text:
Sending a manuscript to editor of journal before submission to journal
I submitted my manuscript to two journals online (not at the same time). During the process of submissions I was asked to determine the editor and I selected the same editor in both journals. Need to say, the editor whom I selected is a specialist in my field word (mathematics). Unfortunately, in both journals, my manuscript was rejected. In the first journal, I received no report about rejection, that is why I submitted to the second one. The second journal rejected my article with a report on the technical reason of rejection including some reasoning. Now I have already tried to solve the errors and prepared a new version of that. I would like to try to submit it again to another journal again with the same editor of previous journals. Does it have a bad effect if I submit again for this editor? Can I send an email to potential editor to ask his opinion on my new version of manuscript, then I submit it formally to the journal who is its editor? I am asking this because I suppose he probably has a presence of his mind about my manuscript and it helps me to speed out the publication of paper.

Unfortunately  this depends somewhat on personalities so a definite answer is impossible. But if your communication with the editor has been helpful/cordial then it might not entail much risk, contacting that editor.
But since you already have two rejections where the person was involved, you might want to try for a fresh look at your paper with a different editor. This is especially the case since you weren't encouraged to resubmit with revisions.
You might also try contacting that editor without sending the paper and just give the title and state that you have revised the paper with advice from the reviewer and ask for any advice they might be willing to give. Perhaps they ask to see the paper. Or not.

I don’t see the benefit of trying a third journal with the same editor. This person already rejected your paper twice, that suggests they do not think highly of it. There are plenty of math journals, I strongly suggest finding one with a new editor who will look at your paper with fresh eyes.
As for a pre-submission email, that would be going outside the normal process, and the normal process exists precisely so that all authors have a uniform, consistent process to have their papers evaluated. It’s frustrating to get repeated rejections and to deal with automated submission workflows, but this is how the system is set up - for everyone - and there are no shortcuts. In very exceptional cases I’d say it’s acceptable to ask for an editor’s informal opinion, but your situation doesn’t sound like one of them.
In any case, good luck!

Thank you for your answer. Can I use researchgate website for asking my question from editor?

@user40491 I don’t know enough about researchgate to understand what you mean or whether that’s a feasible idea, sorry.

This person already rejected your manuscript twice. So there is a little chance you will be able to convince him in the third attempt unless you have revised your manuscript with some major corrections.
Also, I don't think sending a manuscript to a person is a good idea unless you know and trust the person very well.

You could find the official email address and contact the editor. The editor will tell you some information. If it is OK, you could send the new paper to the editor directly. By the way, if the editor has contacted you, you also you could send it to the editor.
I am an editor. If there are authors who send new papers to my email address，I will send the feedback to them in time.

I took out the spammy part of the answer.


text:
Small mistakes in research or personal statement
I have recently submitted required documents to apply for a postdoc position. One of the required documents was a personal statement. Unfortunately, after its submission, I found two grammatical mistakes, for example I used present tense of a verb instead of past tense. It does not make a big change in the meaning of the sentence. What do you think about bad effects of these mistakes?

Was it in your native language?

No one can really say except the one that reads your application materials. Likely it will have little effect, unless the field depends on correct use of language in an essential way. Even there, however, people make mistakes and other people recognize that they do.
But a good plan for the future is to have a colleague or friend read your materials before you send them to comment on things they find confusing or incorrect.
You can, of course, send a note of correction if it is in any way important. "I am the king of the world" is a bit different from "I was the king of the world."

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Introduction depends on preliminaries. What to do?
I am writing a paper but have the following problem. The introduction section requires basic knowledge of things introduced in the preliminaries. As I understand it, it is customary (in computer science) that one has an introduction and than preliminaries which would mean that most people would not understand the introduction section.
How should I deal with this kind of dependence?

Have you read other papers in related topics? How do these papers deal with this issue?

There are no such papers. We are introducing a new topic. Is there a general way to proceed?

@DaveLRenfro: please promote your comment to an answer.

We are introducing a new topic (from a comment you made) --- Then you'll want to look at papers that deal with new topics. Can't you just give a non-technical overview, something in which someone who doesn't know this topic can follow, with possibly a statement telling the reader that precise definitions of some of the terms are given in the preliminaries section? I've seen quite a few math papers do this, where there is an introduction followed by a "notations and definitions" section.
Here is a freely available example of a paper with a general introduction followed by a preliminaries section that gives detailed definitions of terms used in the introduction. Also, at the time the paper appeared, the main object of study (sigma-porous sets) was still fairly new and not widely known, and it was almost certainly not known by a typical reader of the journal in which this paper was published.

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


text:
How to get feedback on a paper most effectively
Suppose that a PhD student is writing a paper by themself. A person who is an expert in the area offers to read the paper and give feedback. The expert explicitly mentions he is fine with getting unpolished paper for feedback. When should the student send the draft for feedback. Specifically, is it better to get it relatively polished before sending it, or should I send it earlier? Or when it is completely finished? The expert is only going to read it and give advice once, so it's not possible to do multiple iterations.

No, I have published a few papers before.

I would send a polished paper -- to the best of your ability.  I've offered such help before.  However, the student's level was way too low, so I said no after receiving the paper.

The answer is really "it depends".
What kind of feedback do you need? If you're worried about the overall structure and the correctness of the results, sooner is better, but don't make your reader struggle with fragmentary work. Make your best guesses, write a draft, and provide marginal questions ("do I need more detail here?", "should this section be omitted, or merged with an earlier one?").
If you're comfortable with your second or fourth draft and want just polishing, send the paper when you think you are nearly finished.
If you know the potential reader well enough you might ask what kind of feedback they are willing to provide.


text:
How does having baby affect tenure track offer or tenure track success?
I am a PhD candidate with one child (18 months) and one year left in the PhD. My husband and I want at least one more child. I am trying to learn about the relative pros and cons of having a child during the summer after defending vs the summer after my first year on the tenure track. I don't feel 100% confident that I will get a tenure track offer, but I also have some good signs. Here is what I came up with:
Baby after defense/summer before starting tenure track:

(+) I will be 1 year younger, giving more flexibility if decide to
have a 3rd child, possibly bounce back sooner etc.
(+?) I have been told the first year of tenure track is typically less productive research-wise because of teaching responsibilities. I have successfully done the "teach with new baby" thing during grad school, but my research definitely suffered during that semester (partially because my class was a new prep). If I am going to have reduced research output, the first year might be the time to bite that bullet?
(-) Pregnant on the job market, face possible discrimination. This would be more of an issue at flyouts when I would be showing.
(-) I didn't get morning sickness with first pregnancy and 3rd trimester pain was manageable, but no guarantees of easy 2nd pregnancy. Difficult on the job market.
(-) Moving to new city while super-pregnant or with infant (really least of my worries)

Baby after first tenure track year:

(+) Would likely get time off the tenure clock
(+) Not pregnant on the job market, perhaps get better offer
(-) Might have a greater impact on research to have infant during 2nd year, which is typically more productive than 1st (so I have heard)
(-) Perhaps hurt reputation with colleagues/will have to have weird and awkward conversations about my pregnancy with new colleagues (At least this is my experience in grad school - 50%+ asked me if my pregnancy was planned, etc. So awkward.)
(-) If we want a 3rd kid, that will be pushed back closer to tenure review.

Am I missing anything? Does anyone have any real-life observations about timing an academic baby?

I can't answer this question but would recommend this : http://ecologybits.com/index.php/2016/05/18/when-should-i-start-a-family-actual-advice-rather-than-platitudes-for-the-early-career-academic/

Will you have health insurance after you finish your PhD and before you start a new job? (Including if you don't get a job offer this cycle, a contingency you do need to plan for.)

Yes, I can always get on my husband's insurance. My backup option if I don't get a TT job is to work either at a research thinktank in DC or do some sort of local visiting prof gig to wait for the next cycle.

So, you are limited to DC because that's where your husband is?  Or if you get a good job in Kalamazoo, your husband will move there with you?

My husband is a scientist with a PhD. His work is somewhat flexible - he could be a "data scientist" or "computational biologist" and has experience in academia and startups and research institutes. We think he could get a good job in many large cities. Small cities will be more difficult. He is prepared to move, but we do want him to have a job.

Given the amount of people without babies that fail to reach tenure, I'm not sure this actually matters.

@Michael That's at best naive.  The fact that women are on the tenure clock or searching for TT job for much of their peak years for having children is a huge problem that academia needs to think about a lot more seriously.  Lots of people with children get tenure, and many without don't, but that doesn't mean there's no connection.

@BenWebster true.

How did things turn out?

We had our second in spring semester of my first year. Seems to have worked out well. I am very glad not to have been pregnant on the job market - I think that would have been even more awkward than people knowing I had a toddler.

(Just to put my experience first: I'm a man, and had my first child about 7 months ago, around the same time I went up for tenure.)
This is one of those "your mileage may vary pretty massively" questions.  My general recommendation is that it's better to have to the baby once you're more established in your job, but there are so many moving parts, no single recommendation can work.
Some people have a less productive year the first year they are on the tenure-track (I don't think I did), but in many disciplines, that's because they are assembling a lab, which I'm not sure you want to be doing with a new baby either.  In my opinion, the minuses you list are pretty big.
If I were going on the job market as a pregnant woman, I would be very worried about unconscious discrimination.  I don't think you would have problems with this most places, but it often just takes a couple of people in a department to sink your candidacy, and they could be influenced by the pregnancy without knowing it.
I think also you're neglecting the fact that if you have your baby after starting your new job, you will probably be eligible for maternity leave.  Most places I of in practice give a semester of maternity or paternity leave, though with some caveats (at my current institution, it's usually possible to get a semester off teaching, but with other service duties still required after the first few weeks).  I've known people who had babies late in postdocs who really lamented missing out on this.
The matter of your reputation with colleagues is pretty hard to game out.  I'm sure there do exist departments where showing up either with a new baby or immediately becoming pregnant might make a bad impression.  This would mean your colleagues are jerks, but unfortunately, it's hard to guarantee your colleagues won't be jerks. I feel like it's likely to be a wash though, since colleagues can just as easily be weird about the fact that you have a baby, as that you are pregnant.

In Australia, postdocs get maternity leave.

But they don't have tenure in the US sense in Australia either...

Thanks Ben, this seems like a thoughtful and well-balanced perspective. I especially found the note, "it often just takes a couple of people in a department to sink your candidacy" helpful.

Another point about maternity benefits: there exist institutions/employers where full maternity benefits (health insurance, leave policy, etc.) won't kick in unless you've worked there for at least a year. For Universities most of this information can be found in their faculty handbooks, which are frequently posted on the university website. Else the relevant policies may be found on the human resources website. The actual policy of your potential employer is something that you can research in the comforts  of your own home without tipping your hand.

Ask the HR department when you get a job.
Many places put a 1 year delay in the TT process if you have a baby.
Watch out for unintentional discrimination during a fly-out.  While technically illegal, pregnancy often counts against a candidate.
(Full disclosure: I am also a man, so take my comment with a large grain of salt)

The TT delay is my biggest positive to waiting. However, given the fact that babies take 9 months, this decision will need to be made before i have a job so I won't know the details of that in advance.

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


text:
Long distance collaboration with a professor – wrote manuscript, getting ignored. What to do next?
This summer I was involved in a long distance collaboration with a researcher at an institution for clinical research. I was essentially CC'd to this person via an old colleague who currently works with this professor as a faculty member when the professor I collaborated with apparently expressed to my colleague that they needed more manpower to finish writing a manuscript given their busy schedule.
Anyways, this researcher had me conduct a literature review for a series of rare, clinically related human disorders to serve as the base of a case report for a series of patients who presented at this institution for a clinical trial, as well as some basic statistical analyses. I essentially typed what would be the base of this paper. This institution is a top 20 NIH funded institution and my old colleague is very trustworthy, so I was very ecstatic to work on this project during the summer.  This researcher even speculated on specific journals we should target for publication. The researcher and I had good interactions via e-mail and after I was finished with "baking the cake" so to speak with the review, the researcher praised my work and said all that they had to do was pull up the patient demographics and specific presentations of the patients to input. I do not have access to that sensitive information as I am not affiliated with that institution, so I was dependent upon them for that.
The researcher did not reply for what was around a month, so I sent an update e-mail kindly inquiring on the status of the project, thanking the researcher for allowing me to work with them, saying I learned a lot conducting the literature review, etc.
Ignored for another month. At this point I am frustrated because at the time I did all this work in about 3 days with very, very little sleep knowing I had personal familial commitments to attend to and I would be away from a computer for an extended period of time (around a week or two) and I thought this researcher was adamant about needing the "manpower" as per my old colleague.
What do I do now? I'm assuming there's nothing much I can do. I live pretty far from this institution so it's not like I can drive up there for a meeting. Moreover, to walk in unannounced sounds very vulgar. I can't tattletale to my old colleague because why would I drag him into something he isn't a part of? I wanted to get this project to completion because I am looking to apply to this same exact institution for a fellowship later on in my career and am looking at this specific department. Moreover, I was genuinely passionate about the project and felt like authorship in that field would boost my morale. I also thought developing rapport with faculty would help my prospective academic career. I tried looking at my e-mails and even had friends look through my e-mails to see if I had inadvertently wrote something that could be interpreted aggressive, rude, or accidentally offensive (like calling them Mr./Ms. instead of Dr.) but I found nothing.

Since email isn't working, I see two alternatives. The simple one is to contact the person who originally got you involved to see if they know what the problem might be. Presumably this person knows both of you and may know the other person better than you do.
The only other solution with a positive outcome is to contact the other party in person. Your question is "How shall we proceed?" not "What is the problem here?". There might be any number of things in the way, but you have no way to  know with a passive approach.
It's not impossible that you are being used and therefore ignored. But you shouldn't conclude that without more information.

Thank you for your reply. I will indeed try contacting my old colleague and ask him for his insight. That is a good idea that I was hesitant to pursue but your framing of the situation makes it seems like a reasonable route. Secondly, if I am indeed being used, hypothetically, is there anything I can do to get some form of recognition if I have e-mails of the interaction with promises, time stamps of files and results that are shown to have happened chronologically on my computer prior to them receiving data and using it for publication, etc.? If they ever do publish that is.

@user12289, first you need information. Speculation is a dead end at this point. But your old colleague may be an ally

It might not be a bad idea to call the person, or call the department to see if the person had been there.  The colleague might have had mitigating circumstances.


text:
Advice on postgrad research application (UK, pure maths)
I'm looking for advice on postgraduate study in pure maths from academics or people involved in the application process.
I have enjoyed studying pure maths (particularly algebra) throughout my undergrad and masters course, and would like to continue studying it by doing a research based masters or a PhD. Given my grades, I think going straight into a PhD is unrealistic and possibly unwise, so I plan on applying for research-based masters. I got a 2:2 in my undergrad from the University of Bath and a merit in a taught masters from the University of London. In Bath, I never got below 70% in coursework but I really struggled keeping my head in exams. I would get overwhelmed with stress and not be able to do anything properly — I felt like this was the limiting factor for me, not my mathematical ability. Of course, I am aware that I'm not necessarily better than this, I just feel that exams were more a test of holding my nerve rather than how well I can do maths. I genuinely enjoy working on problem sheets and coursework and haven't done badly in those, which is why I want to continue with my studies. If I had received those grades for [decent mathematical effort] I would accept that I'm likely not cut out for a postgrad research programme. I think I would regret not going for it even if I turned out to be no good — at least I'd know for sure that I'm not suited to doing a PhD.
When I went to the University of London, it was during the pandemic and so exams were done from home. I found being in a more relaxed setting with more time helped a bit, and I averaged 69% in these exams.
I have emailed a few departments about this and they aren't responding to me, so any advice you can give would be very welcome. I wanted to contact admissions about my grades before contacting potential supervisors for the research project (to ensure that I'm eligible for the programmes). The entry requirements are usually a 2:1 honours degree, and I think the Merit in my MSc satisfies this.
Thank you for taking the time to read this!
TLDR; bad grades due to panicking in exams (2:2), but always got a first in coursework and did pretty well on problem sheets. Would I be considered for a year-long research-based masters in pure maths?

"The entry requirements are usually a 2:1 honours degree, and I think the Merit in my MSc satisfies this." When I was working in the UK, this was correct (to be precise, in my area in my place). Chances are it still is. " I wanted to contact admissions about my grades before contacting potential supervisors for the research project (to ensure that I'm eligible for the programmes)." My advice is to cut that first bit out and contact potential supervisors. My experience is admissions are often not keen on being contacted. Also often you can find eligibility criteria on the web.


text:
Decline postdoc after signing - health issue
I write to ask how to renege on a signed postdoc position in the US, and whether there should be legal consequences.
During the embassy interview waiting time, the health of one of my close family members deteriorated and it would be very difficult for me to travel even for one year.
I have not applied for the visa yet.

I would guess that most universities would accommodate you in some way if you just ask and explain the situation. There is little benefit to anyone to try to force the issue.
But, you should ask in person if possible (zoom, say) and also ask what your options are. Some places will be able to put off your appointment for a year, others not. But you can ask.
While legal issues might technically be possible, there seems little point in it.

Thanks, I am not sure putting off would be responeible.

Looks like we gave similar answers within an hour of each other!

Responsible in what way?

In the sense that I cannot guarantee my availability in the future

I'm not a lawyer and do not give legal advice, but in academic culture, nobody reasonable will be upset with you if you decide you no longer want a job because you need to take care of someone else.

Dear Future Supervisor,
I regret to inform you that I will not be able to take up the position of Postdoc in your group.  I have recently learned that I must care for a family member instead.  I am sorry for the inconvenience and I wish you the best of luck filling the position.
Sincerely,
...

HR might ask you to sign something.  If they do, only sign it if you are sure you understand it and agree to it.

If they get mad at you, it's probably a bad place to work anyway.

Do not rush. You signed the contract, at the time you were perfectly fit for the proposed job. Now, between the signing of the contract and the official start of the employment, you had some event of major cause that may prevent you doing the job.
The event was not under your control, so you have good ground to cancel the contract (there is probation time, there is always the issue of visa to be sorted out). I would proceed carefully, completing the visa procedure and at the same time asking for a posticipation of starting date.
Under the employment contract'terms, there may be special conditions to assist close relatives falling ill, or having disabilities (temporary or permanent) needing special and constant supervision.
First things first: be clear and transparent with your future supervisor, call him/her and tell him/her what you told us here, be as detailed as you feel like but as precise as possible. What would be your "dream" plan B? working from remote part-time, assisting your relative? does it make sense for such a plan (were you going to take over a lab position? or something else that can be done remotely?).
Good luck, and all the best for your family.

What field? You might be able to “save” the postdoc by working remotely from your home country if you feel up to caring for your family member and doing the postdoc work at the same time. No US legal consequences can reach you, wherever you are since those kinds of treaties don’t exist for failure to fulfill a contract. If you feel up to it, try asking. Worst case is that some day you move to the US and get sued for them having to spend time finding a different person. That’s a loser of a case for them as it will cost them more than they could get out of you, and it’s not illegal for one private party to fail to hold up their end of a contract. That’s what lawsuits are for.

This way of talking out the legal side gives the wrong impression (that you could get sued, vs that it would be pointless to sue you). How you make the point matters.

Dawn can you elaborate?

@Dawn, OP asks about legal consequences, thus the bent of my post. I don't understand your comment. I pointed out, maybe too elliptically some possibilities (sued for breach of contract, etc) and some reasons I didn't think they should worry about them (hard to sue an international from the US due to cost, service (how do you serve notice of suit on someone in another country?), and enforceability). Yes, maybe OP has to make the point very, very carefully when backing out, but I don't think they're going to get sued or arrested if they come to the US later.

Yes, the elliptical phrasing is what I dislike. I am hoping Bill Barth can make the point more carefully (not the OP). So apparently I also need to be more clear!!!

"it’s not illegal for one private party to fail to hold up their end of a contract. That’s what lawsuits are for."  Those two statements are mutually inconsistent.  When someone breaches a contract, they get sued because it's illegal to breach a contract.

@AnonymousPhysicist, when I think of “illegal”, I think of things you ca be arrested and jailed for. When we sue each other and one of us has a statute in their favor, that’s probably “illegal”, too. There’s no danger of criminal illegality here was the point I was trying to make. No danger of jail time. All of this to the best of my knowledge in the US and Texas where I reside. We can’t contract with a penalty that I go to jail if I fail to deliver.

@BillBarth Your definition of illegal is wrong.

Here's a Texas example of a prison sentence imposed for failing to deliver.  https://tadlaw.com/can-breach-contract-lead-criminal-charges/

Ok y’all are right. It’s illegal to breach a contract. Still, not likely to get you sent to jail for employment contracts you never started


text:
Criticism by referee
I got a report on one of my papers recently, in which the referee claimed my results were "natural". This was one of their primary reasons for rejecting my paper. I agree the proofs are not exceptionally difficult, but on the other hand I feel my results significantly advance our understanding of certain mathematical objects, and may be crucial in answering some open questions in the field. Is the rejection simply a consequence of my not adequately "selling" my results, or is insufficient novelty a good enough reason for rejecting a paper?  In time, I feel that I will be able to use the results to answer these big questions, but of course there is no guarantee of this. Should I simply aim for a lesser journal now, or is the referee's comment likely to be echoed by other reviewers, in which case I should "hold my fire" until (if?) I draft a more substantial paper?

Impossible to answer without seeing the paper. Presumably the referee is an expert in the field, I'd read criticism with care. As you say, "it wasn't too hard to prove", that'd mean it isn't novel enough.

Of course “insufficient novelty” is a good enough reason to reject a paper; indeed, it’s one of most common reasons!  Every journal has a different standard for how much novelty they expect, so a different journal might react differently.  As for what you should do, it is impossible for strangers on the internet who do not know your situation or research to answer.  You should talk (in person) to a mentor.

It's possible that your results are not interesting to the reviewer. It's like showing you can start a fire with two matches as opposed to one. I would go, meh... move on.

Maybe the results were not interestinf enough or maybe the referee doesn't like your view of the worls or maybe they are better than their own results. Impossible to say for an outsider. Do you have a supervisor or similar?

Insufficient novelty is definitely good enough reason to reject a paper - otherwise for example I can just repackage the proof of Pythagoras's theorem from the nearest mathematics textbook I can get my hands on, and publish that (I can publish that multiple times too).
To publish your results you need to convince the editor that the result actually matters. You write that they "significantly advance our understanding of certain mathematical objects". That's the key point you want to elaborate on. How exactly do they advance our understanding? Do they show that certain approaches to the open questions in the field are more likely / less likely to be successful? Do they lead to any partial results?
It's impossible to tell how other (not necessarily lesser) journals will react, since peer review is an inherently stochastic process, but if I'm the author I would look carefully at elaborating on the above questions before submitting it to another journal.


text:
Death of PhD Supervisor in first year of Research - Going Forward? Transfer PhD program?
I am in a very rough situation. Non-US PhD program.
I already have a research MS from US. I came back to grad school a good time after my MS (I worked in industry and Academia in between for around 5+ years) because of my PhD supervisor. I knew the research area/prior work well before coming in, and my supervisor was quite knowledgeable in the area.
During my 2nd semester - I took a parental leave. The week after I came back - my supervisor died suddenly and unexpectedly - quite young for his age. Everyone was stunned and had difficulty processing it. I was working with a postdoc and my supervisor - and the postdoc was already scheduled to leave the week my supervisor died. So suddenly, I was faced with a new project I just came onboard, had very little documentation and support and no-one to turn to.
We were quickly assigned alternate supervisors by university and I focused my 3rd semester to deal with the supervisor death fallout (finding new supervisor, sorting out held up funding, understanding which project to work on). My new supervisor is a good one - same research area but different topic/thurst. Attended a course with him to understand if I would change research direction, but he advised me to try and work on the old project and stick to that area.
Honestly, I am struggling. Resources are scarce and not finding enough help or support, let alone the psychological fallout of the loss of supervisor.
If I decide to discard the last year and apply for another grad program this year - can death of PhD supervisor be considered as a valid reason to find a new PhD program? Do I talk about my situation in SOP? How would this be viewed? Am I likely to get support for this move from those in my current department?

I think this is a valid question but I almost lost the thread here. I am going to suggest an edit - feel free to reject.

I pulled out the options because the key question we could answer is how this information would be best presented/strategy for moving. We can’t tell you which of those options would be best for you and your situation.

If I were on an Ph.D. admission committee and received an application from someone already enrolled in a Ph.D. program, I would want to know why the student wants to switch. Your story would make complete sense to me.  The value of the Ph.D. is linked intimately to the status of the advisor and losing the advisor is a good motivation to look for someone better than the replacement provided by the institution. In your case, you would need to make clear who you would like to work with. You can try to identify possible advisors and contact them, relating that your motivation is the loss of your advisor. (They might not answer emails because they receive too much "admission spam" and your message is lost.) Alternatively, You can write a very clear letter of purpose and go through the normal application process. (This costs money and time.)

Yes. It is a perfectly valid reason to switch programs  as there may be no one suitable at the current institution. Students switch programs successfully for a lot less essential reasons. And "assigned" supervisors are seldom the correct solution to such problems.


text:
What does it mean when someone says a discussion section is not "well-developed"?
A reviewer of my paper told me that the discussion section is not well developed.
What does this mean? What should I work on to improve my discussion section?

Saying something is not well developed indicates that you need to put more thought into it. You are probably missing some content that the reviewer expected to see. Look at other people's discussions for ideas of what might be missing. Furthermore, you should make sure all your statements are backed up or fully explained.

Maybe the structure of your discussion is not good. Novice writers have a tendency to write in the style of a "brain dump". A brain dump is surely okay for a first draft, but from then, you need to edit your draft so that it becomes appealing to the reader. The first paragraph should broadly summarize what the different points in the section will be, and how they are connected together. From then you need to present the points clearly, in a logical order, and giving each of them about the same amount of space.

If the discussion in the original paper had the same level of english as was shown in the original title and question then that may partly explain the reviewer’s comments, so improving the discussion would likely be the solution.

If the reviewer says the Discussion section is not well developed, it suggests you either need to cover more of the elements that go there or go into greater depth on the things you do say there.
Carnegie Mellon has a nice handout about what different traditional elements of a paper should contain.

Discussion sections contain the following moves:

They summarize the main findings of the study.  This allows readers to skip to the beginning of the
  discussion section and understand the main “news” in the report.
They connect these findings to other research
They discuss flaws in the current study.
They use these flaws as reasons to suggest additional, future research.
(If needed) They state the implications of their findings for future policy or practice.

Further, if the Results section does not comment on the results, such as attempting to explain them and evaluating whether the results support the hypothesis, then that should be part of the Discussion.
Finally, as henning recommends, let a trusted colleague read the paper and ask for their suggestions for improving the discussion section.

I was writing a similar answer, but I prefer yours. I would only like to add my recommendation to let a trusted colleague read the paper and ask him or her for suggestions to improve the section.

I had a similar comment from and editor (who desk rejected a paper) saying that I needed to 'develop my concepts further' without elaborating further. I take such advice to mean I need to add more meat and refine how my concept advances my argument and how the concept can travel to other empirical cases.

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


text:
Working on external grants during one's PhD
Scenario: Person A is an incoming Phd Student at University X.
Person A is then offered an opportunity for a 3 year project part of another research group from University Y which does not mandate him to be a phd scholar in their group. This opportunity involves stipend. (Assume it to be a 3 year continuous internship with very high flexibility)
Question: Would it be wise to accept this offer without consulting anyone in the incoming university?

Can you, should you, switch to Y?

This is just a hypothetical situation. Would you suggest this?

Yes, I would suggest switching, all else being equal.

Personally, I don't think there's nearly enough information for us to help you decide. I can guess what the advantages of X and Y might be, but there's no way for us to rank these options without more details. Further, I can't tell if you are trying to choose between these options, or if you want to do both of these and are asking about the best strategy for getting X to agree to this. In the latter case, the answer will largely depend on the details of your agreement with X (in particular, whether X is funding you).

No, you should not accept this offer without consulting university x. You are likely limited in the outside work that you can undertake.
This is assuming that you are receiving financial support from University X. If you are not, then they have little grounds to say no, although university regulations should always be consulted, particularly if you are on a student visa.

At least in the UK it is common that university regulations limit how many hours students (including PhD) can spend on outside employment. This is unrelated to any funding.

@Arno More precisely, if one has a full-time job (such as working for B), a PhD needs to be part-time. There are constellations where one works on a job which happens to be equivalent to what you need to do for a PhD, but this is not the default.


text:
How do I make the case to regain first authorship?
I am a senior Phd student in a very small lab consisting of me, my PI, and one other graduate student (one year under me). We began at an academic institution working on this paper related to my dissertation. I was always first author on this paper, and presented it to my committee as such. A former post doc who "contributed intellectually" but did minimal actual work for the final paper is second author, and the other grad student was third author. The other graduate student contributed significantly more work for this paper than the postdoc who left the lab due to lack of funds, so she asked if she could be moved to second author.
In a STUNNING move, my PI made her co-first author and kept the post-doc at second. I found this unfair, and when I went to talk to her, she revealed that she had promised her post-doc high authorship on the paper before she left, and also felt that the other graduate student contributed enough to be co-first. I had to no choice but to let it go.
The paper was rejected three times in its current form. The last journal told us if we added more patient numbers, they would reconsider it with the same reviewers. As a result, my PI added 200 more cases (we only started out with about 150 cases) from a cohort that I managed myself, processed, phenotyped, genotyped, multiplexed, etc. I did all the statistical data analysis, redid all the figures (that I had already made to begin with) and integrated these extra cases into the manuscript. The other graduate student, nor the postdoc had anything to do with these additional cases.
When I asked for my sole first authorship back, she blew up at me and told me it would demean the other graduate student by demoting her (which I felt is exactly what she did to me). We have an upcoming meeting and I need to know what my options are outside of her if she refuses to change the authorship list. Do I need to contact the department head and my committee about this? I told the other graduate student the situation and she is COMPLETELY fine with being second author, as she was never asking for first authorship to begin with as this paper is not at all related to her dissertation. She actually thinks its ridiculous that my PI is not seriously considering this request. I feel like she is trying to save face with her post-doc, and not giving me proper credit for my work.
Am I being unreasonable or do I have a case?

Hmmm. Actually, you should calm down and act in a more collegial manner. Think of authorship as cooperating, not competing, with others. You will have future opportunities to work alone. I suggest you take them.

It's not about competition. I feel like she is not recognizing the significant additional contributions I have made with this additional cohort. The effort is no longer equal and the author list need to reflect that...period.

OTOH, RAGE has seldom been a very effective academic strategy. What will you win? You are already (co) first author.

I'm not raging (even though the post may have seemed that way). I presented her with a very reasonable and logical argument, in which I was met with rage from HER. To me, having to put that this was a co-author effort in every future grant application, CV, etc, when I know it is not true will hurt no one's career but mine. Not to mention having to explain to my committee why I am no longer first author.

I appreciate your comments Buffy. This is why I posted this, to get the perspective of a PI.

Have you told your PI that the other graduate student has agreed to be second author? Could you also have an offline conversation with post doc and ask if she would consider third author position?

Also, I think you can avoid giving the impression of rage by changing words like “screwed” here...

Dawn, you are right. I have adjusted the wording in my post. Thank you for your comments. I have not let my PI know yet that the other graduate student is fine with being second author. I had the conversation with her very recently. I was going to tell her at our upcoming meeting. She has agreed to write her an email if necessary, and let her know that she is fine with this decision. I have also not reached out to the post-doc, but I can. I'm not sure how she will react though.

There are 18 authors total and she is the corresponding (last) author listed. Yes, she is my PhD advisor.

For so many questions like this one, my first thought is: "Don't you have a dissertation / thesis committee, and other faculty to talk to?" If so, talk to them! If not, this should be something your department really has to work on, and in the meantime, you'll probably benefit from talking to other faculty, who can help talk to your PI. Good luck!

And have you considered the possibility that the other student (co-author) is just yielding to your pressure and wants the problem to go away? And are you just digging a deeper hole for yourself, longterm, by continuing the pressure? What I think you will gain is minimal. What I think you could lose is more important.

To me, this is not a minimal gain. Every time I write in my CV, grant application, etc I have to note that this was an equal effort between me and her, which it is  clearly not. If she had volunteered to maybe integrate those cases into the manuscript and redo analyses, I could see her keeping her spot, but she did not. Her and I are good friends and from the beginning, she did not want a co-first author spot. She wanted second author. She knows how hard I've worked on this paper alone and she was not surprised that I asked for this. She said she actually expected it because it made sense.

I"m not going to yield to a co-author when I know I should be first author. I feel that's short changing myself and my work. I feel my PI is being unethical by giving credit where it's not due so "everyone wins". I just don't see it like that and I don't think it's fair. Thank you for your opinion though.

Good luck to you.

Thank you for giving me your opinion Buffy. This will help me in my meeting with her.

What is meant by “co-first”?  An author list is a list with a first, second, third, etc.

In the paper, there's a symbol that indicates that the first two names 'contributed equally' and are considered co-first authors instead of first and second.

You could make the case that agreements about author order should be renegotiated after a major reworking of the paper. Because this is essentially a new paper, you might convince all parties to change the order. If you regularly correspond with the post doc, you might ask her if she would consider the new author list.
However, if she does not wish to change, you should accept this gracefully. Frankly, you have already missed the appropriate window for renegotiating author order. Author order should be determined before the work (or rework) is done.
Trying to change the order after work is complete is inappropriate because if, for instance, the third author wanted to keep her place as second, she no longer has any opportunity to do so.
The correct course of action would have been to propose being reinstated as first author before you did the work on the 200 new cases. At this stage, your negotiating power would have been higher. In addition, anyone who wanted to maintain co-first author or second author position could have helped you with the work. It seems you have learned a hard lesson; I hope you can avoid letting it ruin your relationship with your PI.


text:
Pass/Fail on Grad Classes
This quarter, I made a series of bad decisions on what classes to take. I'm a senior, and I have taken ~10 grad math and cs courses up until now, and have gotten around a 3.9 on average in them.
This quarter, I severely underestimated how long recruiting for jobs was going to take. I signed up for what I felt was like a reasonable course load, given my past experiences, and this was a very bad choice.  I had around 30 interviews this quarter, and preparation for them, as well as simply attending them, meant that I could not actually go to class. This, coupled with the fact that the classes are pretty difficult, meant that I am going to end up with very, very, subpar grades, and I will take them as pass/fail credits.
I want to get a masters in CS most likely, and the classes I am taking pass/fail are Measure Theory, and Advanced Statistics(both grad classes). How bad will this look on my transcript?
I have a 3.8 GPA right now, and I am very upset that my bad choices at the beginning of the quarter could have long-reaching ramifications for my grad school apps. I will most likely take a gap year to work, and maybe do research, but how bad is my situation currently?
To be more specific, how will this affect grad school admissions? Is there a way to alleviate this and make my application more competitive for future applications? I plan on taking easier classes, in CS, and focus on research, and trying to have something published by the end of the year.
Thank you!

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

Do you expect to pass?

Yes, I expect to pass both classes.

If this is for US graduate study, then I doubt that you have much of a problem most places. There will be exceptions, of course, but it is fairly typical for the final term of undergraduate to be not typical, so some accommodation may be expected. Not universally, but commonly. Final term students commonly have other things on their minds as did the members of the admissions committee when they were students, if they can only remember back that far.
If  you fail the p/f courses it will be a different issue, and it is probably too late to withdraw at this point, but that would be a better option if it is open.
Measure theory (fun and interesting) has little specific value in most of CS. Advanced statistics can be useful for some, but not all CS sub-fields. More weight will be given (in US) to those courses in the field you are applying for.
If other things in your application point to success in grad study then there should be little effect from not have specific grades in a couple of courses.
I was once in a similar bind, but the dean let me withdraw from an overload course and actually dropped one graduation requirement for me. I did fine. The majority of my record pointed toward success.
So, pass those courses.


text:
Editorial Board Members and EBM Agreement
I have to know about recruiting editorial board members (EBMs). How to find EBM agreement (for free-charge members)?

Just ask. They can say no if they wish.

Please ask one question per post.  Are you asking about recruiting members?  Are you asking about rules for members?  Are you asking for legal advice?

This seems too much a one-person operation. People will agree with your decisions or not, but it is less likely if they have had no input into the structure of your operation.
Rather than invite people late to the board, it would be better if you invite a few people to assist you in setting policies and such and then, after a joint effort, form a board.
People are busy. But the way you state the question it seems like there will be little benefit for anyone to participate. And, if you make a broad call, you will, perhaps, get volunteers for the wrong reasons.
But if you don't have people in your circle who could help you, and who have the appropriate skills and standing, then, depending on the field, people who regularly volunteer for things like conference committee membership may have the right mind-set to assist.


text:
Should I place an accepted but not yet published/presented paper in my CV?
I was notified that my paper has been accepted for publication and presentation on November. As I'm currently applying for a Master's degree, I believe that this will increase my chances of getting accepted. However, the application deadline precedes the publication and presentation data.
Is it ethical to place it on my CV? Also, will it carry any weight during the application process, if it has not yet been published and presented?
Thanks.

Yes, you can and should list it on your CV. For conferences, even listing the date of the conference as some future date makes it pretty clear what is going on, especially in a field like CS where conferences are frequent and important.
But you would do better to mark it as "accepted for presentation at ... to be held (where) and (when).
After the conference you simply update the CV.
This is, I think, especially appropriate for a CV prepared for an academic application. It should capture the moment in time. And, yes, it will carry weight if the conference is well recognized in the field. The conference committee and reviewers have put weight and reputation behind your work.

(To the OP) I suggest that you indicate on the CV the date when it was written.


text:
Negotiating postdoc offer deadline while waiting for tenure track interview
I'm a PhD candidate who applied to a mix of postdocs and tenure track assistant professor positions. I've received an offer for a postdoc fellowship (2-3 year institutional training fellowship) that won't begin until summer 2022, and they've given me a 3 week deadline to respond. However, I have an final round interview for my top tenure track choice a bit beyond their 3-week deadline.
How should I go about negotiating an extension on the postdoc offer, given I don't know when my last tenure track interview option will be making their decision/extending an offer. Also, at this point, would you suggest being open with them and disclosing that you're interviewing for tenure track positions?

Related, possible duplicate: Interview for a faculty position after accepting a postdoc offer

Does "postdoc fellowship" imply that it would be your own funding or the supervisor's? That would make a big difference for me.

@lighthousekeeper their funding. It's an institutional training grant so you have multiple mentors/professors working with you.

Would you want to take the postdoc even if you get the tenure track offer?  Often (at least in my circles) you can defer tenure track offers for a semester or a year.

@Kimball that could work but I really don't want to move someplace for one year only to move again one year later.

How should I go about negotiating an extension on the postdoc offer

You should not.  There are two possible outcomes.  If you don't get the tenure track job, the extension does you no good.  If you do get the tenure track job, the sequence of events will be:

You wait four weeks for an interview
You wait six more weeks to get an offer
You negotiate for a week, and an agreement is reached after about 11 weeks
You wait 4 to 50 weeks for the tenure-track job to actually start

If you can start the postdoc job immediately, just start it.  At a minimum, you will get two months pay and experience.
This advice may not apply if you are already postponing the postdoc start date for some other reason; but in any case, most postdoc supervisors will not wait ten weeks to see if you get that offer.  Four weeks is really the longest reasonable time for them to wait.
This all assumes the tenure-track interview is a final interview, and not the first interview.

Which parts of the answer change if this is the first interview? The timeline?

@overfullhbox Yes, often there are 4 to 8 weeks between a first and second interview.

OP here. The interview for the tenure track position is a final round interview; I am a finalist. And I can't start the postdoc until after June/beginning of July.

@TeresaPsych99 Why June?  That might be important to your strategy.  If I were in your position, I would keep applying for jobs.

@AnonymousPhysicist a) I won't have completed my degree requirements until then and b) given the way the postdoc appears to be structured, there is a pre-July start date (with like 3 people starting then) and a post-July start date with other set of applicants starting then (I qualify for the pre-July start date).

"wait six more weeks to get an offer", "negotiate for a week": You seem to live in a part of the world where hiring of professors is a pretty quick process...

I think you should consider that 1.  Degree requirements are rarely completed exactly on schedule.  2.  You can often complete the requirements after you start a postdoc.  3.  You can apply for more jobs.

@AnonymousPhysicist oh yeah I can definitely apply to more; not opposed to that. They were really a stickler for when my requirements would be complete so that I could start on time so it sounded like a big deal to them, again maybe because they have a pre-June/July cohort (and they want to know who's in that) and a post-June/July cohort.

-1: this sounds like terrible advice. Leaving a postdoc after a few months is a great way to burn bridges, right at the time in your career when you need to start building a reputation.

@MartinArgerami I intentionally did not address the issue of quitting after a few months.  See https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/93608/whats-the-shortest-acceptable-postdoc-length https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/71757/how-to-smartly-leave-a-postdoc-early?rq=1 https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90274/is-a-postdoc-successful-only-when-completed and probably other past questions.

@MartinArgerami I'd point out that getting a tenure-track position makes your supervisor look really good.  And if you continue to help them with their research after they stop paying you, well, that's the opposite of burning bridges.

I was in a similar position a couple of years ago. I think departments are aware that they take an unreasonable amount of time to make these decisions and that candidates need to have backup plans. At my department at least, it is common for a successful tenure-track hire to delay their start by a year. In fact, I think most successful hires in our department do this. (I have no idea how common or acceptable this would be at more teaching-oriented departments who might need the tenure-track position filled immediately to cover teaching. Perhaps people can provide their thoughts on that in the comments.)
With this in mind, it might be possible to accept the postdoc with the open understanding with them that if you receive a tenure-track offer then you would leave the postdoc after one year (delaying the start of the tenure-track position by one year).
That is what I did. Before accepting the postdoc offer, I explained my situation openly and honestly with the postdoc PI, explained that I was interviewing for tenure-track positions, and suggested the above compromise. She was more than happy to have me come for one year of the postdoc rather than zero!

Thanks Beren! I do see others negotiating a delay to their tenure track start date and a truncated postdoc length to make both options work.

This is by far the best answer. I was looking for it and surprised to see it third.

These are delicate situations, and there is no definitive answer for how to deal with them.  On the one hand it is reasonable to want to progress your career, but it is also costly/annoying to institutions when you accept a position there and then leave shortly afterwards for another position.  Ultimately, this will come down to whether or not you are comfortable accepting a position with the intention that you are going to keep looking for other positions while you work there (and possibly leave early).  I've never felt comfortable doing that, but I know others who have no qualms about it.
As specific advice on your situation, the first thing to note is that it will probably be a while before you hear back about the tenure-track position.  (It is not unusual for universities to take many months post-interviews to make decisions on these hires.)  So if you accept a postdoc position it will probably be a reasonably long while before you have any other offer.  Contrarily, if you reject it, you probably won't have a position at all for quite a while.  This militates in favour of accepting the postdoc offer, safe in the knowledge that you will get a substantial amount of time there before you have to make a decision with a competing offer.
If you do get an offer of a tenure-track position you could also ask your present institution to match it if they want to keep you (i.e., giving them first option to keep you if they can match the offer).  It is costly and inconvenient to replace staff, so your postdoc institution are not going to be thrilled at the fact you've applied elsewhere, but if they have first option to keep you then this might soften the blow.

Hi Ben. Thanks for your reply. I'm kind of like you: preferring not to leave until toward the end of the postdoc tenure. Thanks for providing a longer term perspective.

I've never heard of a postdoc employer matching a tenure-track offer.  The funding mechanisms are too different.

That's probably true, but it is the offer of first-option-to-keep that matters here, not whether they accept it.  If their funding mechanisms don't allow them to retain staff who are offered better positions elsewhere, they can hardly blame the staff for that situation.

When it comes to job searching, even in academia, there are no illusions that your position is permanent. (Not even if it's tenure-track!) At this point, your objective as a postdoc is to qualify for tenure-track offers.
So, in my mind, the question is really one of honesty. If you're worried about getting a job at all, then honesty will help you, but it can also hurt you short term. If you're going to be okay applying for more jobs for a few months, then you're probably in a position to let the institution that made the postdoc offer know that you're a finalist for a tenure-track position, and don't know your long term prospects as a postdoc.
They'll likely do one of three things:

Hire you anyway, because there will be several finalists but only one assistant professor, and if they like you they'll have a chance to show you that the postdoc with them might actually accelerate your career faster than the professorship.
Go with someone else, because they need the position filled and have (unrealistic) ideas about postdoc retention. (Postdocs are horribly underpaid experts with little to no governmental protection. It's not very hard to convince most postdocs to leave their position for a better-paying, higher-impact industry job)
Make you an offer for a much shorter period, with far less favorable benefits, since they need the help, and can keep looking for another replacement while you're with them.

If you're okay with all three options, I personally prefer honesty both as an employee as an employer. It's normal to have different goals in life, and the question is if your goals align well enough to work together for a while.

"your objective as a postdoc is to qualify for tenure-track offers."  Your objective should be to do good research and/or teaching.  Getting tenure does not make someone a good person.

@AnonymousPhysicist Being able to pay for their food and for their kids' needs or, in the most favourable circumstances,  to even get a house instead of a small appartment, a better person, but is totaly a legitimate target in anyone's life. Being in a precarious situation or being a poor person does not make someone a good person, no matter what fairy tales say.

"Postdocs are horribly underpaid experts with little to no governmental protection"? I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions about where the OP is located. At least where I work (western Europe) postdocs are paid quite well (though not as well as in STEM industries) and are covered under collective agreements, as well as national labour laws.

@VladimirF Yes, being economically productive is a good thing too, but getting tenure is far from the most efficient way to do that.

I'm in the US. I'm a woman of color from a poor SES background. No kids or partner but I do support my elderly parents who have chronic illnesses and still live in poverty. Stability is extremely important to me. I understand I may not get wealthy at this point in time (and to me, what counts as rich is subjective and relative), but I don't want to get stuck in a holding pattern of temporary, typically low(er) paying positions with inconsistent benefits (e.g. medical, dental, retirement, etc.). Those are some of my personal concerns.

The best answer may depend on your field of study. My answer may be
biased because I am most familiar with the mathematical sciences
(including applications and statistics). Also, I'm assuming you're a
US citizen and both positions are in the US.
Especially if 'PhD candidate' is a euphemism for 'still working on my thesis', then
take the post-doc job, finish your thesis, and try to use the post doc
environment to get ideas for good starts on a couple of publications.
That extra experience and record of accomplishments will put you in
a strong position to get hired for a tenure track position and to
get tenure (in amongst dealing with class preparations and advising
students). If you start the tenure track position with finishing part of your
thesis still hanging over you, your chances of getting tenure may seriously
reduced. (Almost no university departments will grant tenure to someone
who is still working on a thesis and with no publications.)
I made the mistake of taking a tenure track position when my Ph.D. thesis
was "not quite finished". The environment there was not quite as promised,
the teaching load way high, and after one year it was clear that the
thesis was just as far off as before. 'Wasted year' would be putting it gently.
Then, I was fortunate enough
to be able to transition to a post doc at a major university during
my second year. There I learned most of the applied skills I have used
in my 40-some years since. Also, I made contacts that turned out to
be of amazing benefit as my career progressed. After the post doc I
took a tenure track job I have enjoyed enormously until my recent retirement in my 80's
(interrupted only by a few years working for the Federal government on
leaves of absence).

Are you saying you started the tenure track position before you graduated from your PhD program?

Yes, but that was in the 1060's. Mathematicians were in short supply, and it was clear that tenure would depend on finishing the Ph.D.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Would it be inappropriate to complete this project on my own?
About a year ago, I quit my PhD in mathematics. At the time, I was working on a project given to me by my former advisor. His contributions were as follows:

Explaining the basic idea of the project, along with a few aspects of the problem that might cause difficulty
Providing some papers on the subject that explain the background in more detail
A few short (~10 minute) conversations regarding one or two details in those papers
One half-hour conversation about a detail that neither of us could understand

Aside from these, I didn't receive any help on the parts of the proof that I finished before quitting. As far as I can tell, none of my former advisor, any of his students, or anyone else in the field has done any work towards completing the proof I was given.
Would it be inappropriate for me to finish the proof on my own, and submit it as a single-author paper?

The stuff that you list all falls into "advising research students", and in mathematics mere advising tasks are generally not considered to merit co-authorship. As such, a single-author paper is a reasonable outcome.
On the other hand, just running with the idea communicated to you in person by your advisor on your own might be a bit rude. Checking in with them whether there is anyone else working on this, and whether they mind you completing the project on your own would be the nicer alternative. If the details of you quitting your PhD are such that you don't want to be nice to them that much, still considering informing them of your intentions. If they eg intend to challenge your right to single-authorship, it will be better for you if that happens prior to submission.

A nicely balanced answer. None of those points of the OP suggest contributions to the solution, just understanding the problem. If you provide a solution to the Riemann Hypothesis, Riemann doesn't become a co-author, nor does your third grade teacher become an author of every math paper. Acknowledgement is probably essential, though. (Maybe not for your third grade teacher, I guess.)

Yes, it would be inappropriate to finish and publish this on your own. You should contact your former advisor: they should probably be offered authorship of a resulting paper. If they decline (a realistic possibility) you are free to continue on your own.
Also, their help may prove valuable. Having somone experienced to check and improve the paper before submitting it to a journal may help getting it published.

It's unrealistic they'd decline authorship even if they did nothing on the paper.

@Ambicion Maybe they actually deserve authorship, and although we hear a lot of bad stories about academia, most people are honest.

I will contribute an answer for the worst case scenario, in which you quit your PhD with a bit of bad blood with your former PhD advisor. I presume that otherwise you wouldn't even be asking that question.
The contributions by your PhD advisor would not suffice for their co-authorship if you were senior academics on equal level. If you are a PhD student in mathematics or physics, your advisor gets authorship as means of payment for not sabotaging your PhD and writing letters of recommendation for you.
I also doubt that your PhD advisor would be motivated to contribute any proofreading or original ideas, since PhD advisors rarely do that even with their students.
If they don't have any leverage on you any further, you don't need to bother about them. You also don't need to care whether anyone in their group is working on the topic, since that's just ordinary competition; sometimes researchers get scooped.
That being said, you should invest some rereading and rewriting to match the writing style of your scientific community, if you happen to be "out of the flow".

"If you are a PhD student in mathematics or physics, your advisor gets authorship as means of payment for not sabotaging your PhD and writing letters of recommendation for you." As a PhD supervisor in mathematics I would like to know where you got this impression?

I think you are asking the wrong question. Without an academic affiliatuon getting accepted for publication will not be easy.
You may want to contact your professor for this reason.

Doesn't weigh in on whether anybody deserves coauthorship.

@Ambicion the norms of coauthorship are dependent on the field. The point im making, is that regardless of who deserves coauthorship, the question is irrelevant unless you can get the thing published, the question is moot.


text:
Is it acceptable to add results to an arXiv publication?
I have a paper (in computer science) which I have sent to a conference and I am planning to make a journal version which will contain some extra results. Is it acceptable to put the conference version to arXiv and later, when the journal version is done, add the new results to arXiv?

If the change from the conference version to the journal version is relatively minor (so the new results are unimportant), it's fine to add the new results to the arXiv.
If the change from the conference version to the journal version is substantial, post the conference version on the arXiv paper unchanged, and later post the journal version to the arXiv when you finish it. If you don't change the title from the conference paper to the journal paper, it might be a good idea to indicate in the arXiv paper titles that one is the conference version and the other is the journal version, so that people don't get confused.
This way, the papers on the arXiv reflect the published papers, so people who are trying to track things down in the literature won't get confused. You're shouldn't feel guilty about wasting resources, because you're not—the cost of hosting one more paper on the arXiv is tiny.
And you should consider whether the results you're adding to the conference paper are significant enough to deserve their own paper. Each paper should tell one "story". If the new results don't fit in the "story" of the paper, in my experience nobody will notice them, so you're better off writing a new paper containing them.


text:
What to do about a citation that may be wrong
I am writing a paper and I needed to cite some fact. I had difficulties finding something that I could cite. I have found a paper that also cites this fact and they cite some other paper without further explanation. I have gone through this paper that they are citing and I cannot find how the fact that I want could follow from it. It seems somewhat relevant but going through all the theorems, none of them seems like they could imply what they claim. I do not have a deep understanding of that paper and it seems it would be rather difficult for me to carefully read the whole thing.
I suspect that this result should be somewhere in the literature but cannot find it.
I have emailed the authors but did not get a response yet. I have contacted the corresponding author who forwarded my email to another co-author so I know they have received my email.
At the same time, it is not too difficult for me to prove the claim myself. Therefore, I need the citation only to give credit to the original author and to make my paper a little shorter (not very important as there is no strict page limit where I intend to submit).
What should I do if the authors do not respond before the conference deadline? I can think of the following:

Say something along the lines of "paper A cites paper B but it is not clear how the fact follows from B. For completeness, we provide a proof here"
Ignore that paper, as I was not able to determine whether the citation is correct. Do not claim my proof to be original but rather say I was not able to find any reference but I suspect that it has been proven before.
Just cite the paper they cite

Of these, (3) is clearly not good. Is it OK to choose (2)? Should I contact the authors once more before the conference deadline and inform them about what I intend to do?

+1 for checking the source

I vote for option 1, except that I'd modify "it is not clear" to "it is not clear to me". Another formulation would be "I was unable to find the fact in B."

@AndreasBlass good point. Something like "[1] cites this fact from [2] but we were unable to verify correctness of the reference and thus include a proof in the appendix"?

A polite way to deal with this is to say "We need the following known result (c.f. [A] and [B])  and include the proof for the convenience of the reader."  If someone writes you to clarify before this is finalized, you can revise.
If you are worried about giving credit that is inappropriate, take a moment and reflect on how citation counts are often misleading.  Your primary concern is the reader (including referees) and the above allows them to be as informed as they need to be.
If someone (say a referee) asks you to cite [B] for the proof, ask for a page or theorem reference.

+1 for thinking about the reader first. However, I don't feel at ease about saying "Include the proof for the convenience of the reader" as it is false IMHO -- I include it because I had no other option, not for convenience.

@user2316602: It's a polite fiction; everyone knows the real reason is that you like your proof better than the other author's.  Or maybe it's like they say "toilets are located in the rear of the train for your convenience".


text:
Results presented in order not monotonous in importance
I am writing a paper in theoretical computer science about two closely related problems A and B and a variant of A which I call A'.
I am now planning to order the results as follows:

Solution to problem A
Solution to problem A'
Note that solution for A' implies a solution for B (very short)
Same techniques as in point 2 give a direct solution to problem B
Different techniques give slightly weaker results for problem B in different model

Now, the problem is that point 5 is one of the main contributions of the paper, while point 4 is more "for completeness" than because it would be very important (as I already got a solution to B in point 3). I still really think point 4 should be included. If it makes any difference, the paper will be slightly under 30 pages.
I am worried that people will get to point 4, realize that it is not so interesting, and stop reading there. Or they will see points 1,2, will not be interested and stop reading, even if point 5 would be interesting for them. Am I right to be worried? What should I do to prevent this? What do I say in the intro to make sure people read point 5? Or is it that people interested in point 5 will see it in the abstract and then it does not matter at all what the ordering is? Or should I re-order the things despite other orderings being less natural?

I can only speak for myself, but if I come accross a paper that seems to be interesting (according to title and abstract), I rarely read the whole paper, but directly jump to the section that is most relevant for my work (and decide from there if I also need to look at the rest). So it would not matter at all to me in which order the diffferent points were appearing in the text.

You know you can just tell readers that, right? In the introduction, write, "The primary contribution of this paper is in section 5, but preliminary results are reported before then..." Something like that.

@transitionsynthesis, yes, but it's a good comment. I wasn't sure whether it is sufficient or whether I should start of with the important stuff.

Your thesis statement is item 5: your technique is superior to other techniques used. IMO, this is what you start with. Then (for me anyway) items 1 through 4 are "experiments" with results proving your thesis...

Build the paper according to its inner logic. But you can announce/tease the main result in the abstract and the introduction/motivation, so people will know what to look for/await.

Thank you! I will wait a little if anyone has anything else to say and will accept this answer after.

+1.  Write the introduction so that the reader knows the most important result.  Then interested readers will not stop after 4, and uninterested readers will not waste their time reading 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Most readers will decide if the paper interests them or not before they get through the abstract.  Express the motivation as early as possible.  Then write the technical part in an easy-to-undersand format.


text:
How can I determine the funders of an article?
Who funded the article "randomized controlled trial contrasting the effect of 4 low calories sweeteners and sucrose on body weight in adults with overweight or obesity "? In general, how can I determine the funders of research articles?

hi and welcome to Academia.StackExchange. What have you done so far to answer that question? what exactly do you mean by "fund"? Please edit your question to get higher-quality answers. And please add link to the article on the journal's website if possible

In general, you can find often find the sponsor listed in an article acknowledgement or registration of the protocol. The article was preregistered as NCT02928653. Upon going to the preregistration site I see the sponsor is Purdue University.


text:
How to properly cite/include meeting discussion in a doctoral thesis?
I am going to have a private meeting with an institution next month, and I would like to use what will be said there as a reference in my doctoral thesis.
What would be the most appropriate way to do this?
I thought about taking detailed notes, or even recording the meeting (with the consent of everyone involved) so to be able to transcribe it and include the transcription as an appendix, after allowing the other participants to review the notes/transcription to correct eventual mistakes.
Are there other alternatives? Is this somewhat usual?

I am not sure I understand this. What sort of things will be said there that they make sense to reference in a thesis?

@TobiasKildetoft it is a thesis in engineering based on a project in industry. The meeting will discuss the boundaries within which the experimental project will have to move and thus it is highly likely that some challenges that I will have to solve/cope with will come from the meeting, and not only from "simple" physics.

I fail to see how a transcription will be beneficial, much less needed. All studies have constraints on them. Everyone will understand.

@JonCuster I thought it might be needed to provide a valid reference that is not otherwise available to the reader.

You can certainly record, with permission, and transcribe.  Transcribing is a lot of work but it can be quite helpful.  You might end up quoting portions of the transcript.  You might put the whole audio recording online, or certain excerpts.  The results will be better if people talk one at a time -- a talking stick might help, or a hand signal from an assertive member of the group who isn't at the forefront of the discussion; the hand signal would be given whenever two people are talking at the same time.

Look up the citation rules for "personal communication" for whatever reference style you are using. This would include meetings etc.


text:
How should I address a possible mistake to co-authors in a submitted paper
I am co-author of a submitted manuscript. I think I found a mistake in a methodological approach in our paper. But I am not sure if I am right. But if that mistake is really there, then some conclusions in this paper could be changed. It will not invalidate the whole paper, but some parts would have different meaning.
I already had some arguments on this paper, so I do not want to point some mistakes to my colleagues. I fear that if I will point to this possible mistake, my co-authors will get angry.
I don't even know when and how should I discuss this issue with co-authors? Some authors are reachable only by email and I don't know if I should ask about this mistake only the main author, or send the email to everybody. Or should I just briefly explain what I mean or send a proper document with explanation why I think I am right?
I am thinking of waiting until review; if reviewers do not point to that mistake I will raise it.
Edit: By mistake, I do not mean that we carried out our method of choice incorrectly; instead, I think we should have chosen a different (potentially more correct) method of analysis.

You could ask a non co-author colleague to take a look. If they agree with your findings, then contact your co-authors.

Write a review of the article and send it to all co-authors, as soon as possible. This is what every co-author should have done before submission. In the end you have to decide to remove your name from the paper if there is no agreement among the authors and separate the whole issue from the journal review, I hope you understand why

Your options seem to be (a) a bit of momentary embarrassment and time spent examining and maybe fixing it or (b) eternal embarrassment if it is published with a flaw that is later found.

@Michael Schmidt the paper was already submitted. I cannot just pull out so easily.

@user3624251 submitted, but neither reviewed nor published, so it still depends on your actions and behaviour if you want to be a co-author. If no revision is demanded by the reviewers, you still have to make the internal review/discussoin or you end with option (b) of Buffy's comment

When you say a mistake with the methodological approach, do you mean the approach was carried out incorrectly, or another approach would be better or “more correct”?

I fear that if I will point to this possible mistake, my co-authors will got angry. — If you trust your colleagues that little, why do you work with them?

@Dawn I am not sure if it is a mistake, I think there could be a bit better approach.

This is an important distinction and I am adding it to the question.

If you believe there is an issue with a paper you are a co-author of, then you absolutely should discuss it with your co-authors. In most (all?) fields, having read and approved the final manuscript is a necessary condition for authorship of a publication. I assume that you cannot really approve of a manuscript that you suspect has methodological flaws, so you should speak up now. Whether that is best done by emailing everyone or just contacting the lead author depends on a lot of external and contextual factors, so I cannot offer advice there.
Waiting for reviewers to spot the mistake seems like a very bad strategy. After all, what will happen if they don't spot the mistake? Either you bring up the issue after receiving the reviews (which is surely not better than bringing it up now) or you remain silent and become co-author to a paper that may have serious methodological problems.
In the end, if you bring up the issue now, there are three possible outcomes (presumably after some arguments and back-and-forth):

You convince your co-authors that there is an error. Since the paper is already submitted, all authors will have to discuss how they want to handle the issue in that case. This may range from updating the paper with the necessary corrections after receiving the reviews (regardless of whether or not the reviewers found the same issue) to retracting the paper.
Your co-authors convince you that the issue is in fact not important or not an issue at all, which may also help to improve the paper (clarify why x is not an issue in this particular context).
Neither you nor your co-authors are convinced by the others. In that case, you may have to withdraw as an author, painful as that may be.

I would argue that each of these results (even the last one) is preferable to just hoping for peer review to catch the issue you already know is there.
Edit: I missed that the manuscript was already submitted. However, I don't thnk this fundamentally changes things.

first and third option is not possible because it is already submitted

See edited version of the answer.

If the review finds the flaw, then the paper is likely to just be rejected. Not chance for a revision. Time for action.

@Buffy but can we pull-out the paper, revise it and send back to the same journal?

Probably, though that is up to the editors. You need consensus with your co-authors, but you can certainly withdraw the paper until fairly late in the process. Certainly better to warn the editor than to face rejection. That might foreclose resubmission. Some journals don't permit resubmission of rejected papers.

I think you have only one course of action that is both proper and safe.
You should immediately contact your co-authors pointing out your reservations in detail. It is but a momentary embarrassment if you are wrong. Then, if your colleagues agree that there might be a serious methodological error, especially one that might change the conclusions, then you need to immediately contact the editor, asking for advice and suggesting withdrawal while you fix the issue.
The down sides of other actions (or inaction) seem to me to be too severe to contemplate. If the paper is sent to review and the reviewers find the errors, complex as you suggest, they will most likely suggest rejection, rather than trying to work how it should be fixed. Some journals won't accept a future version of a rejected paper, so you would be back to the start in finding a publisher, and you would need to spend the time to fix the paper in any case.
But the consequences of the reviewers not finding the error are equally bad or worse. If, they don't find it and you, then report it, then you still need to fix it and the editor may not have the patience you require. The paper will need, then, to be sent out once more for review, delaying the publication, at best. Of course, you have no guarantee what that review will suggest.
Finally, if the reviewers don't find find the error and you don't report it, then the paper will likely be published. If it doesn't have an error then all is well, but you are probably one of the best people to know if there is really an error, and if you suspect it, then there is an issue whether you have an error or not. But if the paper is published with an error, then it will probably be found eventually, damaging everyone's reputation, yours as well as the journal's. Editors won't be very happy to work with you in the future, feeling that they have been misled.
Swallow your pride. Start the wheels in motion. Your reputation is at stake.

what can be the consequencies if I will want to pull-out the paper against the wish of others (my boss is a co-author too)

You may have to submit to the will of superiors, of course. But if others make the wrong decision, you won't be complicit. If you are certain the paper is flawed and they want to continue on with it, withdrawing your name as co-author is probably appropriate, but might be hard on your future. Do what  you can and should without endangering your future unnecessarily. But the first step is to inform them of the issue. Hopefully, if there is a flaw, then your boss will appreciate the heads up. Not all bosses are enlightened, of course.

While I believe what you propose is ethically good, I think it is fair to point out that there is in fact very little personal risk in publishing a flawed paper. Many authors get easily away with ignoring grave errors even after they have been made publicly known. Not even all cases of intentional misconduct result in notable career repercussions. As long as you can show plausible deniability (e.g. that you didn't notice the error) a punishment is very unlikely. Nevertheless resolving the issue as fast as possible is the right thing to do.

Actually, @MartinModrák, I'm not thinking of punishment so much as just loss of reputation among people in your own field.

@Buffy - you are right that my wording was not great. But I would say that even a loss of reputation is not a very likely consequence of publishing a flawed paper, especially in the bigger fields where people don't really know each other. Note that it took years before Wansink lost his reputation - and his papers had more flaws than other content.


text:
Resubmitted paper is rejected by editor after two months, what should I do?
About one year ago, I submitted a paper to a top journal in my field. After waiting for 4 months, the manuscript is rejected with one positive, one negative, and a neutral (including many revise suggestions) comments. There is one common comment: the manuscript is too long. Nevertheless, the editor kindly suggested that I could revise my paper along all the lines suggested by the referees and resubmit my paper.
I carefully modified the paper according to the comments and replied the questions and suggestions from the three referees point by point, then resubmitted it after about four months form the first rejection. This time, after two months, the editor replied us as following without any further comment from any referee.
"I would like to thank you for taking the time to redraft your manuscript, to be considered as a resubmission to xxx. I have carefully read your new manuscript, and I am sorry to have to inform you that your paper is not suitable for publication in xxx. The manuscript still lacks a clear statement of its aims and motivation. (Two example from the editor's viewpoint). While I appreciate that you have taken significant steps to reduce the manuscript length, I still found it overly long, and the writing still suffers from many grammatical errors. I am sorry not to have more positive news."
There is no any comment for us after the two+ months' review. I guess our paper was not even sent to referees (previous or new ones). In my supervisor's experience, editorial rejection is typically very fast, a couple of weeks at most.
My questions are:

Being forced to wait two months for a desk rejection without any comment, is that normal for a reputable journal? What should I do to acquire a potential comments, if any?
Is it appropriate to send an email to coordinate with the editor for a new resubmission? And how much is my chance?
What is the most probable attitude of the editor: does the editor really not like it?

Thank you very much for sharing your invaluable experience!

No offence intended. Based on the editor reply our as following and the writing still suffers from many grammatical errors, I strongly suggest you to find somebody to correct the grammatical errors in the manuscript before doing anything.

I heard my advisor once talking to another faculty (an Asst. Prof), "if you get a rejection, don't waste (more) time [trying to figure out how and why]. Address the comments and send it to another journal." However, I understand that this does not cover all cases, so keep this in mind.

Generally I'd say aim for a different journal with this paper. Aim for this journal with a future paper. There's no point in being stuck doing revisions to the same piece of work when you can further build on this work, or even work on something else.

The editor's comments clearly point to three things:
1. The manuscript lacks a clear statement of its aims and motivation
2. The manuscript is too long even after revision
3. There are grammatical errors in the manuscript
Regarding the second and third points, I think getting the manuscript professionally edited might be a good solution. However, regarding the first point, for a study to have reasonable impact, its aims and motivations need to be clear. You can perhaps do some rethinking around this point and take your supervisor's guidance to make these aspects clearer.
Now let's come to your questions.

Timelines and procedures are not uniform across journals, and it is not uncommon for a manuscript to be rejected without any reviewer comments after two months, particularly, since, it looks like the paper wasn't sent for review a second time. However, you can write a polite email to the editor requesting him/her to send you the reviewer comments if any.
I think the editor has made it amply clear that the paper is not suitable for publication in the journal. I personally feel it would be better to submit the paper to another journal, but if you are very keen on this journal, there is no harm in writing to the editor inquiring if he/she would be willing to take another look at it after it is professionally edited to reduce the length and fix the grammatical errors. You should also inform him/her that you will rework on the aims and motivations to make them clearer. Regarding how much of a chance you have, I am really not sure; depends on the editor.
I don't think the editor doesn't like the manuscript at all: he/she has probably seen some merit in it; else you would not have received the revise and resubmit decision the first time. However, the editor is clearly not very satisfied with the revisions. You should actually have taken care of the length and grammatical errors at the time of the revision. That would definitely have given you a better chance.

One word of advice: even if you submit to another journal, make sure you get the grammatical errors corrected before you do so.

TL, DR; There is nothing you can do. The paper is rejected from this particular high-impact journal and you have to find another venue for publication.
Regarding your individual comments:

Being forced to wait two months for a desk rejection

Two months for a desk reject is normal. Could be done a little faster but it is not that long.

What is the most probable attitude of the editor: does the editor really not like it?

He obviously does not like it. This is why he desk-rejected it.

Is it appropriate to send an email to coordinate with the editor for a new resubmission? And how much is my chance?

It does not matter if it is appropriate or not. As things show, the paper has almost zero chance to get published in this journal. By writing another email, you are wasting your time and the editor's time.
In a nutshell, after the first paper rejection, your paper had very slim chances (probably none) to be published in this specific journal. The editor in his initial response was probably being polite, since the unpolite alternative "do not send this paper ever again to our journal" would sound too harsh. In my case, I have never heard of any paper rejected in a high-impact journal and then resubmitted to the same journal and get accepted. I do not say that it may never happen but you should understand that it is not the most common scenario. In the majority of cases, rejection of a paper to a specific journal is permanent.
Also you were given very specific comments.

The manuscript still lacks a clear statement of its aims and
motivation
It is too long
The writing still suffers from many grammatical errors

Understand that every one of those comments would justify rejection on its own. You should focus your energy on improving your paper instead of believing that one more email or another negotiation round with the editor would change the outcome. Sending the same manuscript to the same journal a third time would make no sense. Thus you should find a new journal to submit your paper and only AFTER significantly improving your paper.

A "reject and resubmit" decision is not just a polite alternative to rejection. See this question.

@ff524 The OP clearly said that the paper was rejected. As you know many  journals have automatic submission systems that show the decision and most probably this decision was "Reject". The "resubmit" part may only appeared in the editor's comments.

I suspect it was really a "reject and resubmit" decision. The OP probably isn't aware of these subtleties.

Don't think of this as desk rejection after two months. Think about it as the editor choosing themselves as the reviewer, and reaching a reject decision. The decision letter here is quite detailed, and indicates the editor has looked at your paper carefully; I'm sure you'll agree too that if the editor is an expert in the field then they might not need help from reviewers to make a decision.
For your questions:

You did receive comments. They clearly say that you need to improve the aims and motivation section, addressing in particular the two examples raised; you also need to reduce the manuscript length as well as fix the remaining grammatical errors.
It's a straight reject decision as opposed to revise-and-resubmit, so your chances are not good. You could do it of course (and you can email to ask), but there's a strong chance it will be desk rejected.
Yes, chances are the editor does not like your paper, or they would not have desk rejected.

I suspect this may not have happened quite as you think. It's possible that the editor tried to send it out to one of the original reviewers, perhaps the one judged most relevant, but that reviewer wasn't available. This took a little time. Subsequently the editor decided to look at the paper themselves, taking into account the previous reviewers' comments. Essentially this means they performed a review, and this will have taken some time - from the comments you got it's clear that this was significantly more involved than a simple desk reject. Bearing this in mind, the timescale does not seem unreasonable.
There is no reason to suspect the editor was looking for a reason to reject. If they had wanted to do that, they had ample chance to do so on the first round.