note that in some research settings you may not want to share code. I would definitely consult with your advisor.

+1 Sharing your code without consulting your advisor is really a bad idea.

If one choose to share code, generally one should do it with relative unselectively (ie. sharing on GitHub as others proposed, or just on your own site) or in form of collaboration.
In the first case everyone who is looking for your code and agree with some basic rules, Terms of Use, etc essentially granted to use it, and it is not your business beyond that what they use it for. It is possible to tell groups that others using this, too, but telling about others project without their explicit consent is very unethical. In my field, I know only one professor who actively introduce groups to each other who are intent to do similar research to encourage them to collaborate, but this is a very shaky field and the default is the no see, no hear, no tell.
In the second case you are collaborating with one or the other group. If they are overlapping in research, you shouldn't collaborate with both, and I think hinting that you are already working on a similar topic with someone is the ethical way. Off course, you still can give the code both of them, but without collaborating and sharing data with one side.
Disclaimer: I am not in computational science, but in computational chemistry, so there can be differences in local habits.

Going off of what Dmitry Savostyanov said. You could publish it to github or on your website and then send an email BBCing all the parties who have expressed interest. This way you can inform everyone of the new code location and hint that multiple people have asked for it without explicitly telling anyone anything.

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


text:
Is it normal for an advisor to expect >80 hour workweeks from PhD students, and threaten them with dismissal?
My advisor always keeps pointing out that I should have publications and I should keep working and stuff like that. Recently he's been saying that not all student will finish Ph.D. and you should be careful not to be kicked out. He has this notion that Ph.D. students should work more than 80 hours per week on regular basis and near deadlines even they should cut off from their sleep time. I get the idea that he wants to encourage me and I also know that as a Ph.D student I need to have publications.
Is this type of behavior common among most advisors? Is it common for Ph.D. students to be expected to not have a life and just work? And finally do all advisors keep threatening their students like this?
I'm currently a second year computer science student. I've been accepted by the department, not a specific faculty member. Also my funding is coming from TAship not his grant.  I'm not sure if I should start looking for another advisor, because I'm not sure whether the behavior I have described is normal.

A related post on Chemistry Blog, and one from an astronomy context

What country are you in? And how are you funded?

It’s been ten years now. How did your situation resolve?

I'm sure some advisors do act this way.  I don't think it's very common, but it does happen.  It's more common for advisors to expect certain results than a particular hourly commitment, but all these things are a matter of extent.
However, in trying to figure out whether to switch advisors, I think you're asking yourself the wrong question.  The right question is:

What type of advising relationship works for you?

If you feel energized, motivated, and happy under your current conditions, that's one thing.  If you feel overburdened and miserable, then you should probably look for a different advisor.  Even the most competitive Ph.D. programs have faculty who are not so demanding.  You have to figure out what type of style works best for you and try to find an advisor who is a good match.

+1 for the right question

In answer to the question of "Is this expectation usual," I offer the current state of the following completely unscientific survey from the Adventures in Ethics and Science blog.
The question asked is, "My graduate advisor expects or requires me to work...", and as of right now, 68/650 respondents (about 10.5%) report that they believe their advisor expects them to work more than 70 hours a week:

(Note that regardless of what expectations are, the research suggests that the overwhelming majority of graduate students do not work 80 hours a week. For example, a 2003 study of Australian PhD students found that 15.6% worked 50 or more hours per week. A survey of research students at Oxford found that 28.8% worked 45 or more hours per week on research.)

That's a great find! Very interesting. However, I would want to caution the reader that this is the kind of survey question where people tend to overstate by a lot. I also have (from personal experience and observing my own students) the impression that grad students tend to overestimate how much time they actually spend on research.

@xLeitix Not just grad students :)

Hey, another great find :)

Survey clearly flawed because there's thousands of people who would have responded but were too busy working 80+ hour weeks. =)

Ouch! This is a really bad statistics. I consider everything above 40 hours per week slavery…

Nice. But for those for "no set time" or "never discussed" it would be more meaningful if it was teased out to "but I consistently work over 40 hours" or "and I seldom work over 40 hours". As it is need to disregard these in regards to the main question (I would never discuss work hours with a student unless both they weren't making enough progress and they didn't seem to be working enough hours). There is also the question of how productive those hours are (I've seen student chatting, reading/writing blogs, answering private emails, e-shopping, watching videos/movies - even in core 9-5 time).

I will go as far as saying that 80 hours/week is definitely too much.
80 hours/week means 11.4 hours/day, working weekends or 16 hours/day working Monday-Friday.
Most contracts (and I assume you have one) state 35-40 hours/week (7-8/day not working weekends). However, this is generally just a "placeholder" when speaking of academic positions, where it is difficult to impose strict working hours. However, this does not mean that your supervisor can ask you to work an unreasonable amount of hours.
Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament states that:

Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, in
  keeping with the need to protect the safety and health of workers:
(a) the period of weekly working time is limited by means of laws,
  regulations or administrative provisions or by collective agreements
  or agreements between the two sides of industry;
(b) the average working time for each seven-day period, including
  overtime, does not exceed 48 hours.

This is surely implemented in the UK, France, and Italy (and I am sure most other EU states implemented the EU Directive).
I would say that, as a PhD student, there could be exceptional instances where you would need to work 80 hours/week (e.g. close to a deadline) but, for your own sake, that should NOT become a habit, but should instead be a very exceptional situation.
I have known people who had the "feeling guilty because I am not in the lab on a Sunday afternoon" syndrome. This is not healthy, and I hope for you that you do not reach that point. Working 80 hours/week means you'll soon become stressed, tired and overall less productive (as you will be more likely to make errors and will have to redo things several times). I know several people (unfortunately more than I would like to) who have had serious health problems because of this type of unreasonable request from their bosses.
You can work 40 hours/week and publish good papers. There are plenty of good people in academia who publish in very good journals, but have a life, a family, and hobbies during their free time. Do not believe those who tell you that working 24/7 you will publish more, because they are just trying to exploit you.
And always remember: just because you are passionate for your job that does not mean you should not have any right. You have the right to work reasonable hours, have the right to have holidays and you should be allowed to take them without having to beg or being considered lazy, and you should be reasonably paid. Just as in any other job.
A little edit on what to do :

Speak with your supervisor and explain the situation. Try to be reasonable and see if you can both work out a solution
If no solution can be found, look for another supervisor. Try not to make a bad brake up with your old supervisor, just explain that you are not confortable with the situation and that you feel it's better for both of you if you change supervisor.
If things get particularly bad, remember that the university has an HR office, that is there also to deal with these things.

Most contracts state 35-40 hours... In the US I believe they are 20 hours. You are talking about working hours, but he isn't employed by his advisor. This is his PhD studies.

@AustinHenley I had a contract stating 35 or so (don't remember exactly) work hours/week during my PhD (this was in NZ where you're considered a student during your PhD). I would be very surprised if the university did not have any rule about that, if anything for insurance reasons...

But this isn't work, this his PhD research. His work is as a TA.

How is it not work? As a TA he is providing a service to the university, and he has the right to be treated correctly as any other person working on university premises.

TA = teaching assistant. The OP is talking about his research, which is not his work.

Sorry,  but that is just the old bullshit that is used to exploit students. This is as bad as people not putting students or technicians on papers.  It is wrong, unethical and borderline on the legality side. His research is going to the advantage of his supervisor, who will get a publication from his work and may be able to use it to get further grants. So he is providing value to the university by teaching and to the supervisor by doing research. That for me is work and he should be protected as any other worker. I'd definitely would have gone to see HR.

That doesn't make any sense. It is not his work, it is his studies/research. An advisor that expects too much is not a crime, just a bad advisor. He is under no obligation to stay with that professor. From my personal experience, that doesn't exploit me but rather gives me the freedom that I want in my research.

I agree he should change supervisor (see edit). However, bear in mind that his research work is not his personal work. The university and his supervisor benefit from it. Even more, the University has most likely a policy that all of his results will belong to the University (I had to sign that when I did my PhD). He wouldn't get away, say, by publishing his data without his supervisor's name or without acknowledging his affiliation with the University. I then don't see why he shouldn't be treated correctly. His supervisor should not be able to psychologically threaten him without consequences.

By the way, I knew a practically identical situation (in France). The student went to HR, was assigned to another PI, and the PI had quite a bad time with the Institute director...

PhD students can be assigned?? That looks like a potential cause of this problem. Professors are getting assigned students instead of it being a mutual choice.

Yeah, sorry it was a bad word choice. It was obviously a mutual choice between the new supervisor and the student. (his project changed though, as it was a different lab, but he is much much happier now)

I am a PhD student in the UK, and it does seem like the system here is very different to the US where people seem to be employed as a TA and then do their research on the side. My sole "income" is from my studentship, which technically isn't an income (we don't have to pay tax on it). I don't have to do any teaching if I don't want to, this money is solely to fund myself through my research. We are expected to work at least 37.5 hours per week, and I certainly wouldn't get away with working less than that. We also have a set number of holiday days, which is equal to what the employees get.

@emmalgale - You don't pay taxes because you are getting paid peanuts. Even if it wasn't exempted, it won't beat the no-tax slab (in my country at least).

@New_new_newbie In the UK, we have to pay tax on income over £10,000. My studentship is more than that, so if it was an income, I would be paying tax. We also have to pay National Insurance if we earn more than £153 per week, which I would if my studentship was a taxable income.

@emmalgale - My jaw just dropped to the floor! Country specific difference maybe. Cheers, rich guy :)

@New_new_newbie Most funded PhDs in my field will get more than £10000 otherwise people can't afford to do a full time PhD. I also get extra money because I am at a London university, even though my campus is actually not in London!

It looks like countries are different. In the US you have few rights and little recourse.  You are a student, not an employee.  Even getting benefits was seen as a huge step up, and some schools barely offer that.  There is no "HR" department.  Also in the US you are either funded by being a TA or RA, TA is typical for schools with undergraduate populations, where you teach and do your research 'when you have time'.  THis is pretty terrible by all accounts but at least preps you for teaching (ie the teaching counts on your CV).  RAs just do research as their 'day' job.

It is not his work, it is his studies/research. — It's both (ethically, even if not legally)

I think that your question is mainly opinion-based; because every faculty member has his own policy on advising PhD students and nothing seems to be correct/normal here. But, I answer your question from a student's perspective who is uncomfortable with his studying hours in his PhD program.
If you feel uncomfortable with something in your studying program, you should solve it. The best solution is talking to your advisor.
However, if working more than 80 hours/week is too much for you, you should think about solving it as soon as possible, because, you should work on your PhD project more than three years and when you are uncomfortable with that amount of work, after one or two years, you will face physical or even mental problems such as constant tiredness, depression, etc.
Think about your preferences, abilities and expectations and decide whether you want to work with that advisor or you can find another faculty member who has more flexible working expectations from his students.
In my opinion, expecting higher working hours from a PhD student is not a bad advising policy. But, the point here is that the student should think about his abilities and whether he can work under extreme expectations or not. Some students prefer working more and some students prefer less demanding and more flexible studying hours.
As far as you don't have any funding problem, before talking to your advisor; search carefully for another faculty member who's policies on advising PhD students meets your preferences. Talk to their students and when you have made your mind on changing to another advisor (after talking to them), talk to your current advisor and stop working with him.

This is good advice, but doesn't explicitly address the specific question that was asked, of whether this is normal. Perhaps you can edit that into your answer.

Thanks for the advice. But I kind of wanted to know whether such expectations from PhD students are normal among most advisors.

@ff524 I think this question is primarily opinion based and I edited my answer to mention this point.

First of all, this depends on the country. In some places, PhD students are considered workers, and have the social rights that come with it. I still work a few more hours than what my contract says, because it goes in my own benefit, but it would be illegal for my advisor to force me to work overtime (so, answering your question, no, here it is not normal).
In other places, they don't, so they may be in principle allowed to demand as much as they want. But here we have a problem: double the hours doen't mean double output. In general, it is not true that working more hours you will get more results!
The best argument to show this is that big tech companies, like Google and Yahoo, that are probably the closest thing to Academia in the industrial world, go to lengths to limit the overtime their engineers put in. Their beans are in the quality of the output, so they have done extensive and careful research, and it has one of the highest quality assurances: lots-of-money-reviewed.
Sometimes, there are deadlines, and we have to put in extra hours; but then, you will get much better results if your team is not burned out.
Edit: Here is a study relating hours worked and productivity in a factory during the World War I. It appears that the productivity for this manual work scales linearly until it hits the roof at 50 h/week. It is remarkable that people working 72 h/week accomplished exactly the same as people working just two thirds of that.
Without more data to support it, I conjecture that for intellectual creative work, the plateau is reached much earlier.

Exactly! But (half-jokingly) though ''in some places, PhD students are considered workers and have the social rights that come with it...'', in most places I know about, they are treated as slaves. And did somebody say "social rights"? What is that?

Yes absolutely (advisors do expect 80+ hours a week).  It's a terrible situation to be in, but what they want to see is productivity, which is not the same as throwing more hours at it.  When I was in grad school I got that lecture constantly.  Most people find that more than 50 hours is unhealthy and unsustainable.  For a bit you can go 80 hours a week but not too long.  But remember he wants productivity, not hours.  He cares about publications, not about how long it takes you to generate the data and write it up.    Try to look to the other successful, older grad students and figure out how much to work based on that.  In grad school it's easy to get into a rythme and lose focus about what you are doing long term.  Develop weekly, monthly, and quarterly plan (start from the quarterly plan).  Grad school is all about time management and project management.  Too often I got stuck for long periods of time in some shit that ended up not mattering at all; we all (all of my colleagues/classmates) wasted years this way.  But just remember they care about the publication, not about you, not about your degree.

+1 for "Grad school is all about time management". Which includes "deciding how much time to spend in total", but more importantly "deciding what to spend time on". And conversely "what NOT to spend time on".

That last sentence is sad, but true nevertheless. I couldn't agree more with this answer, and ''When I was in grad school I got that lecture constantly'' is eerie. I can't help thinking that I am you.

If a student told me she was spending 80+ hours on research on an ongoing basis, I would immediately have a discussion with her about how to reduce the workload. That kind of effort is simply not sustainable on a long-term basis.

Sorry, "not about you, not about your degree" is a nasty and plainly false stereotype. Most supervisors I know are interested in the best possible outcome for the student. There may be supervisors who do not care, but this is down to the individual supervisor. I agree with the "productivity, not hours", or else I would have downvoted your response with prejudice.

I've certainly known advisers do this. Whenever I've tried working with anyone that has this type of policy, they have fallen into one of 2 categories.
1) Advisers that expect a significant fraction of their students to land Tenure track faculty jobs in good institutions within about 2 years of graduating. Check the resume's of the groups prior alumni. If it is this sort of group, I'd likely suck it out and continue. If you have more prior students working as post-docs/adjuncts 4 years later than you do as tenure track faculty then the next category applies.
2) Advisers that are unable to get anything done during the day, usually because they simply don't know what they are doing. Unfortunately this is more common than the previous category in my experience. Change groups now, you will learn little, it will be unpleasant if you continue, and you won't even be in a good situation at the end.

Yes. But someone in the other answers said "double the working hours isn't going to double the output", (certainly not necessarily), so it is category two all the way. In my experience, category 2 people are more often than not, second-grade researchers. Top notch people don't care about trivialities such as working hours, or "are you in the lab".

First of all, this varies by field and then it varies again by adviser. I am speaking from the perspective of biological sciences but I think what I have to say could apply in your circumstance.
In my program, we are expected to teach (~7-8 hrs/wk), take classes (~8 hrs/wk), then spend the remaining time in the lab. This does not factor grading (easily 20 hrs/wk for lab classes unless you just do a bad job at it), studying for classes (~10 hrs/wk), and then attending meetings and seminars (~3 hrs/wk). Where does this leave time for research in the lab? My adviser expects me to spend 40 hours/wk in the lab which is difficult to do when you have so many other things to do as well and often not enough time to get it all done. The majority of my weeks end up being 60 hours of work during the Fall and Spring semesters because classes tend to mess up my planning for experiments. During the summer, I tend to average about 45-50 hours. But then the rest of my time is really spent in classes, teaching, grading, and studying. Bottom line - your weeks may be crazy because of other graduate school requirements making your work hours stretch as a result.
I have talked to others extensively on the program. Many of them do not need to teach and their advisers tend to ask them to spend about 50-60 hours a week working. The other very common situation is that the adviser does not care so long as they are productive. There are many different management styles and I have had personal experience with both.
A small percentage of advisers tend to ask for ridiculous hours and threaten their students but it's certainly not the norm. I know some people that enjoy or do not mind that lifestyle - research is their hobby and they love spending that much time on their work. Some advisers are the same way and have a hard time understanding others that do not share the same passion. If this lifestyle is not for you, I advise switching sooner than later. I switched advisers half-way through my PhD and I wish I had done it sooner.
Summary: It's not the norm but it's not exactly rare either. If you can't handle this kind of lifestyle you should change while you still can.

Short answer...
I would expect PhD students to work 60-80 hours a week, but would not require it, and would not advise working more than 10-12 hours five or six days a week. Based on my experience, students that work less than 40 hours a week are likely not to make acceptable progress and submit, or will require an extension and/or not to achieve the publications required to assure award or career. Conversely, students that consistently work much more than 80 hours a week are likely to suffer (mental or physical) breakdowns. A 9-5 mentality is not a good fit for a researcher, but an around-the-clock focus is potentially fatal.
It is normal for an advisor to expect that you'll be working of the order of 80 hour weeks at times, particularly if you are being paid to do research or teaching as well as undertaking a full time PhD. It is their responsibility to warn you if you are falling behind and liable to have your candidature cancelled.
The long answer takes into account what research and a research career is all about, as well as expectations of university staff.
A recent study by an Australian union found that, "on average, academic staff work 50.7 hours per week over the whole year and of the 45% of professional and general staff that reported working uncompensated overtime, the average was 5.7 hours per week...
Over three quarters of survey respondents (77.1%) indicated they worked these hours because they felt they needed to do so to ensure they performed their jobs satisfactorily and/or for fear of losing their job..."
See http://www.nteu.org.au/stateoftheuni

Your mentioned "Maybe courses to help you read and write, plan and think more efficiently and effectively".
Can you suggest any readings, resources for this?

I don't see how this answers the actual posted question.  At a minimum, your discussion of how graduate students should spend their time is obscuring your answer.

There are some good resources in the form of books but they tend to be oriented specifically to the US model of a PhD, and often more to the humanities style of PhD - think of the kind of academic who is likely to write about writing, language and style, and their background.

Try the classic, Turabian: A manual for writers of research pepers, theses and dissertations. OR Dunleavy: Authoring a PhD. OR Mewburn, How to tame your PhD. OR Carter-Veale, PhD Completion.

@JeffE. To recap my answer to the question unambiguously.  Yes! It is normal for a good supervisor/advisor to expect a PhD student will work 80 hours a week, but NOT to require or even want it. My answer explains WHY. I have learned that most questions in a form that seems to expect a yes/no answer don't actually want just a yes or a no, but an explanation that explains WHY. I also have the impression OP's supervisor didn't actually say OP should be working 80 hours a week, but he might have acquiesced to a complaint that he was expecting too much: "has the notion" ≠ "expressed a requirement"!

@Jeffe. P.S. Yes! it is also normal, and indeed a responsibility, for a supervisor to indicate that a student is not working at the appropriate level or making the required progress, and is thus liable to be terminated.  Again "threaten them with dismissal" doesn't provide a direct quote, and it doesn't say it is because OP isn't working 80 hours a week. I would find it hard to believe a supervisor/advisor would say: "I will throw you out if you don't work at least 80 hours a week", but OP didn't quote the advisor as saying anything as direct as this.

@DavidMWPowers Please edit your answer to emphasize those points.  I'm afraid most people reading your response will give up after the third screen of text.

To be very frank, the short answer is fine to me. I stopped reading the long version after its second paragraph. I was going to give an upvote to your answer, but then gave up on it.

A 80 hour / week workweek is completely normal in scientific research. There are regional differences; for example, in Europe people tend to have clear boundaries in the work/life balance, and formally overworking may not be allowed. However, even in Europe, with the applicable regulations, you will find people working many more hours than 35 or 40 per week.
Expecting PhD students to work 80 hours per week is probably normal. Threatening with dismissal or using other pressure methods is not.


text:
Practical strategies for increasing one's passion and excitement about research?
I am a second year PhD student in computer science. I see other students craving to find new problems, read papers and it's like they are enjoying it and when they find a problem, they spend endless hours trying to come up with a publishable results about it.
I talked to some people and they said, many times you get to like what you do, it's not that you always end up doing what you like - implying that this kind of excitement and motivation is something that can develop in time.
Can you give me some practical strategies that help towards gaining and maintaining a high level of excitement and motivation about research? What keeps researchers like those I described constantly interested and excited to do research?

see this question about procrastination

possible duplicate of How should I deal with discouragement as a graduate student?

Although this question is not very similar, I think you may find the answers to it helpful: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27638/is-a-phd-right-for-you-if-you-hate-doing-research-in-your-free-time-but-love-doi/27644#27644

Remember that not everyone feels the need to do bleeding-edge research. Some are more concerned with producing things that meet a real-world need as efficiently as possible. Your school may not distinguish CS and Software Engineering, but it's possible that your muse is leading you in the direction of the latter.

I find that a good way (for me) to get excited about my research is to work with some inexperienced research students - high school and undergraduate students.
Mentoring these students reminds me of the things that excited me about research when I first started: mainly, that we can come up with some problem that we think is interesting, that hasn't previously been solved, and then go ahead and solve it. I still think that is so cool, and seeing that reaction in my students reminds me all over again :) Also, I get to feel like an expert in this scenario, which helps makes me more excited about my work.
Generally, I find that spending time with others who are passionate and excited  encourages those feelings in me, too.

@Vahid I'm a PhD student; this is what gets me excited about doing (not talking about) research. I can't claim this will work for everyone, but it certainly works for me.

@VahidShirbisheh I disagree with all your comments. Being a PhD student does not at all mean that you don't get to instruct younger students. Enjoying your research is kind of a package deal - if you enjoy explaining it, you will also feel much more inclined to work further on it. And, finally, being proud of your work is a really, really good motivator for most people.

@xLeitix - Not in absolute terms, sir. There are also pure-research institutions, where there are no UG programs for you to assist in. (IAS, Princeton - classic example). Of course, in normal universities, there is an instructional component too, which is very valuable. Pure-research institutes lose out on something very important. But not having it also has advantages, e.g. as people in normal universities figure out in their final year!

@New_new_newbie Surely. But Vahid's statement was also written in very absolute terms ("1. The OP is a PhD student, so he/she does not have to work with students."), which is at least often not correct.

The three answers above are all great ideas.  But I'd like to expand on two of these answers with a story from my own personal experience in finding what to do for research.
If you're in the early stages of research but you're not that passionate about it, I would suggest looking for other research opportunities that inspire more passion.  You may not want to switch your current focus or advisor (and at first, I didn't either), but it may very well be useful for you to explore, just to see if there might be some other arrangement that better motivates you.
In short, you might try the following:

find some aspect of life that you're very passionate about
see if you can find some research project in your field that speaks to your passion
find an advisor who is willing to work with you on such a project, and who fits your personality well enough for you to work with this person in an effective manner.

While cloudraven suggests to look for specific problems, I'd take it a step  back from that and say that you should first look for a topic of study that speaks to a passion of yours, even if that topic is not itself within computer science. First, it may not be obvious if you can connect it with your current field of study.  However, you may be surprised at the ways people have studied this topic using computer science, or the ways in which people are motivated to study some aspect of computer science because of this topic. Then, once you've linked that passion to your field of study, it may not immediately be obvious what problems are still open that you can attack.  This is fine - it will require some hard work to find a specific research path, and moreover formulating your own thesis problem will likely require a lot of help from an advisor.
(Disclaimer: I'm an applied math grad student, so admittedly I may very well have a wider range of possibilities for research than students in other fields.  Thus, taking a general life passion and researching it may well be easier for me than for you.  However, computer science and applied math share a substantial overlap, so this advice may be somewhat relevant.)
I had been working on a project with a very interesting theoretical aspect, but the physical application did not quite excite me enough to provide the drive I needed to get anywhere on my research.  Also, I was working with a well-respected and talented advisor, but we didn't meet or communicate very often.  This was in part because that year he was teaching and researching at another university, but also because he had a lot of students and was otherwise busy with work.  In any case, I became his student under a mutual understanding between us that I would work in a very independent fashion.  While at first I thought that such an arrangement was perfect for me, it gradually became more obvious that I needed more frequent, in-person meetings to stay motivated.
And then I took a class on applied and harmonic computational analysis, a topic which is very much related to the field of music technology.  I've always been a very musical person, and it's a really big passion for me.  But I didn't realize that I could connect this passion with my field of study until I did a small research project for that class.  People talk all the time about how music and math are related, but I never really heard much of people doing applied math projects that involved music until I actually went out myself and looked for these topics.
(If you want to hear what the problem was that motivated me, well... I wanted to make a remix of a song, but I couldn't separate out the vocal track as I wanted. Eventually, this led me to discover the topic of source separation, which arises in not just music technology but also a surprising number of academic disciplines.  From there, I started discovering many other different topics that I find to be pretty cool.)
Since then, I've switched advisors and started some really fun, exciting projects.  And I'm no longer nearly as worried as I used to be about whether I'm making enough progress, not only because of my passion for my project, but also because I check in weekly with my advisor.

Well. I think something really important is to work on a problem that you are excited about.
I find it more exciting when I can explain people what I am doing, but I have also seen people that get excited the more obscure the subject they are into, so it really depends on your personality. Still, it has to be something you are passionate about.
It is not always possible to do that, especially on your first years when you are ramping up and are maybe following projects of more senior students or just working on whatever your advisor asked you to.
Still, think on problems you consider important. Think of solutions, read papers you really liked. How could you do them better? Talk with your advisor about them. If you work on a problem that you just really enjoy talking about you will feel the passion.
Talk to the senior students, they have been through that. Many of them will be happy to give you examples related to your specific area.
Best of luck

While I agree in theory, for many people, research has a way of gradually sucking all the joy out of their particular problem - as exciting as it was at first :(

at some point in my college, when I was to do my science project and my advisor, whose field of study was different from pure science, It was really hard to put in my passion to get it done. Not like the passion wasn't there, but we both had different passion in respect to my field of study.. I had to convince myself that I must go through, I had to develop the passion because I would have to defend how I design it.

If I am allowed to go into lifestyle coaching more than academic coaching, I think you should find what makes you tick.  Academia is highly competitive and if you are feeling that you are not in the upper 50% now, perhaps you should take some time to consider your career choices.
Sometimes the truth hurts.  Often, escaping the truth hurts more in the long run.
Having said that, my own experience is that taking a bit of a time-out and working in another field briefly helped my motivation to come back and be grateful for being in a place I enjoy and feel I can prosper in.
Also, I'm not saying there are not other success vectors.  If you are top-notch at what you do and are just wondering how come another mode of research makes your colleagues tick, that's fine, and quite possibly an important asset in the long run.

While I appreciate that you took my feedback constructively and did not start a mudslinging duel with me (as happens often on SE), and while I like your middle two paragraphs in absolute terms, I would point out that everything would appear formidable in the early days of PhD. Happened to me, I'm sure happens to most others too. Now, a reconsideration advice in this situation is perhaps, taking things too far. It is difficult to clearly mark out when the troubles are big enough for you to think about reconsideration. There are people who go through this phase, and still complete their PhDs.


text:
Coping with "survivors guilt" in Academia
I managed to get a tenure-track academic job in the last month. While I'm thrilled and relieved to have secured employment, I feel somewhat guilty about it. The current employment situation is dire, due to the Covid-19 pandemic (it wasn't great before...). Many of my friends and colleagues are extremely worried about their career prospects, facing unemployment, or being forced to leave academia. I don't think I'm necessarily more deserving of a job than any of them. I can see that my experience fits well with the department I was hired by and was fortunate that they were pressing ahead with hiring.
Perhaps calling it "survivor's guilt" is too extreme. I certainly don't intend to minimise the experience of those suffering due to much more severe circumstances. But I don't think Impostor Syndrome quite describes it. I suspect this feeling may be common in academia, in particular at the moment.
How can I support my struggling colleagues/friends and mentally handle the guilt that comes with surviving in academia (at least so far!) when so many others are facing an unprecedented crisis?

Be sure to distinguish between empathy for the misfortune of others and guilt for your own good fortune. The former is good and appropriate; the latter is self-destructive and inappropriate. Limit guilt to times when you have done something wrong.

Congrats on your new job! One way you might be able to turn these feelings into something positive is to use whatever influence your position affords to help the students or non-tenure track faculty in your department. You can't fix the limited availability of positions, or competition for them, but maybe you can play a role in making your department as supportive as possible for those experiencing stress from this situation.

Give to your students the idea that doing a phd (and an academic career) should be fun and not the only thing in life. They should always have hobbies, friends etc. and keep their eyes open for non-academic jobs (do not tell them (as many profs do) that all but academic is "evil"). People who have other things in life (friends etc., non-academic opportunities) will less likely burn out. After all, you cannot predict that somebody will succeed in academia anyway, too much luck..

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


text:
Supporting information self-plagiarism problem?
I just started my research career, and I may have made a mistake in the Supporting Information part of one of my papers. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Long story short: I published two papers, and they are all about mathematical modeling. For the first paper, I put the detailed model setup and parameters in the supporting information. For the second paper, I basically used the same model but expanded model capabilities, and I still listed the model setup and parameters in the SI part. The model setup and configurations for these two papers are basically the same, such as tables, equations, languages, etc. I sort of copy-pasted the key tables and equations from my first paper to my second paper, but they are all in the SI part, and I cited that the model setup and parameters are from the first paper.
So I wonder if what I did in my two papers in the SI part represents a plagiarism problem? If yes, are there any ways to make it correct? Please advise me.

The fact that the self-plagiarism is in the SI is not relevant.

Just out of curiosity, if you cited your 1st paper in your 2nd paper anyway, why did you decide to copy-paste all that stuff and not simply write "the model has been discussed in detail in Ref. [N]"?

If you correctly cited the earlier work in the later then it isn't self plagiarism. A reader, seeing the citation has access to the original. Self plagiarism is avoided completely by citation. Plagiarism isn't about copying. It is about failing to include correct attribution.
Copying is a copyright issue (assuming citation). If you still hold copyright to the original then copying fairly extensively is ok, but it should be indicated as such (quotations). Properly quoting lets the reader see what is new and what is old. Perhaps you failed here.
If you don't hold copyright then copying without quoting or copying too much can mean that you have violated the rights of the copyright holder. And, perhaps you failed here, also.
But it wasn't self plagiarism. The reason self plagiarism is an issue is that a reader of the second paper may need (and deserves to see) the complete context of an idea in order to evaluate it properly. If you self plagiarize then the reader is cut off from the earlier context (including, perhaps all referenced work there).


text:
How to reply this mail from potential PhD professor?
I have mailed to a professor and got the following reply in half an hour:

Thank you very much for your interest in the position and your application. We will start evaluating applications today and will let you know the result of the first step of the evaluation process in due course.

Do I need to reply to this mail, if yes then what could be decent reply?

I would say that this email would require no response. If you haven't heard anything in two or three weeks, then you should send an email inquiring about the progress of your application.

I agree with others that no response is required. I consider this email to be a simple receipt for your application. However, if you're nervous about it, a simple thank you note would suffice.

@lsr729 - it might help to clarify whether the mail you received was an appropriate response to your message. For example, if you wrote "would you like to buy a hamburger?" and got the quoted response, that would be a different situation than if you wrote "did you receive my application?"

I feel like more and more questions on Academia.SE boil down to "how do I interact with other people?". I think the mail clearly states what is going on and this might fit better for Workplace.SE.

I don't think it is a hand written email. It is probably automatic reply. Nothing expected they just want you to know that you managed to reach them.

@Ian Please don't pollute the Workplace.SE. The answer to this question boils down to a simple "No" which is too short for a comment or answer on this site and that one. OP does not specify a goal with replying to the email so it's pure conjecture as far as what qualifies as "decent". If OP would add a little more context and a goal statement then this question might be suited for https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/ which people tend to forget about since it is sadly no longer allowed in the HNQ.

What was it a reply to?

I doubt that any reply is expected. It seems to be a general response and may not have actually come from the professor, but from his/her office, instead.
I wouldn't expect much of any response until the deadline for application has passed. I suspect that viable candidates will then get further information about what else might be needed.
But if you haven't completed your application by submitting required materials, it would probably be good to do that soon.

The email can even be interpreted as a polite request not to reply or send more inquiry emails.

Do not reply
That email can be categorized as a non-actionable notification email.
If you respond then you might paint yourself as a desperate, rude, or oblivious person.

Desperate: You seek unnecessary affirmation
Rude: You do not trust the "due course" which they mentioned
Oblivious: You fail to understand that they are busy and would rather not receive inane follow-up emails

If you do not have a specific goal in your reply such as including crucial information which your application lacked then it's simply unneeded.


text:
What is the best practice to deal with students who sit in the back and laugh at other students' questions?
Term just started and I think every class does have some students who sit in the back (which is totally fine) but sometimes are challenging to deal with when they show some disrespect towards other students who wish to participate.
For example, if their colleague asks a question they start laughing. I try to be nice by asking if their colleague's question reminded them of an incident (in order to get them engaged). They say no and when I turn my back they keep on laughing.
I know I shouldn't take this seriously but I find it challenging at times to figure out how to deal with such kind of students. I know they might not be interested in my material but still want to be physically available which is fine. I don't know how to say enough is enough in a kind way such that they appreciate other students' questions.
This concerns last year undergraduate students. If you have any advice for such situations please share best practices.

@DanielHatton You have described the first year of medical school. We didn’t even make most of them up; they were already well established. (I just searched; they have cleaned them up.)

Related/Dupe : How to quiet noisy undergrads students during lecture

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Have you tried asking that student to answer the question, especially if it's nontrivial and it appears the bully is just trying to disparage the questioner for wanting to learn the material?

In my opinion, you should take this seriously. What you are observing is bullying. The students that are asking questions, and trying to participate, need to know that you have their back.
For example, during class, as soon as students start laughing:
"Excuse me, X was asking a question."
"Please be respectful of other students."
After class, follow up by email, again asking them to stop. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to be "kind" or "nice"; instead, ask them directly to stop laughing at others. If the behavior continues, threaten disciplinary action, and follow through if necessary.
Good luck.

+1 But could you be more specific about disciplinary action?  I don't believe my university has any procedure set up for this.

Actually, the behavior is disrespectful to everyone including the instructor.

@Kimball Many universities have an "Office of Student Conduct" or similar, and I would probably make a referral there. Alternatively, OP could ask their chair, dean, or ombuds what formal avenues exist at their university.

At my institution, disruptive students could be removed from the class; they got a grade of F.  In that case, a caution about the consequences, especially if it came from chair, dean, etc. might be effective.

Options vary widely. In contrast to @BobBrown's experience, at my school the instructor definitely cannot remove a student from class permanently; only one session at a time. And then one time I asked for that from public safety they denied I had that option and wouldn't do it (despite being explicitly written in the faculty handbook).

I think the best answer would be to ask the trouble making students to leave the classroom if they are disrupting learning.  However, there is no universal best answer.  For example if the trouble maker is the scion of a big donor you might just have to put up with it.  Alternatively if you are an instructor at a military academy you might order them to do pushups.

Yeah, I was going to suggest that OP tell them to GTFO, your answer is better.

This is not really specific to academia; public lack of respect can be construed as insubordination in some social environments. Typically this is best dealt with in private (i.e. ask trouble-makers to stay behind for a chat after class.) If after a private discussion this continues the consequences should escalate.

@Kimball Your university has no option to deal with unruly/disruptive students? I don't believe that.

@DanielR.Collins Their denial should have been escalated. That nonsense must be curbed at its onset, else everybody suffers.

@Kubahasn'tforgottenMonica At least I haven't heard of any official steps we should take as instructors for reporting disruptions in class, short of things explicit Title IX violations.  I haven't had to deal with this, but my guess is that the university would want me to handle it on my own.

@Kubahasn'tforgottenMonica: Generally good idea I'm sure, but we've had similar escalations go nowhere.

I'm afraid my response would not be as diplomatic as those suggested in the other answers.

This concerns last year undergraduate students.

You are dealing with adults. Moreover, you are dealing with adults who are likely paying tuition in order to attend your lectures. This isn't grade school; attendance is not compulsory, and they are free to leave if they feel your class is not worth their time.
For the first and second incidents, I would respond as suggested by academic:
"Excuse me, your classmate is speaking. Do you have something to contribute?"
Hopefully this puts an end to their disruption. If not, I would respond to subsequent offenses with stronger language:
"Excuse me, why are you here? If you don't feel like you can prevent yourself from disrupting our class, you are free to leave. No one will stop you. If you need this class for degree credits, consider dropping it and re-enrolling at such a time that you've matured to a point where you can contribute meaningfully to the discussion."
I realize this is more confrontational than most instructors are willing to be. That said, embarrassment can be a very effective means of making your point.

It feels as if after saying these students are adults, you suggest speaking to them as if they were children

Au contraire, Owen. Children should be addressed with grace and patience. The disruptors here are adults, so the expectation is that they act as adults. If they choose to act with disrespect, that disrespect will be returned.

The problem with adults "who are likely paying tuition in order to attend your lectures" is that they can view themselves as customers.

@rackandboneman: Just because they are customers doesn't mean that they can be disrespectful and fail to follow rules.  If I pay $10 to visit a museum attached to a famous church and I don't follow the "Please be quiet and respectful" signs, I would expect to be reminded of the sign by a guard.  If I go to Macy's, pick up a frying pan and start yelling that BrandX pans are crap, then I'd likely be escorted from the store, even if I had just bought (and paid for) merchandize.  I've "fired" customers before.

@OwenReynolds adults who behave like children shall be treated as such.

@rackandboneman all the other students who are being disrupted are customers too by the same token

@SethR That's my point. From the "say this to them" part the advice seems to be: if they act like children, treat them like children. But the part above with "adults" doesn't lead us there. It looks as if the answerer started writing one answer and changed into another 1/2-way.

@OwenReynolds, I think I understand your point. My guess is the confusion lies in our different implicit understandings of my sentence "You are dealing with adults".  For me, the implicit part is "You are dealing with adults, and therefore such behavior shouldn't be tolerated." You, I imagine, read that same sentence as "You are dealing with adults, so make an appeal to their maturity."

Exactly -- I think being explicit about the steps and reasoning is more helpful than the "say this" part. One can simply memorize that, say it, and be done -- it has to be in their own words, for the exact situation, and able to respond to replies. I feel like the important part of your answer is "1) what they're doing is very bad, 2) as adults, you can really yell at them and not be charged with child abuse, 3) one way to yell is to sarcastically treat them like 1st graders".

But I don’t suggest yelling or sarcasm. My answer suggests a frank presentation of the facts of the situation in order to make clear that certain behavior is unwelcome in a college classroom.

I understand your challenge. Have you established house rules at the start of your course? If not, you still can. Also, you could consider inviting the misbehaving students for a one-on-one in your office.

It's not too late. You could say "I didn't expect that I would have to put up house rules about behavior that can be assumed from an average adult person, but here we go"

Are people downvoting based on a misunderstanding? @Mario did write that it is NOT too late.

@erc Oops, that was the case for me! Thanks for clarifying. Now upvoted

"House rules at the start of the course" - explain basic human decency at the start of a college course? If you have to explain this stuff, it should only be explained when the circumstance arises, and no more then once - otherwise the perp doesn't belong in said classroom.

My solution might not be yours, but I learned from many (many) years as a student and professor that when one student asks a question, others in the class also have that question but aren't brave enough to answer it.
I developed a facial expression (one raised eyebrow) that can be used to express skepticism or extreme displeasure. I might walk over to an offending student (for this or other actions) and simply look down and put on "that face". They got the idea pretty quickly. But an invitation to my office, or to leave the room, might be appropriate if the behavior continues.
The second possibility would be to hand one of the offenders the board marker (chalk in the early days) and ask them to show the answer/solution to the question. It won't work for everyone, but for many it is a clear disincentive.
Both of these are a bit aggressive, of course, so I hesitate to recommend it to non-tenured faculty. But, you could also have a conversation with the department head and ask for advice, perhaps making a couple of suggestions for a response.
I never had a problem with administration over some seemingly radical actions, but sometimes you have to do somewhat dramatic things to get through to people.

"The second possibility would be to hand one of the offenders the board marker (chalk in the early days) and ask them to show the answer/solution to the question."  Perhaps, but that can backfire badly --- sometimes the unruly students are ahead of the curve, and enjoy showing off.

@Ben. yes, true enough. It won't work for everyone.

-1 for advising things that "are a bit aggressive, of course". I've approached a student like that in the past and he and his buddy jumped out of their chairs and threatened to attack me ("don't come at me, yo") and then ran from the room. Never again.

@DanielR.Collins: Sometimes I find what you report in your comments a bit scary (honestly; no sarcasm intended). Walking over to a student with a displeasured look on the face, or asking them to answer a question on the board if they just disrupted the class, makes some students threaten the instructor at your college? How do you manage to teach your students anything under such circumstances? (I mean this is a genuine question - I think I personally would be completely desperate within weeks.)

@JochenGlueck: Thanks for thinking about that. :-) I've only had to call security a few times (but again, I stopped certain interactions after that one event). Took a self-defense course to get more confident physically. The real problem is the lower-level (remedial) classes full of sad, helpless, desperate students who are illiterate and find it impossible to learn 4th-grade math; higher-level classes are more reasonable. At this point I'm pretty anti-open-admissions.

@DanielR.Collins: Thanks for your reply and for sharing your experiences!

@Ben But if they can answer the question, all the better. They stop laughing and contribute to the class. That's good teaching. One could invite them to hold a 30 min talk and expand on the problem at hand beyond what's normally taught. Might give them an A. The things I remember best from high school and college are the talks  I prepared.

@Peter-ReinstateMonica, as an undergrad I took an upper level course in which we were all required to present one lecture. Not because the prof (a mentor, actually) was lazy. I seem to recall I did a terrible job of it. He forgave me eventually. But it was good experience.

I would use verbal cues asking the offender to stop. Individuals in the Autism Spectrum cannot read facial expressions. The students may defend themselves (perhaps at the student services) by saying, "I've this disability and cannot read non-verbal cues." Another possibility is that the student is from a different culture and understand "one raised eyebrow" in a different manner.

Irrespective of whether this rises to the level of bullying or not (and I don't really want to get into the weeds on that), as an academic teaching undergraduates, you need to learn to "control the room".  Undergraduates are generally young and sometimes immature.  Consequently, you should ensure that your classroom is being run by a responsible adult (you) and you should avoid allowing a situation where "the inmates run the asylum".  This is a situation you should take seriously, and I think you should look at it in a broader sense that abstracts from the specific problem you are having with these partiular unruly students.
Establishing authority in a classroom (without being overbearing yourself) is a subtle art, but you can speak to experienced academics in your department and get them to help you with this.  As a general rule, if there is persistent misbehaviour, you can start out with polite requests, then escalate to calm but firm statements of what you require, and then escalate to removing students from the classroom.  In extreme cases you might escalate to a private meeting or a disciplinary action.  In some cases it can be appropriate to give unruly undergraduates a bit of a "dressing down" (usually in private) to enforce behavioural standards.
From your description of the problem here, it sounds like you have probably already established an atmosphere in your classroom where misbehaving students do not take your authority and instructions seriously.  This can be difficult to remedy for the class under consideration, but it is a good prompt to try to start your next course with a commitment to establishing control over the room early on in the course.  Seek help from experienced academics and have them sit in on a class with you to observe if that would be helpful (but take account of the Hawthorne effect).

The professional phrase is "classroom management". The university will teach this skill in its education faculty, for classes of both children and of adult learners.

Maybe some of you will find this a bit harsh but as a student, I had last year a professor asking the question back to the people laughing :

John, can you answer the question you are laughing at?

If he failed, he would get a small remark from the professor and was laughed at, a bit.
People quickly stop chuckling at each other questions and from then. It became the favourite professor of a big part of the class.
Note that he almost never asked the question if it could be answered, in this case, he directly made a remark.

Simply have them leave the class, they cannot disrupt if they are not there and a very strong message is sent to the others that it will not be tolerated. Repeat interruptions  simply drop them  from the class. I taught ordnance disposal and never tolerated for 1 instant a source of disruption. I would show them a photo of someone who needed to be fed, wiped, placed into bed, bathed for life. They were not even able to kill themselves and were a burden to everyone they loved for the rest of their life. Just have them leave, the remaining students will thank you for it and you can fulfil your goal of imparting knowledge instead of playing class cop.

"I would show them a photo [...] for the rest of their life." Is this lecture material that they were laughing at? Or is this supposed to be some form of punishment??

@DrakeP, In the context of ordinance disposal, the gesture means, "If you don't pay attention, you may blow off one or more of your appendages and end up in this situation"

I think you mean 'ordnance'. Ordinance is a local by-law & not likely to result in such extreme consequences if mishandled ;)

@Tetsujin: A course teaching the disposal of local by-laws might be just as interesting.  ;)

I mostly agree with the general theme of the other answers here, but figured I'd contribute by making something very explicit: You absolutely should take this seriously, and furthermore whatever you do should ensure that the number of times that a student behaves disruptively in such a manner is kept in the low single digits.
I'm surprised that this behavior has not yet completely stifled participation from the rest of the class. That shows that the at least some of the other students are headstrong enough to ensure they get the best of their education despite the rude interruptions of others; not all students will be this way and it should not be expected of them.
The other answers have already given suggestions on how to escalate if the problem does not resolve. But you also need to make clear to yourself that at some point in this escalation there needs to be a step that reads "inform the offending students they are no longer welcome at your lecture", regardless of what else you may do. You cannot allow this to have a long term effect on the degree to which other students feel comfortable making the most of your class.

The questions might (intentionally or unintentionally) be hilarious.
I would ask what is funny about the question. This isn't guaranteed to get an answer as sometimes for various reasons people don't want to or can't articulate why something is funny, but it seems to be a good place to start. Or you could ask some other people about the questions, and see if any of them think they are funny. I think it would probably be okay to share some examples of the questions here.
If the laughing students are not actually laughing out of amusement, then I would first get that agreed on, and then ask why them they are laughing. If they say, "no reason", then explain calmly and respectfully (kindly, if that is your preference) that you are finding it difficult to teach when they are laughing, and that you would appreciate it if they would not laugh while another student is asking a you a serious question.
By treating them with respect, you increase the chance that they will treat you with respect.
If this doesn't work, then you can try again, asking whether or not they are willing to agree to stop laughing when other students are asking serious questions. If they say no, then you can ask why not, or if you don't care why not, explain that they will be kicked out of your class or whatever if they don't agree to it.
That's what I'd like to think I would do.

The answer is great starting from "Explain calmly and respectfully that you are finding it difficult to teach". The decision tree at the beginning of the answer leaves lots and lots of tricky branches unconsidered, and all the branching doesn't seem necessary anyway; if it's difficult to teach with the laughing, that's true no matter why they're laughing, so don't bother asking about it.

@DanielWagner I partially take your point about the "tricky branches". I pruned the answer accordingly, and generally improved the English.
Maybe the problem in the lectures is the questions. For example, what if the questions are subtly improper, and the laughing students are trying to let the lecturer know that by laughing? Or the students simply can't control themselves, because the questions are so hilariously improper?

That's a good point, thank you for that!

In addition to giving warnings and removing students from class if they don't heed the warning, you should also consider if attending class is really necessary. If not, and it's good enough if students submit homework problems, then that should be mentioned at the beginning of the course. You then don't have bored students in your class who would rather do something else if attendance was not compulsory.

If you know the names of the offenders, I would contact them directly by email asking them to show respect for other students in the class.
If you don't know the names, if such an event occurs, without calling anybody out, I'd ask the class to please show respect to the others in the class.  If the behavior continues, you have the option of immediately asking the students to leave the room, or pull them aside after class and tell them that they'll be asked to leave the room after such an event in the future.

I suggest changing “by email” to “in writing”.

In my classes, part of their grade is professionalism. In the syllabus, it's a multiplier applied to their final grade, so there is no limit to how much impact it can have. I explain on the first day of class that any disrespectful behavior toward me or any other student will immediately result in a reduced grade, per the syllabus.
Since you didn't start out this way, I would make an announcement at the beginning of class that being respectful toward your peers and toward the class content is a part of their participation grade (I'm sure you have something like this in your syllabus), and that any comments that distract from questions or other educational activities will henceforth result in reduced final grades with the possibility of failing. I would do perhaps a half a letter grade per incident. Be serious and prepared to do it.
I would not call anyone out specifically during class time as that may further embarrass the person asking the question and make an enemy of the offender. Instead, you may want to send private emails to the offenders letting them know that they are at risk for a participation penalty. Even better, ask them to come to your office, separately, and then tell them in person what you expect from them in a serious but not punitive tone.
Making class less educational for others is a significant offense, and I think it should be treated as such. If you have a repeat offender, start a paper trail so if you need to fail them, you can do so.
You need to be very professional and sober about this. You set the tone for the class and can be a powerful influence on them without having to explicitly punish anyone.

So you can give a student a 0 with a perfect exam if you think the student was not "professional enough"? This can very easily be abused by instructors to give worse grades to people they "don't like", and it also removes any right the student has to a review of their grade, because there is no proof and no objective measure of "professionalism". I doubt that this system is allowed in many universities, and I hope it is not.

@wimi It's pretty easy to make it objective - as farnsy says, all you need to do is give them notice in writing each time they do it.  They would be entitled to challenge each of those warnings, and they would be entitled to challenge the verdict on their degree of unprofessionalism at the end of the course.  Whether it's fair or unfair, there's a reviewable body of evidence which either side can use.

I have never been at a university that micromanaged grades. I do have to file some paperwork in order to actually fail a student and my guess is that they could appeal that, though I have never heard of it happening. However, to give a student a C based on subjective factors when they would have an A if their behavior was better is certainly permitted. There are many university classes where grades are mostly or totally subjective. Not mine, but they exist.

You did not add a country name but since you mention "undergraduate", I guess this is the US - my perspective is French.
I had once this case when teaching (first year of university). I asked once "What is the problem?", and then "Leave the course now" when they were maliciously sniggering again. They tried to explain that I have no right to throw them out, I said "leave now" again and they left.
This did not happen afterward (they were back for the next course).
I think you should take this very seriously. It is a juvenile attempt to see who is stronger, and if you want to have a normal year you should be over the top to show that this cannot happen.
Getting rid of this behaviour is also something you do for other students so that they are not afraid to ask questions.
Disclaimer: this is for France, a country where students come to study and there is no expectation that they are "paying customers". They are students and learn from a teacher, whose role is also to keep the course in one piece.
One note that is probably not relevant: I had a hard time once, as a student, to not burst into laughter when someone asked a question. The question was generic, it is just that we've been teasing each other with other students (yeah, I know) and it was that time when you giggle about anything. I do not believe that this is your case at it seems to be repeated, but a mea culpa just in case.

Instead of taking a rude or passive-aggressive approach, you should just lay out the facts of the situation to everyone. Just say,
"It seems like people are laughing after questions are being asked; while you may be laughing at something unrelated to the questions, it's hard for people to know you aren't laughing at what they said. Please exercise judgement when deciding when to laugh."
If students keep it up after this, then just say "name, that was a inappropriate time to laugh" at each occurrence.

Honestly, this is probably a fast track for someone to lose all credibility. I would not be surprised if the answer was another burst of laughter. If you then say "it was inappropriate to laugh" you are cooked.