text:
masters thesis supervisor hands-on importance?
TLDR: how important is having a hands-on supervisor for my masters thesis?
I recently started a one-year MA in sociology at a large uni in Europe (after having attended a SLAC for undergrad).
My options for masters thesis supervisors are a more senior professor whose research interests me very much, but who told me up front that she is very busy and would only be able to meet every 3-4 weeks in a group meeting with other students. Alternatively, I could go with a more junior Professor whose research is still interesting to me (though not quite as exciting) but who would have more time to dedicate to helping me out.

Did you check with the "more senior" professor whether you would have an additional "daily" supervisor, often a PhD student from the group?

Your masters project is an opportunity to show what you can do.  If your supervisor is too "hand-on", they are denying you the opportunity to show your true ability, particularly in project management and self-direction.  You also need to develop your ability to solve problems for yourself, which is made more difficult by a helpful supervisor.

This is a situation where it isn't a case of "one size fits all". Some people do better with more supervision, others with more self determination. Since you are asking, it might be the case that you fall more into the first category than the second.
Few people, I think, get to make a decision on those terms and choose a supervisor for other reasons, taking what they get. Most, not all, can come out ok in either case, but there are several posts on this site where such things become critical to the student's success.
Look at your own history. Are you mostly self directed or do you find closer guidance more critical to your success.
Note also, that your future depends more on what you accomplish than on the "big names" of the people in your background. In the short term, a well known advisor can be an advantage (in getting letters, for example), but it is you that needs to produce something.
If you don't find either of the two research areas so compelling that you can't choose anything else, then make your decision on other criteria than senior-junior faculty status, I think.
And, as user Mark suggests in a comment explore the entire spectrum of advice that is open to you. A single criteria decision may not be in your best interest.

To answer the question, not at all. My supervisor had pretty much no input whatsoever and I just sent him my thesis to approve it. I would pick the one that fits you more. However, clearly supervision is country dependent (probably also uni dependent in some countries), since I have never heard of anyone picking their Master's thesis supervisor based on the supervisor's reasearch.

The level of hands-on involvement from a Master's thesis supervisor can vary widely based on the advisor's style, the nature of the research project, and the expectations of the academic program. Here are some considerations regarding the importance of hands-on involvement:
Varied Approaches:
Different supervisors have different working styles. Some may prefer a hands-on approach, providing extensive guidance and involvement throughout the research process. Others may take a more hands-off approach, giving students more independence.
Learning Experience:
A hands-on supervisor can be beneficial, especially for students who are new to research or who appreciate more guidance. Direct involvement can provide a valuable learning experience, helping students develop research skills and gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
Independence and Autonomy:
On the other hand, some students thrive with a more independent approach. A supervisor who encourages autonomy may allow students to take the lead in designing and conducting their research, fostering a sense of ownership over the project.
Communication:
Regardless of the level of hands-on involvement, effective communication between the student and the supervisor is crucial. Regular meetings, clear expectations, and constructive feedback are essential components of a successful advisor-student relationship.
Research Productivity:
A hands-on supervisor may contribute more directly to the research productivity of the student, potentially leading to more collaborative publications or presentations. However, a hands-off approach does not necessarily hinder productivity, as some students may excel with more independence.
Preparation for Ph.D. or Future Research:
The level of hands-on involvement may also influence how well-prepared a student feels for future research endeavors, such as pursuing a Ph.D. If a student desires a career in research, having a supervisor who is actively involved in the process may be particularly valuable.
Personal Preferences:
Different students have different preferences when it comes to supervision. Some may thrive in a more structured and hands-on environment, while others may prefer more autonomy. It's essential to communicate your expectations and preferences with your supervisor.
In summary, the importance of hands-on involvement from a Master's thesis supervisor is subjective and depends on individual learning styles, research goals, and preferences. Open communication with your supervisor and a clear understanding of expectations can help ensure a positive and productive advisor-student relationship.


text:
How to get a DOI for research report published by nonprofit
I'm an alt-ac researcher, currently working in the research department of a large national nonprofit. We regularly produce research reports and briefs that are published on the organization's website (in addition to publishing manuscripts in academic journals). I have been tasked with finding out how to make it so that our reports and briefs appear in Google Scholar searches. I have been told that getting DOIs for our publications would help with this. So, a couple of questions:

Is this true?
How would one go about getting DOIs for works published outside of academic journals, for free? The work we do is around youth mental health, if that helps direct me to a specific repository.

Thank you!

Related to Q1: How can my organisation's published reports get indexed by Google Scholar? Google Scholar's Inclusion Guidelines for Webmasters may also be worth reading.

I'm from Crossref (a DOI agency). Having a DOI will likley not directly help your reports' Google Scholar rankings as Google does not use persistent identifiers. However, DOIs are used by several thousand other tools such as Web of Science, Dimensions, Scopus, and many many academic projects like PubMed, CORE, etc. etc., so discoverability in general might improve. But DOIs are more about persistence than discovery tbh i.e. making sure that your reports might still be around online even after Google may decide to close down G-Scholar. I don't think there is a repository for mental health reports specifically, but I found this preprint archive: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv that might be appropriate? There is always OSF for projects and/or Zenodo too (one uses Crossref, and the other uses DataCite). Both are free.

I am unsure about the Google Scholar questions.
For your second question, Arizona State University answers this question with on their library FAQ page:

Q. How do I create Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for my materials?
Answer
For data or unpublished works (such as preprints):
You can upload your work to a repository that provides DOIs. These can include disciplinary repositories like CORE- Humanities Commons or bioRxiv, interdisciplinary options like OSF, or data-specific repositories like DRYAD. This library guide has more information about choosing an appropriate repository.
For published work:
Your publisher should provide DOIs for you upon publication. If they don't, consider self-archiving your work in a repository if your publisher allows it.
For journals:
If you are publishing a journal, you must go through a DOI Registration Agency, such as CrossRef and DataCite in the U.S. For more detailed information about DOI registration and pricing, take a look at this Frequently Asked Questions about DOI guide.

So, looks like you need to through a DOI Registration Agency.

I don't think OP can directly use a DOI registration agency. That is only possible for publishers.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I go for PhD ( in person ) and master's (online) simultaneously in different subjects?
I have just started my PhD program in Nanoscience in the United States as an International Student. I have a master's degree in Physics and have decent skills in Python too. I have practiced several machine learning projects (YouTube taught) with Tensorflow. I am studying "Hands on machine learning..." by Geron Aurelien and have some other books collected (recommendations). I wish to have a college degree in AI/ML too so that I can blend both my skills (core science and computation) for future research and exploration to become a research scientist. Am I allowed to enroll in an online degree  provided by any other university? If Yes, what are the recommended institutions for such a course????

Since you are already in a doctoral program you should ask someone at your university about this. Having just started you may not yet have a dissertation advisor, but may have an academic advisor. They would be good for advice. Otherwise, the department head can advise.
Personally, I'd advise against it, even if you are very good and it is allowed. The MS program could jeopardize appropriate progress is the doctoral program, especially if comprehensive exams are part of the process as is typical in the US.
The other reason I advise against it is that there is no particular reason to do these simultaneously. Once you are "certified" with a doctoral degree you gain some freedom to study other things, perhaps with the guidance of a degree program or on your own.
Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
And, of course, either program could have a veto on your enrollment in another program, thinking that it would leave you overextended and wanting to spread resources to other qualified candidates. While you might make it work, there is (IMO) no essential need to over-complicate your life and studies.

Seems likely that they could minor in data science, particularly if there are projects needing it in the department. (In my PhD program one had to have an out-of-department ‘minor’, with 3 or more  grad classes and a member of one’s committee out of it.)

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


text:
Transcript in bad print
I am going to apply for MS programs in The US and the transcripts I received for my bachelors from my former university are just xerox of my original marksheet with verification stamp and sign of director of examinations.
The issue is that since it is a xerox the print quality is not that good. At one place my name is not clear but at other pages ot is clear. The letters mix up due to being printed too close.
Overall it is readable though.
What should I do?
Will my application get rejected because of this reason?

I am on such admissions committees and I see such copies quite often. If I can read the parts relevant to the admissions process, then there is no problem.

That would be very unlikely in normal circumstances. But it would be worth some effort to have the transcript sent directly to the places you apply to rather than show them your copy, assuming that is what you mean here. It will then be clear (even with a bad copy) that the transcript is official and hasn't been altered.
I think most places will do this, though there might be a fee.


text:
Post Doc referees related to one another
I recently completed a PhD and I'm now applying for post docs, so I need to provide references with these applications. To me it seems natural to provide both my PhD supervisor and master's thesis supervisor as a reference, in addition to one external professor who knows my work. I will of course ask them for permission in advance.
However, in my case the PhD and MSc advisors have a close family relationship. I worked with each of them separately as well as jointly with the three of us. Is it appropriate to include both of them as referees to one application or list them both as references on my CV?

I don't see any problem with listing them separately, just as if they were any two other people.  Of course it is good to have an additional reference who is not related (and from a different institution).
I think it would be inappropriate to omit one of them, or lump them together with the other, solely because of their family relationship.  It would look like you are devaluing their professional opinion for reasons unrelated to their professional work.

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


text:
Mentioning my clinical depression in a statement of purpose
I have been struggling with clinical depression for over an year now and that has affected my grades. Is it a good idea to mention that in a statement of purpose while applying to a university (for a M.Sc+Ph.D programme)?

NO and again No

No. It is not a good idea. These statements are to show your positives and potential. You are not cheating any one if you did not mention that. But no one asked you about your medical history.

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


text:
Is it a good idea to include working papers on Curriculum Vitae?
I am a senior undergraduate student and looking to apply to PhD programs. I am doubtful whether I should put my working papers on my CV alongside the already published works. I don't want to exclude them because I think my work in progress are more important than the published works. Will listing a separate section for working papers, with a side note on where do I intend to submit them be good?

I've seen preprint sections in CVs listing papers on arXiv and the like. This seems like a good idea as these works are tangible: the interested reader can actually get a hold of them (instead of, say, putting X et al, in preparation on your CV).

Don't note...where [you] intend to submit, because you might change your mind

This is confusing to me. In the fields I am familiar with, working papers are published works. Are you talking about what we call manuscripts, i.e. a document you're writing or have written, but is unpublished?

Work in progress can be a good indicator of both interest and ability. I wouldn't exclude them and a separate section for it would be good. I doubt that a lot of undergraduates are in this position, though my perspective is the US.
Saying where you intend to submit/publish them is a bit speculative unless you have already published in those venues. But it is more likely to help than hurt as it shows you have a plan.
But in general, giving your work in progress shows an active research trajectory that might be carried directly into grad school if the circumstances are right.

I think this can be appropriate, especially as a student. When I was recently applying for academic jobs I listed a paper in my CV that was not yet published (or submitted at that time) because it was the main result of my dissertation.
Under my Research articles section I had two subsections: Publications, which listed papers actually published and Manuscripts in preparation. This allowed me to highlight some of my current and recent research.
I would advise you to keep the papers "in preparation" to at maximum a couple; I didn't include the half finished paper I wasn't going to submit for 6 months, or the ideas which I've written an abstract for, use this only for papers that are at least conceptually done. The reason for this is that you want to highlight them, and if someone asks about them they will be able to tell pretty quickly if the paper is still at the "idea" stage which would seem like you were padding your CV.


text:
Can you submit for journal publication an institutional working paper?
Journals are nowadays fairly open to preprints before submission (e.g. Nature policies here https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/preprints-and-conference-proceedings). However, are they okay with institutional working papers?
For example, can I publish my work as an IMF or World Bank working paper and then submit the manuscript to a journal? I would some substantial change text and figures to fit scope but the results would be based on the same work (data + code).

@leonos At least in economics and adjacent fields, working papers are essentially what other fields call preprints, but it is conventional that a working paper is distributed via an institutional working paper series. These series are maintained by university departments or other research organisations, with varying degrees of "reviews". As far as I understand, all economics journals should treat these as unpublished.

Yes, I meant an institutional working paper as in IMF working paper or World Bank working paper. Thanks @jnanin this makes me more confident I can still submit for journal publication.


text:
In addition to naming three professors, should I mention that I am open to working with other professors in SOP?
I am naming three professors from specific Ph.D. programs with whom I have identified similarities in our research interests in my SOP. In the last sentence, I want to mention that I am also interested in working with other professors whose research aligns with my own. I want to include this line in case my selected three professors reject me; then, there will be hope that someone else with similar research interests (whom I might have missed while searching the university website) will show interest in my application. However, I understand that the admissions committee or the professors might perceive this as negative. Is writing a sentence at the end of the paragraph expressing that I am open to working with other faculty members with similar research interests a good or bad idea?

Are you naming those professors because the institution has instructed you to (e.g.: "name 3 professors you're interested in working with in your application")? Or just on your own accord?

Some universities explicitly wanted the names, but most of them didn't. But from whoever I spoke to (and some YouTube videos) they all suggested to name 2-3 professors.

Some related questions that might be useful: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15016/can-i-mention-professors-names-in-the-statement-of-purpose https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/116530/can-i-mention-multiple-faculty-members-in-my-sop https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/120184/mention-a-specific-potential-adviser-and-project-in-the-phd-statement-of-purpose

Unlike some other places, in the US it is seldom necessary to specify professors. It is useful, however, to be flexible. You may need to specify some subfield of the overall field, but little else. If you have some ideas for research that is a plus provided you don't insist on this-but-nothing-else.
Focus the SoP on your goals, it is fine to name some professors as possible advisors, but seldom necessary. You generally have a while before you need to choose a supervisor and have a chance to meet them and become more familiar with their work.

Thank you, but I am not clear yet. Is writing a sentence at the end of the paragraph expressing that I am open to working with other faculty members (I mean, the faculty members I did not mention earlier) with similar research interests a good or bad idea?

Indicating your flexibility is a good idea.

Although I suspect that you're not in mathematics... in which a student's saying they were "willing" to work with ... would sound very arrogant... I think you should not say so. I'd presume that in every milieu most students would be happy to have an advisor/mentor/funding ... so it might be a little silly to say that you would "accept" such things. You're at the low end of the status hierarchy, etc... :)


text:
How to prioritize which content to mention and what not in the Statement of Purpose
I am applying for the CS Ph.D. program in the USA. While writing my Statement of Purpose (SOP), I realized I have a multitude of accomplishments to convey. For instance, I hold both undergraduate and graduate degrees with high CGPAs, authored 17 publications, accumulated years of teaching experience, worked as a software engineer, and developed numerous tools and packages, everything relevant to my field of study. Now, I am grappling with the challenge of adhering to the word limit typically set by universities, often capped at a maximum of 1000 words (sometimes only 500). I drafted one that contains more than 2500 words. I am genuinely struggling to discern what to include and what not to include, and what the Admission Committee truly values in an LOR. Thanks a lot for your valuable time.

You have the wrong idea about the SoP. It isn't a rehash of your past, but a look toward the future. Other things in your application speak to your accomplishments: Letters of recommendations and CV especially. You also send transcripts, so your degrees and courses are clear already.
The SoP should be forward looking. What do you intend to do in graduate study and thereafter. Very brief mentions of things that support those goals can be added, but don't focus on the past.
Most of what you list goes in the CV. Support for your goals and predictions of your success come from letters.

Thanks a lot. If you don't mind, can you suggest in 2-3 bullet points what I must include in my LOR that the Admissions Committee really values or search for?  (if you have time definitely. Thanks)


text:
Do all 3 recommendation letters carry equal weight?
In most of the universities in the USA/Canada, they want 3 letters of recommendation (LOR). I am curious to know do the admission committee reads or reviews all 3 LORs equally or do they give more precedence to the recommendation of the first recommender and the least precedence to the last one.

How would they know which was first or last? If anything, they will give more weight to letter writers that they know.

@JonCuster Thanks for your comment. I think that's easy. In the application, we mention the names and emails one after another. For example, if we first enter the details of Prof X, then Prof Y, and finally Prof Z. Then, the committee might give Prof X more precedence than Prof Z. This is what I meant. I wanted to know if is this how it works or they consider all of those LORs equally.

You are overthinking this and assuming that everyone will follow some standardized rigorous process of reviewing your application. Particularly if someone has screened them and perhaps even nicely printed out materials for decision makers to review at their leisure.

You have the wrong impression in general of how admissions works.  They do NOT read each item, give a score, add up the scores, and admit the person with the highest number.  Instead, they read each application, get a subjective impression of you as an applicant from your entire application, and compare their subjective impressions of applicants with each other, trying to correct for their own unconscious biases if they can.

No, they aren't all the same, but it depends on what they say, not the order they are listed or received.
The best letters will come from people who say they have worked closely with you in some way, perhaps supervising a project; research even better, but rare. They will also confidently predict your success.
Lesser letters will be those that say something like they had you in class (or classes) and you did well, but don't put their own reputation on the line with a prediction.
Everything in between.
If a letter like the first above is from a prominent person in the field you intend to study, even better, but not so much for the second sort of letter.
Also, sending fewer than the expected number is a red-flag in most cases.

If two strong research LORs and missed one, does it still count a red-flag? Does submitting more LORs (if allowed) have a better chance for admission?

Try to get a third one if at all possible. An extra one might actually be a problem if the system is automated and rejects "extras". Not especially likely, but you wouldn't know which was discarded.

@JustTryToGraduate: one missing letter may result in your application listed as "incomplete" and may not be looked at (at least, this is how it works in my university).

@JustTryToGraduate Many of the websites write that if you submit extra, the reviewers may stop after the first 3 they read, so just send your best 3. Also, many of the sites don't allow a fourth letter to be submitted. Good luck!

Also, having research professor "rare" is field dependent, in physics it is really important to come into grad school having done research already.

Agreed, @DavidRaveh, it depends on the field (and country) enormously. In Biomedical Sciences in the US, if you don't have a letter from two research opportunities (i.e., from a lab at your undergrad and a SURF/REU or the post-bac or industry work you did after undergrad), you're making up ground on all the other applicants. Because the NIH funds undergrad research opportunities heavily, expectations for it are high.


text:
What is "Total Possible" in Undergraduate Grade Point Average
While working on a university application, I found the following, please see the image below. Here, what should I write in Total Possible field? Could you briefly explain with an example? Thank you.

That would almost certainly be the maximum for "full marks" in your courses. In the US it is usually 4.0 (sometimes 4.5). I think in India it is usually 10.0. Other places will vary. So, in the US GPA is something like 3.7/4.0, making 4.0 the total possible.
It seems odd, however, that they also want the 4.0 equivalent.

The equivalent can take into account systems that are more different, such as having better grades corresponding to lower numbers.

@Anyon, the world is a big place.


text:
How important is to show Extracurricular or Leadership skills in SOP apart from academic background and research interests?
I have an 83-word small paragraph in my SOP (computer science, PhD) mentioning that I am the honorary moderator of a computer club and how I organize events and motivate students to participate in competitions. Also, a team from this club became the winner of the international blockchain olympiad. Now, is this paragraph in any way important to the admissions committee? Due to the word limit in my SOP, I have decided to remove the whole paragraph. Do you think removing the paragraph is a good or bad idea? Thank you.

If you replace that with more important and relevant information then it is a good idea to remove it. It has little to do with your goals and purpose of wanting doctoral study or your career goals. Those latter points are the purpose of the Statement of Purpose.
If your academic goals involve blockchain advances then you might include a phrase about that accomplishment, but probably not otherwise.
Put that information in your CV, since they detail past accomplishments. Make the SoP forward looking: goals and purpose. Only use the past to help set a basis for those goals.


text:
how to write a research proposal on a defined Master's by Research project
as the title suggests, how can i write a research proposal for a very defined research project? I am an undergrad in Life Sciences (UK) and I understand I have to state why I'm interested in said topic and how it is relevant and important, but how can I elaborate my ideas on a topic already defined?

A proposal usually includes the following:

The problem you're trying to solve and why it is important (this includes background and motivation of the problem)
Prior work done in the arena and why it is not sufficient
Your solution, how that will solve the problem, and how it addresses the shortcomings in state of the art. This includes the hypothesis.
Your approach: How you will implement your solution, what experiments you will conduct, and a tentative timeline.

Your starting point is the research page for the program, school, university's research page / graduate school. The reason is because each have there own requirements and 'flavour' especially for (well)-defined research project.
Secondly, work alongside your identified research project holder/supervisor.
Typically, for defined research project, depending on how defined it is, you might want to consider

carry out a rapid review of the research topic/area.
gain beyond the surface understanding.
reflect on your research knowledge and interest.
draft your proposal outlining

why the research area is important
summary of state of research area (if  it's natural science fields, state of the art)
what area to focus on (taking cue from the already defined research project and what you gleaned from the rapid review, spiced with your understanding of the topic
research aim
indicative research questions/objective (and hypothesis, if applicable)
methodological approach and possible methods
indicative outcome

What you'll put in will depend on what is expected/required by the school or PG admission/school. You might be restricted to 500 or 1000 or 2000 words (or even more). You might be constrained by a (research proposal) template.


text:
Rejected an offer and then became interested (a bad decision I made)
Three months ago, a professor has offered to me a research position at his university with high salary, and I rejected it because I wanted to join a master's program. Unfortunately, I made a bad decision and now I changed my mind and became very interested to the exciting position he offered to me.
Do you think is it a good idea that I send him an email and ask if the offer is still available? So even that I rejected the offer 3 months ago, is it possible that I ask the professor about that offer again?

Just ask. 3 months is already some time and the position might be gone, but there is no harm in asking.

@wimi Thank you for your comment. So I will do and hope the offer is still available!

Yes, it is a good idea to ask. But explain that you now think you made a mistake in rejecting the offer. You might also want to mention your longer term goals, which I assume include further education. He can help you with that if he has a good sense of your needs. If your work for him is good enough, he might also have some incentive to help you along. One hopes for such an outcome, anyway.
But yes, ask. Silence gains you nothing, nor him, either.

Thank you for your answer. Yes I will explain to him everything. I would like to join his offer until august 2020 because I will start my master's program in September 2020. Hope he will take that into consideration. But first, I hope the offer is still available.

If you already know that you are interested in the position only for 9 months from your side (until Aug 2020), and he is looking for a more long-term assistant, be aware that he may not want to hire you.
Hiring a RA is in many places quite a bit of bureaucratic work, and unless you are absolutely outstanding, I can imagine the prof not being interested in a very temporary candidate for whom (repeatedly) another line, namely an MSc, is of higher priority. Of course, that all depends on the professor, but I could imagine them to go for a candidate with a longer-term perspective.
Of course, asking never hurts, as long as your request is polite and makes clear you will accept any decision the prof makes. Be also prepared that perhaps they have also already hired someone.

Thank you for your answer. I contacted the professor again and waiting for his response!! I don't think he has already hired someone but there is a high probability that either he ignores my mail or not being interested of short term contracts. So let's see!


text:
What should be included on the title page of a conference presentation
I am preparing slides for a conference.
And I struggled (a bit) for what to put on the title page.
I know the paper title is a must, maybe the conference name, place, date.
How about authors and affiliation?
Should I put all the authors name on the title page?
Or only the presenter?
How about if they are from different institute?
Should I put all the institute names on the first page?

I get very grumpy comments if I forget to include the logos of the institutions that are funding the research (if they find out, that is).

I usually include:

Title of talk
Name of presenter (me)
Names of coauthors
Date
Name of conference
Title of conference session (if applicable)
City of conference
My institution's name
Maybe my institution's logo

I don't include the coauthors' affiliations.

Why would you need the Conference Date/Name/City/Session Name?
Surely everyone at the conference is already aware of all these things?
Do your conference slides go online afterwards?

@LyndonWhite: You're right that it's redundant, but it seems to be traditional.  Slides don't usually go online by default, but sometimes people do post them or share them privately, in which case this is useful information to have attached.  Practically, it helps you check that you have loaded the correct slides, and I think maybe it also lets the audience feel subconsciously that this is a very special talk created just for them (although in fact it fact it probably isn't).

good points, I'ld not thought of them. Prehaps they should be added to the answer. Or maybe I should ask another question that you can answer with that?

Should I put all the authors name on the title page?

Yes, of course, unless there are tens of authors (common in particle physics: I dunno how they handle it... maybe with a group photograph). You can then highlight the speaker's name.

Should I put all the institute names on the first page?

Frequently, one puts institutes' logos instead.

In particle physics, they handle it by listing the author as "[presenter-name] on behalf of the [group-name] collaboration" or at least by including the collaboration's logo very prominently. A photograph might be included, but when this is done it usually appears at the very end of the talk.

To answer from a slightly different perspective: As somebody watching the presentation, I would like to see the following:

A title (if possible, one that reflects what you're actually going to talk about, rather than what you thought you would be talking about a year ago when you submitted the abstract ;-))
The authors' names and affiliations. Make it clear who is speaking, in case I don't know you personally.
An email address for queries (put it at the end as well, but if it's at both ends there's a stronger chance that it'll remain up for long enough to note it down)

Try to resist the urge to turn it into a dense mass of extraneous information and logos. Do not include the following unless you have to:

The name or city of the conference
The date
Funders' logos

If I am at a conference I know where I am. Unless it's been a very long and tiring conference I probably know the date as well. These things may be useful metadata for archival purposes, but it isn't needed by the audience - so put them in small grey text somewhere on the slide, invisible (or at least not attention-grabbing) from a distance.
Similarly, if I'm watching your presentation I probably care about the research, and maybe who did it - not who funded it. Don't include funders logos on the title page unless required to do so; instead, put them on an acknowledgements slide at the end, with anybody else that you owe acknowledgements to.

Please include the place and date. The audience does not care about them, but people who find your slides later by Google will appreciate if they can easily find out who presented it, where, and when.

@JukkaSuomela hence what I said - include it, but small and not standing out. It's there as metadata for later, but doesn't distract at the event.

Why is the title optional?

@DaveClarke Is it useful information, to somebody who is sitting in the hall watching the presentation? Hmm, I guess it might determine whether that's the right time to get coffee. And it is more essential from an archival perspective. I'll remove the "optional" label from that.


text:
Google Scholar citation missing because of name mismatch?
I am a PhD student and have only a few publications under my belt. I just noticed a Nature paper cited my Master's thesis but it cited my first name as my last and my last first. I am a tad worried that this problem would propagate. On top of that, I tried to add this missing citation to my Google Scholar profile by adding an article manually with the messed up name (as in the references of the work citing mine) but the citation didn't show. For some reason, this citation was shown on ResearchGate and I just claimed authorship to it but would this affect the Google Scholar citation count though?
Would appreciate any suggestions around avoiding name being mis-cited or fixing citation count.

I would suggest that you email Nature, and the authors of the publication providing proof that they have not cited your work correctly. If either of them address this issue - which they should - then you should end up with the citation being correctly attributed to you.
On a side note I would suggest that you sign up to ORCID so that you claim a unique identifier for your research.

As researchers and scholars, you face the ongoing challenge of
  distinguishing your research activities from those of others with
  similar names. You need to be able to easily and uniquely attach your
  identity to research objects such as datasets, equipment, articles,
  media stories, citations, experiments, patents, and notebooks. As you
  collaborate across disciplines, institutions and borders, you must
  interact with an increasing number and diversity of research
  information systems. Entering data over and over again can be
  time-consuming, and often frustrating.
ORCID is an open, non-profit, community-driven effort to create and
  maintain a registry of unique researcher identifiers and a transparent
  method of linking research activities and outputs to these
  identifiers. ORCID is unique in its ability to reach across
  disciplines, research sectors and national boundaries. It is a hub
  that connects researchers and research through the embedding of ORCID
  identifiers in key workflows, such as research profile maintenance,
  manuscript submissions, grant applications, and patent applications.


text:
Can I use the sentence "Most of the references in this paper" in my paper?
My paper was accepted with major revision and the 2nd reviewer pointed in a comment that the problem I'm tackling in my paper is not obvious or as important as I'm thinking it is...
Yet, almost all of the references I used point out that this problem is a major drawback! And it was the main motivation to the others (most of those papers were published in the last 3 years, Q1 journals in scimago, ex : IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, some cited up to 200 times)...
So just for the sake of this reviewer, I want to point that most of the references in my paper show that the problem I'm trying to solve is a real one.

So should I write :

The problem X was reported in [ 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8..., 15 ]

Or is there a nice way to say :

In most of the references in this paper, the problem X was reported and was the main motivation...

Or should I just try to convince the reviewer in a separate motivation letter?

Definitely not 3.  The reviewer is a proxy for the reader.  If the reviewer isn't convinced by your current language, then at least some of your readers won't be convinced either.

I would use the first option. If you know the papers which back your position, name them. Maybe not all of them, but three to five. Choose the papers with the most explicit wording and/or the authors with highest reputation in your field.
Note, some citation styles allow to write the list of cited papers more compact, e.g., [1,2,4-8,..15].

I'd refer to a specific list of papers (as in your first option) rather than "most", but I see no problem with adding (as in your second option) that your problem was the main motivation there (provided, of course, that it really was the main motivation).


text:
Getting Letters of recommedation with no professor suport
How does one obtain letters of rec after he/she graduated from university?
I am currently enrolled in a  post-bac biotechnology program where I could identity one potential candidate for a letter. I have one letter from my former boss where I dealt with computers. But what are my options getting another letter? BTW I haven't known my professor in the biotechnology program forever (just 2 months). How long do you have to know a professor before asking?

Thanks! I always thought it was impossible to get letters after college. I have been struggling to get them!

I haven't known my professor in the biotechnology program forever (just 2 months). How long do you have to know a professor before asking?

There is no stipulated time duration. It is just that the person writing that recommendation letter has to well acquainted with your work, to feel confident while endorsing you. In your case, the relevant points would be how well you fared in any self-learning modules of his course, or otherwise, in his course in general. (I'm assuming there's no "project" type thing involved. If there is, even better!, because that gives him a better opportunity to judge your potential.)
So, if you feel he has had ample exposure to your work to be in a position to write a favorable recommendation letter for you, you should absolutely go ahead!

How does one obtain letters of rec after he/she graduated from university?

Provided the above stipulation is satisfied, you can go and meet him personally, or even write an email if the former is not possible. You haven't mentioned for how long have you haven't been in touch with him in the question. If it is 1-2 years, it is likely that he wouldn't have completely forgotten you, or at least, you can ring up old memories in any case. Also, you must absolutely enclose your CV in the email.
Please bear in mind that if he doesn't feel confident enough, or has his doubts, he is most likely not going to respond to your email, and obviously, no recommendation also. If your entire correspondence is via email only, you could send him one, or at most, two gentle reminders, but DO NOT press it beyond that! Also, space the reminders by about a week or so. If he doesn't reply, accept it calmly that this avenue is gone. If it is gone, you will have to look for another guy, but all this is definitely worth a shot. I mean, you have nothing to lose.
Hope that helps :)


text:
Publishing a paper that cites my previous work
How should one cite previous work of his own? If one paper relies on previous work that author already did I suppose that paper should be cited. Given that one paper is a continuation of the one before should the papers that are cited there as previous work be cited as-well?

I am a bit uncertain on why this should be different just because it is work of the author himself. What to cite and when should not depends on who wrote the cited text.

I don't know. That's why i'm asking. Given that one paper is a continuation of the other what clarifies as previous work? The paper before or the previous work of that paper?

I am still not sure what you mean. Everything done previously is "previous work", regardless of who the author is.

Let me try to be more specific. To all of the researching stuff in Computer Science, the creation of the computer is also previous work. So more or less my question is, how far should the previous work should go? If the new paper is only dealing with stuff noted in the previous one (both of the same author) should it also cited the previous one's previous work?

How should one cite previous work of his own? — Exactly the same way anyone else should cite his previous work.

If I take your question literally, then this would be my answer:
I citation serves two purposes:

You avoid that you take credit for work by others, and thus avoid plagiarism. This point also applies to your own work published somewhere else.
It can act like an "external appendix" (e.g. the interested reader can read the proof in...).

So, if you make a statement in your current article that relies on findings in your previous articles, then you should cite yourself. If your previous articles contain information you would otherwise have put in an (web)appendix, then you can cite yourself. Otherwise, you should not cite yourself.
However, I suspect you want to know how far back you should go when writing the section "previous research". Here the answer is it depends on what is considered normal in your (sub-)discipline. At the very least I would look at that section from the perspective of a reader: Can they understand how you want to place your article within the research that has been done in this area? Discussing the creation of the computer is typically not necessary to achieve that goal...

A paper should be largely self-contained in its citations.  Cite everything that is directly needed to understand the context of the current paper.  This will typically mean that there are many citations shared between papers, but that is OK.
Let me illustrate by means of three examples.  Let's say that you have already written paper A, which presents a method for making widgets.  A year later, you write paper B, building on the work.

Case 1: Paper B is about a better method for making widgets: In this case, you need to give the context for addressing the widget-making problem.  You should not assume that the reader has read paper A, so the citations of paper B should likely be nearly identical, with the addition of paper A.  The only missing will be citations that were supporting the method in paper A but that do not apply to paper B (e.g., an analytical technique used for one but not the other).
Case 2: Paper B is about applications of widgets: In this case, you need to keep the citations supporting why anybody should care about widgets, but can drop all of the citations on alternate ways of making widgets.  It is enough to say, "we make the widgets using the method in [cite]", if the paper isn't about making them.
Case 3: Paper B is about using the same method to make gizmos instead of widgets: In this case, you can drop all of the citations motivating care about widgets, since this is about gizmos instead.  You will still need citations to compare this method to alternate methods of making gizmos (which might be the same citations as for widgets, depending).

Thus, you may see that the number of shared citations depends on the type of relationship between the papers, because ultimately it boils down to making sure the reader doesn't have to look up another paper in order to find the critical pieces of related work for the one that they are currently reading.

Your previous work already cites the papers it's based on, so just citing your own paper is implicitly citing the other ones.
I think NO, you don't need to cite them all, just the last.

Up to a point. Any given paper should be readable on its own. I think it's fine to summarize previous work in the new paper and point to the old paper for more details, but leaving it out entirely is definitely a no-no. (And no, just citing the previous paper is not a summary.)


text:
Problems evaluating a system with unexplainable results
I am writing a master's thesis in a Machine Learning domain.
I created a system and I am now testing it.
I designed most of my system while validating on benchmark set A. The results are good and realistic and I am confident that I can explain the behaviour of the system scientifically.
Now I have one month left and I still have to do a lot of writing which I plan to do full-time until the end of the submission time.
Two weeks before, my supervisor asked me to also test my system on benchmark set B to have a better picture of the performance.
Adding this took very little time but running evaluations on benchmark set B takes ages: I have to do around 6-10 experiments and now one experiment takes around 1.5 days. I don't have to do anything during these experiments but the latency of getting results is really high.
This is where my problem begins. After a week of evaluating on both benchmark sets, I noticed that the performance on set B is a bit worse, but the really bad thing is: I cannot explain why and I don't think that I have the time to find the explanation.
The easiest solution would be to just drop set B, but this would of course be really bad scientific practice and is not acceptable.
The other option is to live with not being able to explain what is going on. This would be unfortunate and I wouldn't know what to write in my discussion section.
Do you have an idea how I can still save the thesis now?

What does your supervisor say? You need to make them happy, not random strangers on the internet...

I didn't aim to make anyone happy. I aim to write a thesis with scientific standards. My supervisor has told me to evaluate it further but is not completely informed about my current status as they do not work on the weekend.

Then the solution to your problem is to wait until Monday. No-one here can offer you advice remotely comparable to that from your advisor.

You shouldn't expect that the results are the same on different data sets. Any given set is only a subset of all possible results and there are probabilistic effects leading to different outcomes. You say the new results are "a bit different". That should be no concern unless one of the data sets seems to negate the hypothesis. It is only in that case that you have to do the deeper analysis. One of the data sets contradicting the other doesn't tell you which gives the more valid evidence. And in that case you have little evidence for the correctness of your work.
I don't recommend dropping either data set. If they are both broadly consistent with hypotheses or expected outcomes then there should be no issue. Dropping one set would probably overstate the validity of the other.
I agree that further analysis can be valuable as it may lead to deeper understanding.

Since you tagged this with "ethics" let me add that it is usually unethical to hide results, especially unfavorable ones.

Thanks for your answer! @Buffy


text:
co-authorship of publications
How can I find all publications where I am listed as a co-author?  I have been assisting on a number of projects as a supervisor from the community and providing materials and information for the research projects which are to do with bush foods.  I know I have been listed as a co-author but need a list for another research grant.  The University is in WA.

"How can I find all publications where I am listed as a co-author?" You don't know what papers you wrote ?

Not my stuff to judge but I am "literally" curious how you do not know the papers in which you are involved. Does this mean that you want your PhD/post-docs to write papers for you and you are not concretely involved in these projects?

@Nobody: Thinking about this has me now wondering whether my Erdős number is 1 instead of a rather mundane 3, because maybe I co-authored a paper with Erdős back in the 1970s or 1980s and forgot about doing so. (Yes, I know there are several easy ways to check this -- this and this and this.)

It's an odd question, but let me give an answer ignoring the big elephant in the room that is mentioned in Nobody's comment to the question.
ORCID:
ORCID IDs are unique digital identifiers for authors, similar to what DOIs are for papers. If you have an ORCID ID, and this was provided during the submission process of any papers, ORCID will list these publications under your name.
Google Scholar:
If you have a Google Scholar account, it also provides a list of publications. Note that Google Scholar's algorithm of assigning papers has its problems, and, in my experience, tends to assign items (e.g., presentation slides that are online somewhere) as publications to your profile. I also assume that it will have issues if your name is not unique. Note that unlike with ORCID, you don't need to have had an account at the time of publishing to add publications to your profile.
Your memory/email: If you are author on a manuscript, you will have (i) agreed to do so in communications with your co-authros, and (ii) had some sort of communication from the journal in which a paper if published, even if you were not the submitting author.


text:
How do I identify and deal with waste-of-time assignments?
I'm a college student with an interest in tutoring and eventually teaching.  I spend a lot of time in class watching my classmates get confused and thinking of better ways to teach the material; I have a background in public policy and have in other capacities spent a fair amount of time explaining complex concepts to people (legislators, people in unrelated departments, students next?) without the background knowledge to understand those concepts if given technical jargon.
That's all good, but I found another problem:  as an instructor, how do I identify and deal with assignments that are just a waste of time?
I've noticed this with some courses.  In one particular course, we had a semester-long assignment on a topic we didn't cover in class; rather, there is a reading assignment and a number of extremely trivial but time-consuming mini assignments (like, 6 in one day) given as homework.  Overall, the semester-long project demands we learn the topic; while the assignments along the way seem to demand a lot of time for little if any learning.  Some students did their projects but lost a lot of their grade because they never did any of the homework, which is bizarre.
I'm not sure this tests learning, or is conducive to learning.  How do I determine if such work is helping students learn or just wasting their time?  Wasted time could better be spent on something else, whether something that actually helps the student learn (the given course or another concurrent course) or just leisure so they don't burn out.  How do educators normally determine if the assignments they give students maximizes their learning or if it gets in the way?
(This is probably related to the question about lectures, considering in some classes 2/3 of the students skip the lecture because it's worth more to study in groups during that time.)

All I can say is "follow your common sense". As instructors, we are all prone to errors and under/overestimating the usefulness and difficulty of the assignments we give to the students. Try to diversify a bit combining routine exercises with more challenging assignments and give the students some leeway like having the maximum possible score of 120 with 100 points officially enough for an A. There is no "size that fits all" in homework: what is a total waste of time for one student may be very useful for another and vice versa. Just play it by the ear and monitor the outcomes.

The problem with that is common sense justifies anything you want to think is right. For example, in grade school (NOT college), it's common sense that homework is important…except many teachers have found that the students learn best if they eliminate homework and take a different approach to teaching. Seems homework in grade school is almost if not entirely worthless. This is used heavily to manipulate people in politics (in this case you could just argue that homework is obviously important, everyone knows that, and people would buy it because it's common sense).

"common sense justifies anything you want to think is right" That depends on one's definition of "common sense". Mine is "personal observations resulting from reasonably extensive trial and error". It is subjective, but you will, probably, agree that what works for some teacher with some class may dramatically fail for another teacher or another class. I never assign extensive compulsory homework, BTW, just give regular in class quizzes letting the students know what types of problems will be there in advance and allowing them to choose how much/little practice they need to prepare for them.

I'd note that you have asked two different questions: First you ask how to ascertain whether particular assignments are helping students learn. Then you ask how to determine whether any given assignments maximize student learning. These are probably different questions, and "maximizes" is maybe ill-specified to the point of uselessness.

Maximization is a goal that requires eliminating things that aren't useful; but yes, I assume the optimization problem in general is unsolvable and has the same issues as seeking Pareto optimality (i.e. local vs. global maximum is not obvious).  Perhaps that was poorly worded.

Let me point out, importantly, that people learn in different ways. What might be a waste of time to one person might be essential to another. Early career academics often forget that students are not like themselves and have different learning styles and different goals. If you go on, don't forget that if you want to be a successful teacher.

A strategy I have found quite useful is to spell out what I want my students to learn on the syllabus that is distributed on day 1 of the class (the "learning outcomes"), and to take the task of writing these learning objectives seriously -- what do I want my students to know and be able to do when the class is over?
Then, when I write homework, I check every homework assignment against the list of learning outcomes. It is easy to write assignments because they just seem related to the topics we're covering in class ("apply this theorem to this situation"), but many of the assignments I come up this way do not make the cut because being able to do rote work is not really what I'm after; the problems that survive the comparison against the learning objectives tend to be the ones that let students explore things from a different angle, connect to material they have learned in previous classes, etc. These are the problems that I find it worthwhile letting my students work on.
I tend to do the same with exam questions. My goal with exam questions is that students walk away from an exam and can say "I learned something today".

That's a good approach. In this case, this is related to a programming language, and our professor told us day 1 that nobody just memorizes everything in programming; our most important skill is looking up the documentation for whatever we're trying to do, and trying something and adjusting based on the result (e.g. swapping function inputs because it's y,x not x,y). This seems incongruous with many small, tedious, and severely narrow-scope exercises, versus the more complex but approachable projects that are small but require accomplishing some meaningful goal by reasoning.

@JohnMoser Yes. My assignments tend to be four or five longer questions around a common theme, rather than 8 or 10 independent and unconnected shorter questions.

This question is extremely broad in practice. How do instructors ascertain the utility of their assignments is? Trial and error, more or less. You must obtain data from such trials somewhere:

Your own trials and assessments of exercises you assign in your own courses.
Your own analysis of assessments and assignments you have been given in the same or similar courses.
Anecdotes from colleagues on trial and assessments of exercises they assigned in their own courses.
Trials and assessments of exercises done by education researchers who report on their findings.

I've heard of no quick and easy recipes for synthesizing the available information into a prediction of the usefulness about any given assignment.
Defining "learning" in a precise and nontrivial way is hard. Also, assignments are not undertaken in isolation: Each student's background, the context of their other assignments both in the same course and others, the course objectives, and the class schedule all impact and constrain what might be effective.
A few additional comments:

I've noticed this with some courses...

When analyzing personal experiences and anecdotes, being as precise as possible about your positive and negative criticism may be most useful in the future. You've started on this: In the context of the course, what do you think the learning objective(s) of the assignment you described were? What aspects of the assignment contributed positively to your accomplishing those learning objectives? Why? What contributed negatively, and why?
For instance, I can't tell from your description whether you considered the micro-assignments were too easy, too long, or were assigned on too rigid a schedule.

In the first case, the assignment did not prompt you to engage in additional activities which contributed to a learning objective that you would have otherwise not done.
In the second case, the assignments prompted you towards activities that significantly helped accomplish a learning objective, but you think you would've accomplished the same or similar with significantly less.
In the third case, the assignments prompted you towards useful activities you would not have otherwise undertaken, but you're confident you could have completed them at the same average rate given more flexibility.

I have a background in public policy and have in other capacities spent a fair amount of time explaining complex concepts to people (legislators, people in unrelated departments, students next?) without the background knowledge to understand those concepts if given technical jargon.

You know this, but it seems worth saying. Your background would probably be very useful to as an instructor, but the objectives and constraints of a college instructor are very different from a legislative adviser. Don't put the cart before the horse, however. Your instructors may be a lot more effective at accomplishing their objectives given the context than you notice as a student.
Decision-makers need to construct very rapidly a mental model of a technical subject that lets them make reasonable decisions related to it. College students have several years to develop a whole range of skills, including quite high-fidelity understanding of several subjects in a whole field of knowledge. You cannot be spared from learning precise language if a subject is incomprehensible without it.

Some students did their projects but lost a lot of their grade because they never did any of the homework, which is bizarre.

This does not sound so bizarre to me. It's very hard to determine whether this outcome is within parameters except without the whole class's performance, and hopefully data from previous runs.
One of the major tangential objectives/constraints of teaching classes of students who are predominantly 18-22 years old directly out of high school is promoting a level of personal responsibility where people can be successful as adults. A substantial number of students come in without robust mechanisms to keep up with and finish their assignments effectively. Usually it's exactly short/small/frequent assignments that aren't repeatedly announced in lectures where this problem turns up.
Trying to promote responsibility in a reasonable way for those who need it without driving those who don't up the wall is a constant tension. Break content into too many small pieces that are due very often and those who can handle their schedules more effectively are frustrated. Break content into too few big pieces that are due infrequently and many students overestimate their progress due to lack of feedback.

Good feedback. My issue is the assigned content was not very helpful and could have been skipped entirely in favor of just doing the project; and simultaneously took a long time. Very little learning for time invested. I needed a few seconds for each of the small questions and that still took a few hours each week; I needed a couple minutes to process each small practical example; and I didn't bother reading the material, which would have taken even longer. Also this is a first-semester gateway class, these students know nothing; it's different teaching a 4th-semester 300-level class.


text:
Would GRE Help When Applying To Doctorate Programs Without Prior Research Experience?
I graduated in 2022 from a 4-year BS(CS) program. During university, I was mostly occupied with Software Engineering, gaining experience, developing projects, and what not. However, I missed out on building a research profile and publishing a paper. I realized this as I was graduating, and that if I had a published paper, it would help me immensely with my application process.
After graduation, my career orientation has been toward applying for a Ph.D. program in the US. I realized I lack research experience. However, I have come to believe that attaining impressive GRE scores could help me in my attempt to land a good scholarship at a prestigious university. I graduated with 3.66 CGPA, with 3.5+ SGPA across 6 semesters. I've performed well, and my teachers are willing to write strong letters of recommendation for me. Is my assumption true that GRE will still be a support, or is that a wavering concern in today's admission process? I'm just very, very, very anxious when comparing myself to some of my peers who DO have research experience. The university I graduated from did not have a large emphasis on research, which is why I just never gained awareness until I was about to graduate.
Thank you!

If the GRE is required, then supply it. Otherwise I'd suggest that you don't. In the US, the application process already considers a broad range of information, with letters especially important. The GRE is becoming much less important in some programs for a variety of reasons and it, alone, doesn't predict research success. Those letters, however, from people who know you are expected to honestly predict your success.
If you've taken the exam and have an outstanding score then there is no harm in submitting it, but if it isn't asked for it isn't likely to count for much.
You aren't normally expected to already have research experience in a CS undergraduate program when applying for a doctoral program. That, in itself won't be an issue. The program is designed to give you that experience. The program normally starts with advanced coursework leading to comprehensive exams.

See the answer for the US to this canonical question for more:
How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in Country X?

Right, thanks! I was seeking validation about the prior research experience, though. Thank you for clearing that up.


text:
Why is it bad practice to write "In [1], it is shown that..."
I don't remember where, but I read that it is not recommended to write, in a article, something like

[...], as detailed in [1].

Instead, we should write

[...], as detailed by Someone [1].

In other words, reference numbers should not be treated as nouns. Why is it so? I see nothing disturbing with the first form.


text:
Section for "main results" and use of "conclusion" in a math article
I am planning to submit an article to a mathematically-oriented journal (namely: Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis).
I have quite a lot of results so I wrote a section "Main Results".
Question 1 In this section, the results are given as theorems, and each proof is given in another section. However, there is one simple theorem whose proof is only a few lines long. Can I provide the proof in the "Main Results" section, or is it not customary to include any proofs there?
Question 2 I am used to adding conclusions to my articles, but all the articles I read in this journal do not have any. Should I do the same and not add any conclusion (note that nothing is mentionned about this in the guidelines)?

Can I provide the proof in the "Main Results" section, or is it not
  customary to include any proofs there?

It is fine to include a proof of a few lines in a section titled Main Results, if you feel that that helps your narrative, if it adds some insight that is useful at this point in the paper, or if the proof is extremely elegant or interesting. It is also fine not to do so. Good writing cannot be summarized in a few rules, one needs to always think about what makes sense for the particular context one is thinking about.

Should I do the same and not add any conclusion?

Pure math papers almost never have a Conclusion section. If the reader reads the introduction, the results and the proofs and still doesn't know what conclusions are to be drawn from the work, it is a bad paper and no final section will save it. For this reason, many if not most math papers simply end after the end of the last proof. Others will have a final section titled something like "Additional remarks", "Final remarks" or "Open problems". This section will usually be short and forward-looking, addressing possible extensions of the work, or containing some half-baked thoughts about aspects of the work or related questions that the authors still don't understand well.
Conclusion
I don't have any. :-)

This answer contains exactly what I would have said.  (So: +1, of course.)

Concerning Q1: Generally, people do not give proofs in the first section and state only main results in the introduction provided that the paper is written in the style that you described. However, if you think that the proof of a theorem should be included in the first section, it is completely OK. See for example the following paper : http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.02604
Q2: I did not write anything with a conclusion section until now but there are many papers having a conclusion section. If you want to include some open problems and conjectures (may depend on numerical experiments) or some open-ended discussion it is appropriate to add a conclusion section in your paper. Otherwise, the conclusion section (as the title of a section) may not reflect the content of the associated part of the paper.

Question 1. I have seen both cases. I will include proof of the simple theorem in main results.
Question 2. In math, your conclusions are your main theorems. It is typically not needed to include a Conclusions section.

-1 for disparaging another discipline.

Conclusions are essential in engineering, precisely because the result can usually not be as clear as a theorem. But, +1 because you answered and I am not sure it was intended scorn...

@anderstood If it wasn't intended, it was highly negligent.

OK, I edited answer to Question 2.