text:
What repercussions do I risk if I exclude my postdoc advisor from list of co-authors against his will?
I am a postdoc in computer science. At the end of my first year I have submitted a paper to a reputable conference, co-authored by me, a PhD student and my adviser. It was recently rejected. Reason: it was a rushed submission at the insistence of my adviser, the project simply needed more time. Our submission was published as technical report on which he is a co-author.
At the beginning of 2nd year we have agreed that I will continue my work on this project and will turn it into a strong submission. Now, midway this project he gives me an "offer I cannot refuse": either I produce 2 papers or he fires me and expects me to finish the paper on my own.
To be short, he believes I cost him too much and is desperate to do some salami slicing. He wants to cut our planned strong paper into 2 weak halves. This could work, but could also lead to another round of rejects and wasted effort. In addition, the pace at which he expects me to work is unsustainable. Poor judgement and abuse, if you ask me. In addition, I quite disagree with his style of editing which emphasizes overstatements and "selling" over accurate technical contributions.
I expect to be fired any day now. His participation in this work, at least from my side, was financing me, supervising and editing the draft. By supervising I mean weekly meetings, listening, asking questions, mostly agreeing.
The research design and implementation is entirely mine. The original idea was proposed by some external collaborators who didn't wish to participate in this research.
My plan at this point is to remove the work of the PhD student (because it doesn't fit well the rest of the paper), add all the work I have done so far, re-write the whole paper and publish as sole author. According to ACM policy he won't have any substantial contributions left. As you can see from above, I question the quality of his contributions at all levels and am quite confident I can finish this work on my own.
He insists he still qualifies for co-authorship because he financed most of the research. However he is unwilling to finance me until the submission and expects me to finish the work on my own.
Question: What repercussions do I risk if I exclude him from co-authors?
I don't expect to get any good recommendation letters from him anyway, so this is not an issue.

See Should I put my supervisor as coauthor of a paper?, the follow-up How to respond to allegations of misconduct in authorship dispute?, and the 3rd chapter What to do with papers after misconduct allegation was resolved? for example of possible consequences.

If you're trying to avoid being fired, this seems like a bad approach.

His participation in this work [...] was financing me, supervising and editing the draft. The research design and implementation is entirely mine. The original idea was proposed by some external collaborators.

From what I see, I think that your supervisor deserves an authorship of this paper. I think that you also should at least offer the external collaborator a chance to contribute to the paper and become a co-author, too.

Your supervisor (PI) was working on a particular topic and presumably is an expert in this field.
Your PI has an established network of connections, and was able to realise that the idea of external collaborator can work for the problem you are working on. The decision to apply a particular idea to a particular problem is a risky decision, and (in case of success) a significant contribution.
Your PI hired you. This is a risky decision, which itself is a part of a wider research process. The choice of people working on the research project is itself a part of "research design".
Your PI listened to your ideas (at least during the interview) and
approved them. This is a part of "research design".
Presumably, you had a few research meetings with your PI, in which he listened to your ideas, corrected them and approved them. This is a part of "research design" (which is a continuous process).

The fact that your original manuscript was rejected (for which you are the principal author, I assume) can indicate that you are not yet prepared to write to a standard of independent academic researcher. That's why an advice your PI gives you is important and valuable. For this supervision process, and also formal editing on the manuscript, he (or she) deserves to be included as an author.
Now, to answer your question. If at this stage you decide not to follow your PI's lead, you will not benefit from his advice and support any more. Based on what you've said, it looks like this decision can significantly reduce your chance of becoming a successful academic researcher. A particular repercussion take a form of bad recommendation letters, cut off funding, lack of support in internal promotion process, cut off access to your PI's network of collaborators. But most importantly, it is lack of his personal support and advice. Academia is a complicated world, and many early career researchers (including some young professors) can not navigate themselves through it efficiently without a help of their mentor/supervisor/PI. The lack of this help is the most serious repercussion. Do not underestimate it.

While I agree with most of this answer (+1), this is certainly too strong: "The fact that your original manuscript was rejected means that you are not yet prepared to write to a standard of independent academic researcher." It can easily be the case that the author had bad luck with the reviewers.

@lighthousekeeper Thank you - I agree - I toned it down a bit.

Agree. Even the fact that you agreed with him to continue on this project to make it a stronger submission is part of the supervision process. From the way I see it, while a student or post doc, you are well connected with your PI regardless if their contribution is no more than "Sounds good, go ahead with this idea". You are part of his research group in a line that he/she defined.

@lighthousekeeper -- it is a particularly unproductive thought to think that having one's paper rejected is "bad luck with reviewers". Nobody doubts that that may in fact happen occasionally. The vast majority of cases where papers are rejected are, however, because the paper simply was bad. To just chalk it up to bad luck deprives yourself of an opportunity to honestly think about what the reviewers may have had to criticize.

@WolfgangBangerth I certainly agree that it's a bad idea to generally attribute rejection to bad luck. I don't agree to the following premise: "The vast majority of cases where papers are rejected are, however, because the paper simply was bad". There is substantial evidence that "variability between reviewers is often the dominant factor as to whether a paper is accepted".

@WolfgangBangerth On top of that empirical evidence, it is worth pointing out that even among the plainly bad papers there is probably a skew towards papers first-authored by 1st and 2nd year PhD students. Papers by more experienced authors, like post-docs, are more likely to be affected by reviewer variability (a.k.a. luck).

Thanks a lot for reply and comments. I edited the question to explain why paper was rejected. Not all points in the answer apply to my case, but I'd rather not add any more details. But I do tend to agree that listening to my ideas and hiring me is part of the "research design". Maybe I'll explain a bit more.

@DmitrySavostyanov Ok, added some more details now. Maybe you can edit your answer.

@Desik Thanks for the details. I sympathise with your feelings, particularly on "salami slicing" publications and self-advertising.  However, this issues are separate from authorship. He may be a terrible author, but he is still a co-author of this paper.

@lighthousekeeper -- you misunderstand my point. All I'm saying is that it's unproductive to claim that your paper was rejected because of bad luck. You should assume that it was rejected for reason, and use the opportunity to learn how to write better papers.
But I also do stand by my assertion. Of the 40-some papers I've written, I had 2 rejected. I take that as evidence that being a careful author and doing the best I can in writing, yields predictable results.

@WolfgangBangerth This point has nothing to do with my initial comment, which was not about how one should deal with rejection; it was about shielding a junior scientist from an unfair conclusion about their ability, a point that is now settled. Also, your own track record is not suitable to support your initial claim about rejected papers. At most, your two rejected papers may have been bad, which would then be two data points in favor of your claim. Finally, predictability of reviews varies across fields. In CS, reviewers have different stances on the required level and type of validation.

I want to thank for the answer and all the comments. It was very worth asking this question and getting your feedback. Otherwise I might have done something stupid:)

I don’t agree that the bulleted points necessarily imply that the supervisor deserves to be a coauthor. Their prior expertise is irrelevant. Suggesting a collaborator is not “research design”. Hiring the postdoc is not “research design”, and paying the postdoc is definitely not sufficient for authorship. The supervisor had no standing to “approve” OP’s research ideas. Being a sounding board at least deserves acknowledgement, but is not automatically sufficient for authorship. The strongest argument in favor of authorship is that he edited the paper.

"He insists he still qualifies for co-authorship because he financed most of the research. However he is unwilling to finance me until the submission and expects me to finish the work on my own."
I think this is the most relevant part in your post. From this, I am assuming your advisor agrees he made no contribution to the paper, aside from financing you. That, in my opinion, does not deserve a co-authorship, just a mention that this work was partially financed through ... blah and blah. Also, you should be thanking him for his feedback in the paper itself (he still spent some time doing that).
Of course, it is hard to know what repercussions you could have. He may simply know people and make your life difficult. Even if you don't ask him for letters of recommendations, people will know he was your advisor.
You need to contact another experienced researcher in your area, and get some feedback about your paper, and possibly enlist him(her) as a co-author if he/she can help you improve the paper to the level you like. Unless your paper is excellent, you need some senior researcher to help you moving forward, and your best chance is to use the quality work you accomplished so far to find another excellent researcher if you decide to un-list your current advisor.


text:
Alternatives to Excel to store experimental data
As a part of my thesis, I collect data from students and I combine their data in a single Excel sheet.
The experiment consists of 200 trials. Every trial gives me three numbers:

The answer is correct (1) or incorrect (0)
Participants' rating of their confidence in a 5-point scale
Reaction time

However, Excel has some weaknesses.

I cannot write three numbers in one cell
Excel doesn't warn me when I mistakenly change or delete data
The formulas become too complex as I just want "average correct answers when confidence is 4 or 5 and Reaction Time is less than 2 seconds"
There are too many rows columns

Below you can see an example how I try to handle my data: (notice the dots, in my original file there are hundreds of rows and columns)

So, I was wondering if there are some other good software (for mac os, if possible) for storing data. Or, do most experimental psychologists store their data in Excel, too?
Edit. I am aware of the existance of other stack exchange sites. You can vote to close if you think this problem is off-topic, but please don't post unfriendly comments.
I thought this problem relates to academia more than other "computer science, programming" stack exchange sites because most psychologists in academia encounters this problem, but they handle it very "manually" because they don't have a programming background. I thought there are some user-friendly software for social scientists.
Thanks for your valuable answers.

This question does not seem to be well-suited for academia as the problems you encounter are not related to it. It is probably a good question for [softwarerecs.se], but before you ask there you should more clearly specify what you need to do with the software, e.g., do you want to perform any automatised analysis? In respect to the latter, it may also be relevant what your programming skills are or how much time and enthusiasm you have to learn some.

For example, I would write a program to enter/record the experimental data, store it using nested dictionaries, list, arrays, etc. or lots of plain-text files. Depending on the size of the endeavour, I might consider learning some database format and use this. Either way, I have the data in a handy format to run all sorts of analyses afterwards. At the end of the day, Excel only exists for people who do not want to learn programming for some reason.

SAS or JMP : SAS is fantastically powerful (but a LOT to learn) JMP is here : https://www.jmp.com/en_gb/software.html

What Wrzlprmft said: if you can, learn some programming and ditch Excel. Then you can store your data in a simple CSV file or in a database. It's a lot less error-prone.

Also, spend some time to consider what the best table layout is. Personally, I would consider putting a column "trial number" which goes from 1 to 200, rather than having 3x200 columns.

You might find the transition to Microsoft Access fairly painless, if you're used to using Excel.  It's pretty similar, but you can easily create a data entry or data modification form that will prevent you from accidentally overwriting your data.

Noting the academic dimension: When I encountered a similar problem in the past, one of the core facilities of our institute would immediately offer to hire an external programmer so that I could focus on the science.

This answer is assuming you are either interested in or already experienced in entry-level programming.
For the programming language Python, a data structure package called Pandas exists. To use it, you can utilize basic python syntax which is not that hard to learn.
There is also extensive documentation and online help on SE forums available. When coming from Excel, you might want to check out this tutorial.
Disclaimer: I have not used it to a great extent, since I did not have any applications for it, but a coworker of mine uses it on a regular basis, and has grown very fond of it despite not having any previous programming experience.

I'm glad to hear that! An advantage of using Python is that it offers a wide range of tools for evaluation and graphical representation of data as well.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Academic writing: Referring again to the works of authors et al. Does date need to be included every time?
If I were to refer to the work of X et al. [YYYY] several times within a paragraph does one need to write the date every time? It appears to disturb the flow of the writing and reads better without, however I'm unsure of the convention.
I've never taken notice either way when reading papers and cannot find an example. Perhaps it is bad form?

This is entirely dependent on the venue's style. It varies not only by field, but also by the particular journal or conference.
Ideally, your venue will have a published style guide.
Or at least a short document with explicit instructions.
Sometimes this will be in the citation style guide, other times you will need to look in the full guide.
Failing that, go digging through other papers published at same venue,
and see what they do.
Failing that, or if this isn't actually targeted at a standard venue (eg for a standalone book). Find a style guide, for your field. Either one used generally used in your field Eg the Chicago Manual of Style. Or choose on from a journal that you like.

In a paragraph, you don't need to refer work A several times. Just mention it on the beginning or at the end of paragraph.
If you mention a work very often, you'll reduce the impact of your proposed method.

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


text:
With regards to PhD theses, what level of knowledge should one assume the reader to have? And, if needed, where should basic information be placed?
With regards to PhD thesis that spans several disciplines, at what point does one assume that an article doesn't require explanation and it is  standard knowledge?
I have had this discussion with several academics and there doesn't appear to be consensus. One suggested a middle ground that I quite liked: Anything considered standard knowledge, should be placed into an appendix so as to not disturb the flow of the thesis but still somewhere handy enough for the reader to bush up on or explore.
Is this a common technique? I've read so many theses that contain waffle and filler explaining (what I consider to be) the basic requirements of the field, however my option of "basic" is just that; An option. People have different degrees, life experiences, interests and so their options will no doubt differ regarding what is considered standard knowledge.
So at what point is something consider "standard knowledge"? If a technique/paper/method is widely written about in master/Bachelor's course texts, journal papers and has a wiki page - does that qualify? For example; consider the most basis statistical techniques, such as chi squared test etc - does one really need to explain, in detail, what it is? Would a reference suffice or would a thesis begin to look ridiculously short? Perhaps placing it into an appendix?
Is there a general accepted rule of thumb that I am unaware of? Or is it truly a black art? I don't want to look lazy by not including material, but at the same time I don't want to waffle on.

Don't the theses you've already read, and your discussions with academics already answer your question? There's no consensus and you should include as much information as you think should be there.

Generally, the target audience of your doctoral dissertation is your doctoral dissertation committee. Write to their level.
In disciplines where your dissertation gets turned into a book (or series of articles), then you may consider writing at a lower level or with explanation for people outside of your specific subfield. You can certainly do this if you have the time or luxury to do so, but if you are short on time or funds, then it is perfectly acceptable to do what is noted in paragraph #1.

I think this is the best answer, in our field a dissertation is mostly a waste of time, nobody reads them, the only people who care about them are the committees. Advisors mostly care about the papers which students publish. I honestly don't even understand why we do the book form dissertations anymore, since they don't matter for an academic career in our field. It does have one benefit, increasing the understanding of the person writing it, but that time could be better spent writing another publishable paper, especially considering how competitive the academic market is today.

@daaxix Some places allow for a thesis to be a collection of peer-reviewed published articles.

I like this two-step approach.  If you have the time and inclination later, you may start adding appendices and a lay introduction.  I would just add: have a chat with some good listener in your general field, and give him/her an overview of what you're going to cover in your write-up; as you are writing, imagine someone like this good listener reading your text.  This will give you a focal point for your imaginary readership.

I'm struggling with this problem myself at the moment. I think there's no one-size-fits all situation. It's your book, you have to consider who your audience is, and how you're going to tailor the thing to them. Start with your committee, make sure that they have the tools to understand what you've written. After them, the most important people to think of are probably the other PhD students entering your field, possibly building on your work. Think back to what you struggled with when you first started and what kind you would have liked to have.
Here's a few tips and tools I plan to make use of:

A tutorial appendix: This is a great way to make sure that you satisfy both the expert reader, and the novice who's willing to work. Make it short, ideally five to ten pages that will require some dedicated work but just explain the required concepts for your thesis. End with some pointers to longer tutorials. This also gives you the opportunity to write the tutorial you wish you'd had when you started out.
An informal introduction: I like the idea of trying to write an introduction that my mother could read. Something that describes the ideas in such informal language that everybody who's willing to put the time in can get through it. This gives you one part of the book that you know absolutely everybody can read, and for the more expert readers, it gives them a motivation to guide them through the technical matter. Perhaps the same could go for the conclusion, to create a bookending effect.
Err on the side of caution: I think it's better to insult people by explain too much than to lose them. So when in doubt, make sure things are properly explained.
Pretend you have a page limit: The danger of erring on the side of caution is  that you'll just ramble on and on. Nobody will read your work if you don't get to the point as quickly as possible. This is the basic contradiction you have to deal with when writing. Explain as much as possible, and get to the point as fast as possible. See if you can keep it under a hundred pages.

I'd say speak to your advisor before erring on the side of caution re: explaining too much, some take the view that it's a waste of you and your examiner's time.

No.   "It's your book"  -- a dissertation is not a book, it's a dissertation.  You might turn your dissertation into a book but it's not a book. It's not intended to be read by novices or by parents, or even be sold. It's proof that you can conduct independent research at the doctoral level, that's all.

p.s. p.s. As a woman and a scholar, I find the phrase "could be read by my mother" to be insulting in its implication. You'll most probably argue that you're talking your specific mother, but it has become a turn of phrase that is deeply sexist. Ask yourself, why didn't you say, "couldn't be read by my father" -- or how many times you've heard that latter version.

@RoboKaren, you're right about that phrase. In my case, my mother serves as better benchmark, because my father has  some mathematical background. "Could be read by my father" also has equally sexist implications, because it paints a picture of the men talking about science amongst themselves. I suppose "could be read by an interested, unschooled family member" is more neutral, but it's also a little sterile. Still, you're right that I should retire the phrase; it does more harm than good.

I prefer "could be read by anyone" or "accessible to anyone" or something like that. No need to use family.

@RoboKaren Well that's slightly different advice. The point is to actually visualize your audience in a person rather than an abstract group, to create a stronger sense of empathy. Much like designers do with Personas.

@RoboKaren As for "it's your book", we call it a book in my group, because we print it as a book (although we don't sell it). I'm not saying your parents are your primary audience, I'm saying that across disciplines we're all novices. So an introductory chapter like that will help deal with the worst case scenario of a committee member having no idea what even your basic motivations are. The advice is not write it for your parents, it's pick their level for the introduction, and then move on to the technical stuff in further chapters.

@RoboKaren, "anyone" just hasn't  the "very sympatetic audience" connotation "my mother" has.

The answers given by @Peter and @RoboKaren are good, and therefore my answer is an addition to theirs.
My Experience
My dissertation is very interdisciplinary and so is my committee.  The core problem I needed to solve was how to give clear, explicit definitions to many key terms (incl. references) without cluttering the main body of the dissertation (which is long already).  It would not be sufficient for me to simply give a reference next to each key term.
My solution was to have a Glossary at the end, with hyperlinks in the main text pointing to glossary entries.  This means I can nearly always put all of my definitional text in the glossary and focus the main text on exposition.  This can help my readers (the committee) because they will know to look to the Glossary for all key definitions, and not the main text.
General Advice:
Figure out what needs to be accomplished relative to the 'basic' or 'common' knowledge, and then choose a design and writing strategy to meet this goal.
"What needs to be accomplished" is specific to your dissertation and to your committee.  For example, do you need to simplify the reading process? Minimize confusion? Justify your methods? Provide tutorial assistance to a reader outside of a given field or specialty? Each of these goals might call for a different design and writing strategy such as those listed in the answer by @Peter.

+1, I forgot about the glossary, that's good advice. Also, if applicable, a list of common mathematical notation with explanations/definitions can really help.

This is one place where I think even with a single field, explanation can be key (remember, not every math person is up-to-date on every field of math, etc).
For your example with the chi-squared test, you could just say "To reach this conclusion, we used a chi-squared test".  But it is beneficial for everyone (statistician or not) to understand why you did it.  So you could rewrite it as "To reach this conclusion, we used a chi-squared test which is the normal method used for calculating X given conditions Y with the desire to interpret Z".  People unfamiliar with statistics need not know the underlying methods, but they will fully understand what you're aiming to do and why and the statistician can then further verify correct usage of the method.
For terminology issues, this can often happen within the same field (at least, in my field of literature).  Different authors or schools of thought may use two terms that have effectively the same meaning.  It's common to see something like "...what is effectively an X, or what so-and-so termed Y, due to Z".  Notice that because we indicate Z, we establish to the people who do know X/Y (people in-field) can verify we know what we're talking about, and people who don't know X/Y (out-of-field) can still follow along because Z gives them the gist of it.  In fact, if your paper will regularly be cycling through fields or integrating them, it's highly advisable to establish a standard set of terms in early on (indicating their amongst fields then only) to aid the flow of the paper later on.
Also, don't hesitate to use footnotes quite liberally initially.  As you go revising your dissertation in conjunction with your committee —or simply having people from various fields reading it— you'll get feedback letting you know which footnotes would be best integrated into the main paper (very important information for the out-of-field people), which ought to remain as footnotes ( pertinent, but not super necessary for out-of-fielders to know), and which can be removed entirely (way too basic, or not really important at all).


text:
Quit PhD and find a job
I'm a year and a half into a PhD at a top university in the Uk. Doing some good work but not enjoying academia and I think this is more than second year blues. I have quite a bad advisor which doesn't help, for example I've already had my work stolen by a collaborator and my supervisor is reluctant to rock the boat or say anything.
My PhD is in applied Math and computational physics and I have access to London. My current plan is to leave with an Mphil and find a job in the city - trouble is I don't know what I want to do.
I would like a career that uses my mathematical and programming abilities and is more commercial, i.e. not all technical. A career that I can go places with - but has a good work life balance.  I've always wanted to be a professor, but the reality of academia has really put a pin in that, I can't stand it, I hate the politics, I hate the way I'm treated by my supervisors, the university staff and colleges, I hate the academic culture here where I'm expected to let my research take over life and that just by considering other opportunities, I'm not worthy of academia - I came TOP of my class, I worked incredibly hard, I feel I deserve more respect than what I get as a grad student.
So I've been looking around and a few careers have caught my eye - though I want something with a better work-life balance.
Has anyone themselves quit a PhD? Were you happier?

You will be more or less happy depending on how your situation aligns to your goals. I have seen all four combinations of quitting (y/n) and then being happier (y/n), and of course there are infinite shades of grey (I haven't seen that many) and also multidimensional happiness. In short, decide what do you want (and can get)(in academia, banks, love, whatever), go for it, and best of luck in the pursue of your goals. BTW: The way I did put myself through is: "If I'm so clever, this should be easy for me". If you are not worthy of academia, it should be a walk on the park for you, shouldn't it?

Besides ibanking (which is more networking and doesn't require this level of math), are there any other areas of finance you're interested in?

Also: regardless of whether you leave academia altogether, you should definitely leave your current department.  Don't walk. Run.

The city is all about creating money without doing anything worthwhile, would that make you happy?   There is IT out of the city, it pays a lot less but is sometimes doing worthwhile work.

Try looking at data science. I moved to it after finishing my PhD and my only regret is I that I hadn't moved earlier. (Of course - your millage may vary; but in data science I am getting much more freedom, respect, and almost no politics.)

Just wondering if you ended up quitting or sticking with it. Are you happier than you were when you asked the question?

It’s been ten years. How did things work out for you?

I have strong urge to respond to user9590's comment: No one who quit a PhD ever felt bad for quitting a PhD. Well, I do. I always feel bad after I quit PhD. Although I had good personal reasons to do so, I always regret my decision. I missed everything in academia: the professors, the classroom, the research, the teaching, even the campus. After I retired from industry, I had to choose a place to live. Do you know the street name of my current address? Academia Road !
The reasons you're thinking about leaving academia:
I hate the politics - Do you believe there is no politics in industry?
I hate the way I'm treated by my supervisors, the university staff and colleges - Do you believe your managers, the human resources and the company in industry will treat you very well?
I hate the academic culture here where I'm expected to let my research take over life, - Would you love the industry culture to let making money take over life?
I feel I deserve more respect than what I get as a grad student.. - Do you feel you deserve more respect than what you'll get as an employee of an industry company?
If your answers to the above questions are all positive, industry is your place. In particular, please run to industry if you love to make money. Otherwise, please reconsider quitting PhD. Good Luck!

Well said. There are problems everywhere. The problems might vary, it is true, but often it comes down to what flavor you prefer.

You should reword your last question. There are several differences between academia and industry that are not considered here, but they are not considered in the question either, so I guess here nobody cares about them.

If you dislike your job you can look for a new one. Finding a new PhD adviser or university however is much more difficult and will likely delay finishing your Phd.

"Would you love the industry culture to let making money take over life?" Alternative question: "Would you like to be able to retire at a reasonable age?", or the always fun "Would you like to be able to afford healthcare if something were to go wrong?".

When working as a freelancer one can avoid politics and bosses. It is possible in (some) industries, but not much - in academia. (That said, freelancing takes over one's life.)

@PiotrMigdal Freelancing has its advantages and disadvantages. Unless you already establish your client pools and relationships, you'll live with uncertainties and unstable incomes. I myself had never been a freelancer, I cannot tell if it's better than Academia or not.

@scaaahu Sure, freelancing has its ups and downs (while I like it I know it's not for everyone; and mine "unstable income" at its minimum is still more than academic salary). But my point is different. You ask (supposedly rhetorical) questions. However, while in academia some things are unavoidable (e.g. politics, hierarchy, grant writing) there is a bigger variance of things in industry: there are jobs with much more of politics, but also with much less if it; there are jobs with much stricter supervision, but also - without it, etc. So one can maneuver out of things one hates.

@PiotrMigdal there is a bigger variance of things in industry, Yes, I agree. So one can maneuver out of things one hates, No, I disagree. Just like Academia, there are certain things you cannot maneuver in industry. There you work for money. People would tell you to do things you don't like to do only because it makes money. Being a freelancer, you can walk away and find another client. But, it's a small world, eventually, everybody knows you don't like to do certain things and your client pool would shrink.

I do have a friend who went though this kind of things and eventually he went back to his old company because they would give him a stable job and he had a family to raise. If you are single, sure, you can do freelancing all you like. If you have other concerns, I am not sure it's a good thing. Academia pays poorly. We all know that. But, you get to do what you like - the research.

@scaaahu The funny things is I do more things I like as a freelancer (either as part of job or in free time). As naive as it sounds, I expected from academia a lot of intellectual stimulation, openness and freedom (and got disappointed miserably). Doing things for $ has its constraints; but so does academic work (being glued to a place for years, conforming research topics related to grants/department/popularity). Now I have more time for my own projects, without any constraints; and I am getting a friendlier environment for it (vide http://crastina.se/theres-no-projects-like-side-projects/).

@David Brown: finding a new and better PhD advisor (at the same university) is quite often much easier than finding a new and better job.

I have my PhD in Computer Science so it's not a 1:1 comparison, but it's probably close enough.
First, know that being a grad student has it's perks, but overall, you haven't really promoted yourself much in the eyes of your supervisor by getting an undergraduate degree. You're still going to be viewed with the title of "student" until you graduate. This is unfortunate, but it's how I've found most of the world works. You should know that once you graduate, the situation does improve quickly. There will always be people who will look down on you (in any industry or education level), but for the most part, it's not so bad.
Second, remember that getting a PhD doesn't really close that many doors. There will be some companies that don't want to hire a PhD because of your title, but you can usually find a job outside of academia with a PhD. I have friends with PhDs that have gone to Google, Amazon, etc. and do jobs that they could have been able to do with a Masters degree. However, by having the PhD, they can now go back to academia if they choose to do so.
Third, at least make sure you come out of the experience with something. Those I know that abandoned ship midway through at least made sure they received their Masters degree before leaving. Otherwise, you're definitely limiting your options later. You can get lots of jobs with a Bachelor's degree, but it gets harder and harder to be promoted without more advanced degrees.
Lastly, if politics is not your thing, you're probably right that working in a university setting won't be what you want. It's going to be a very political job for most of your career compared to some of the other options.
The big question you have to answer is, what are your goals? Do you want to make more money? Don't work in academia. Do you want to have more control over your work? Then research is probably going to be more in line with what you want. Also remember, universities aren't the only places that do research. There are also companies and government labs in most countries where you can do research.

+1 for "make sure you come out of the experience with something" -- applies to everything, even visits to hell :)

@P.Windridge Especially visits to Hell.

Actually, this isn't always true. I quit because I wouldn't make any more money as a PhD graduate. I went to a mid tier University in the UK and my prospects were bleak either way. Had no chance of getting an interview in industry if I'd completed it, so decided not to waste another 2 years and went into teaching instead. In hindsight, if you want to do mathematics in the UK, you have three choices: Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial. I had the grades to go and didn't apply at 18. I bitterly regret it. ~1% chance of a mathematical job in industry without an undergrad degree from one of those.

Don't do it.
Having quit a PhD myself, I can attest to the weight of conscience quitting can be. You will make more money, but you will see it all seep away toward bills you now don't have. And, ironically, those bills are not remotely associated with anything "fun" or "cool" or "enjoyable". Nope. They are rent, they are student debt, they are car payments—and you know, having done computational physics, that a new car does not bring fulfillment. And living in the city? You will seep money from your pores for housing that is so substandard, you would be better off as a poor man in a rural area.
And for this what do you get? Well. I don't know. Maybe you will do well. I didn't. Two and a half years into this stupid experiment, I have not a penny in the bank, I have a broken-down car, and I guess I should be happy to be able to pay rent and meet my obligatory student loan payments. Yay!
But no sense of doing something meaningful or big. No sense of moving toward something bigger, even if far down the line. I am stagnated, in a job that brings me little joy, and which allows be only to pay my bills and live day to day.
Do what you want. Others will cry to you how bad a PhD is. I am telling you otherwise. If you're going to get screwed, I'd rather get screwed in academia, where at least you get to feel like a) you do something meaningful, and b) you are moving toward something greater.
You will quit your PhD. I have no doubt. I've been there, and when you start questioning yourself this way, you already know what you will do, even if you're not sure of it. You will quit. Just know that you will wish you could go back.

Where did you go to graduate school that you didn't have to pay bills?

Part of finding out what you want to do is trial and error.  If you want to do investment banking, do some investing yourself; it's never been easier to participate in a market.  It might not be investment banking itself, but an individual portfolio you've created, using your mathematical knowledge would go somewhere in an interview with a financial institution, and you have London, so there's no shortage of investment banks.  That career path has zero work life balance, however, if done professionally.  If you want to maintain some liberty you'd need to be investing your own money your own way.  This is much easier because you have much less paperwork and regulatory overhead as an individual investor than a member of an investment bank.  If you don't like it, you can take a few years and make a fortune making others' fortunes and move on to something else.  Having a few million affords great liberty.
I too wanted to be a professor in the States, but seeing the grim realities of the academy made me realize that I wouldn't be able to deal with the extra nonsense that goes along with it.  If all I had to do was teach and research, I would dedicate my life to it.  But we all know that's maybe 20% on a good day of what academics actually do.  But almost all careers have this kind of extra stuff to deal with in one way or another, so don't look to avoid it just by escaping the academy.  I'm in the humanities, so ymmv, but I know there's a lot of similarity.
You won't avoid these petty politics you hate outside the academy, at least not completely.  It's not as if academics alone have petty fights and engage in office politics.  But I do know that there is less of it outside the ivory tower.  One of my mentors told me "tempers run so hot because the stakes are so low," which I found out later is called Sayre's law, and it indicates a truism about human nature; we are acutely aware of our insignificance, if only subconsciously, and fight it.
The academy fosters a tunnel-vision.  It becomes impossible to imagine life outside, or that other career paths are just (and more) legitimate, or that there are other ways to make a living other than competing for an ever-diminishing piece of the grant funding.  Academics tend to think in zero-sum thoughts so outside-the-box ideas, such as other careers are difficult for them to process.  The institutional thinking engenders feelings of shame and fear for leaving, or even considering other options, because why would anyone want to do anything else, this is the life of the mind, the highest life!?  But you can look past all that since the early-relationship glow has worn off the ivory tower.
I think you've already discerned that the academy isn't for you.  You can be happy doing just about anything you find fulfillment in.  If it's making million dollar trades, or laying brick it doesn't really matter.  You just know its certainly not research proposals and bitter backstabbing academics who don't appreciate your contribution to the institution, yet depend on you for their status.  You can work hard without an advanced degree and climb the ladder just as well.  With at least a 4 year degree you'll never hit any glass ceilings anyway.  I speak as an American. I know you folks across the pond have more stake in social status, so it might be slightly different over there.
But to specifically answer your other question: No one who quit a PhD ever felt bad for quitting a PhD.  They usually just feel bad for not quitting sooner, or for going in the first place.  They regret the lost years filled with stress and low income, and not the missed opportunity for a very, very, low chance of a tenured position.

"No one who quit a PhD ever felt bad for quitting a PhD": That's an extremely bold claim, I don't believe it.

or as someone else on this forum would say, 'Citation needed' :)

I think this answer is based on an overly pessimistic view of academia, and I agree that "no one who quit a PhD ever felt bad for quitting a PhD" is a clear exaggeration.  However, there's a kernel of truth to it: there's a lot of social or self-imposed pressure not to quit PhD programs, so few people quit them lightly.  Plenty of people continue when they would be happier quitting, while far fewer quit when they would have been happier continuing.

As someone who left a PhD program, I would suggest:

Trying to stick it out for a bit longer and see if your outlook changes  if this is a field you truly have an intellectual passion for and your own intellectual development is reward enough for you.
It will be extremely hard if not impossible to go back to the PhD route once you leave. Even if you never use the PhD it will still be a significant accomplishment that you can feel proud of.
Seeking out a new advisor/mentor. Try to cultivate some supportive relationships.

I think the idea that academia is much worse an atmosphere than another occupation is misguided, as others have said.
When all else fails, try spite as motivation.
You were TOP of your class?
You don't feel respected?
Well, to quote Troy McClure, "Get confident, stupid!"
Go be the mathsiest mathematician you can be.

The world is a big place and full of millions of opportunities for whatever work life balance "floats your boat".
You (like 99.99% of us) want to be happy (and right now NEED to be happIER).
Life is short.

I also have left my PhD. Well, it was more of a situation like this to be honest.
The problem with it? I really liked research, the issue was that my objectives/field were not matching the ones of the supervisor: I was (and still am) for a more practical/engineer approach while the supervisor wanted a more theoretical/pure mathematical one.
The end result was me leaving the PhD after 1 year and a half from its beginning.
Am I happier now? Well, you can be sure of that, I found another PhD with an approach I like and I am having a ton of fun doing it.
My suggestion? Try to understand the real reason for which you feel that leaving the PhD would be a good idea. You say:

I would like a career that uses my mathematical and programming
  abilities and is more commercial, i.e. not all technical.
A career
  that I can go places with - but has a good work life balance. [...]
I hate the politics, I
  hate the way I'm treated by my supervisors, the university staff and
  colleges, I hate the academic culture here where I'm expected to let
  my research take over life and that just by considering other
  opportunities,
I'm not worthy of academia -
I came TOP of my class, I
  worked incredibly hard, I feel I deserve more respect than what I get
  as a grad student.

I am not sure I understand your contraposition of commercial and technical. IF you program a commercial product, isn't that a technical task?
Well, I would not expect too much, the perfect job does not exist, you'll always have to accept some kind of trade-off.
Expect all of that in any and all workplaces you'll ever go
pardon? you feel you're too good or not good enough? Personally, I think you're making a mistake either way
Life isn't fair, live with it. ["I deserve"? you're from the US, right?]

"Any and all workplaces you ever go to" -  have you been to all of those that OP will go to? "Life isn't fair, live with it." - In what sense is this expected to be helpful?

I quit a top program in psychology halfway through my second year due to theoretical disagreements with the professors. Some of the difficulties I faced afterwards included awkwardly saying goodbye to classmates, resolving the identity crisis that comes with losing the status of a doctoral student, dealing with family reactions, feelings of failure and regret, confusion about my future, and most of all, getting a job.
My advice to finding a good job afterwards:

go to a community (not your college) career center for help with your resume. No matter how many resume examples you read online, it’s very hard to turn a long academic CV into a concise industry-friendly resume that’s 1-2 pages MAX, and shows clear work experience/skills.

make sure you withdraw completely from the program and are removed from the school’s website before applying to your new dream job. I was still on my school’s website as a doctoral student and I was formally on a leave of absence, which was discordant with the “withdrew in good standing” statement on my resume. This created suspicion that I was just on a break from my program and probably contributed to being turned down.

if you’re switching research areas (which is common if you did research on a social issue that is only studied in academia), make sure you research this new area extensively and come up with clear (even if not entirely factual) reasons why you want to switch research interests and why you’re passionate about this new field.

I found that most research coordinator openings for outside candidates are entry level, and although they were interested in me, I was overqualified. You can’t really avoid this problem, but it can still be useful to interview for entry-level positions since you can get a better sense of what jobs are out there, and they might pass your resume onto to someone else or decide to make a new position to fit you in.

the hardest problem was what to tell the interviewers about why I left. The first 5 jobs I interviewed with asked me why I left my PhD program as one of the first interview questions.  I wasn’t emotionally ready to reason, so I made up a variety of excuses, from financial strain, to change of interests. These reasons were not convincing, and led to jobs turning me down.

I think this problem was especially bad in my situation because I was in a very prestigious program, I left halfway through the year without finishing a master’s, and I was applying to full-time research jobs in psychology that were often stepping stones for others to get into psychology PhD programs (so it was strange that I was going backwards). Indeed, one interviewer asked “people would kill to get into your school, why did you leave?” and then stared at me skeptically as I tried to explain. I would recommend, if you can, get a master’s degree before you leave. A master’s in psychology is not as useful as other degrees, but it looks way better on a resume, shows some accomplishment, and is much easier to explain. Otherwise, have a brief (2-3 sentence) explanation that’s convincing and doesn’t lead to tears.
Where I’m at now:
After 3 difficult months of interviews, I was offered a really great position. It was also the only position in which the interviewer (my new boss) didn’t ask me why I left my PhD. I have no idea why he didn’t ask, but I just assume it’s because he’s the BEST PERSON EVER. Anyway, I love my job. I make in the upper 30’s, which isn’t my dream salary, but it’s much more than I would make in grad school. I enjoy the work and find it very interesting, and I use a lot of the skills I learned in grad school. I also love the work/life balance that actually leaves room for healthy relationships and free time to have fun. I have no idea what my future career will look like, but I’m much happier with my life now than I was when I attempted a PhD.

I would suggest you to wait for a couple of months to see how will it go AND look for another PhD. You've mentioned you are in top university, I don't see major problems for another top university to accept you for PhD.
On the other hand, you are lucky. A lot of people are dreaming to do PhD and study in top university. I don't even have a chance to do PhD but I would love to do it. Doind Taught Masters now, it's harder than bachelors and MRes, so enjoy your time. Talk to someone you are in good relations with at university, they might figure out something for you.

The only thing that will make you happier is to figure out what makes you happy in the first place. I doubt that it is the PhD itself, because if you are not happy then you are hardly going to be happy doing anything.
I think the decision you make is not going to be anywhere near as important as what you do after you make the decision. So if you are going to quit, then try to make the most of the situation by starting on your next career or challenge early, and if you decide to stick with it, then get through to the end and you'll make the most of having completed it.

First of all, the level of happiness has nothing to do with the fact that you are a PhD student and not, it only has to do with the value between expectations versus reality and the way we see and the perception of reality. There are many things in life more important that a PhD, for example family, friends, having a moral conduct, being health, enjoy life as it is, but also having and obtaining the theoretical skills to ask questions and answer a few about the universe I think it would worth it. If you don't like what you are doing, it is expected to change something. If you plan not to quit PhD, you can also approach new fields and change the field without any problem. I have a friend who has changed his supervisor once at one year, with no major problems. Although I wouldn't recommend to change to often, try to find what would make you feel good with yourself. Also, in fact you don't need a supervisor to ask big questions in any field of study. I have a friend who has worked on PhD topic and in his spare time has approached a new exotic field and has published in leading journals without any guidance or supervision. At the end, the only advice I can give would be not to give any advice.

Drop out now!
I am just about to submit after 5 years of PhD - and I have hated every minute of it.  I also thought about quitting after the first year, but talked myself out of it.  I am a mature age student and had worked for many years before I started the PhD.  My reasons for starting the PhD in the first place were that I was a bit bored with my job and wanted to extend myself - not good reasons!  Also my expectations of what a PhD was and the reality of a PhD did not match up very well.  I thought I should have been discussing big ideas with my supervisors, but our meetings were generally about my style of writing - should I use bullet points or not, how should the tables be formatted, I hadn't led the reader enough (read repeated myself often enough).
At the start of this year I was lucky enough to get a tenure track job at a good university.  I know I'm really lucky to be here, but I absolutely hate it.  I thought I should at least apply for an academic job to see if I could get a job, and then I thought, well... I should at least try it out for a year.  Even now in my head I'm telling myself - it will be better next year.
I feel like I've just drifting along waiting to see if things improve for the past 5 years. I really regret leaving my last job. If I had my time again, I would have quit after the first year and I would probably be doing something I really enjoy now! I feel stuck.

-1: There is nothing in this answer that engages or makes any reference to any specifics of the OP's situation.  As written, your logic seems to be "I regret having spent time in a PhD program, so you should drop out of your program." That is not very logical.  Obviously there are some circumstances in which dropping out of a PhD program is the right decision and others in which it isn't.

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


text:
What is the equivalent degree of a Diploma in Information Technology from India?
After my 10th grade I joined a polytechnic college for a specialization in Infomation Technology (Diploma in Information Technology). Now, I am in my final year of under-graduate studies (Bachelor of Technology in Information Technology), and I want to pursue my graduate studies from the United States of America.
One of the universities that I am applying to did not offer the option of “Diploma in Information Technology” in their online application form. After doing some research I found out that:

In India, a diploma is a specific academic award usually earned in professional/vocational courses, e.g., Engineering, Pharmacy, Design, etc. In such cases, a diploma is specific in rank than a Bachelor's degree of that discipline but equivalent to general degree in that discipline, e.g., Diploma in Engineering of Electronics Engineering is rated differently than Bachelor of Technology in Electronics Engineering but is equivalent to Bachelor of Science in Electronics.

If so, then what is the equivalent degree of a Diploma in Information Technology in India? Is it Bachelor of Science in Information Technology?

I think the major problem would be the amount of credit hours in that program. Almost all US undergraduate degrees are 4 years long and this varies widely around the world. In the US, a diploma is somewhat equivalent to a high school degree - perhaps slightly more. You could apply to college, but getting in to grad school might be difficult. There are other options such as completing one or two years of college and then applying for grad school, but it depends on the program you are doing.

It's not "equivalent" to any US degree.The US educational system is sufficiently different that no such equivalent degree exists in the US.
If an online application doesn't have your specific credentials as an option, choose "Other" and specify. Don't invent equivalencies.

I expect that the diploma would be similar to a degree that you would get out of a US vocational college, or perhaps a community college. Those are associate degrees, which are below a bachelors degree - it's a two year degree that could be transferred for credits if you were pursuing a bachelors degree.
I would suggest that you look for an Academic equivalency service that will provide you with a solution to your issue. Of course, you cannot invent equivalencies for your degree. Another option would be to call the international students affairs office at the university you hope to apply to. They may have some suggestions on what to put on the application and what your degree is equivalent to. They may even tell you to use an academic equivalency service.

It's similar, but not similar enough that the OP can write on his application that he has an associate's degree...

I didn't say that the degree is the same as an associates and that it should be put on an application. Of course, the applicant should contact the university on such matters. That's what I would recommend even before posting on this forum.


text:
Can I use decompiled source code for research?
In my research field, software tools are considered a research outcome, and therefore it's normal that researchers build tools and make them publicly available. However, in many cases, the authors only make the executable for a tool available, without sharing the source code used to build the tool.
This makes things complicated for people who want to use or extend the tool: for example, they might be unable to run the tool, because it has a dependency to an outdated, flawed, or expensive commercial "baseline" tool. While they might have the programming skills to modify the tool so it can be run, this usually requires changes to the source code.
However, there is a kind of tool called decompiler which allows you to restore the original source code (or something similar) from the given executable. In some cases, you can work with the restored source code as good as if the authors had made the code available in the first place.
Assuming I want to use a particular tool for my research, and I have already unsuccessfully contacted the authors to obtain the source code in a consensual way.

Is it OK if I decompile the code to do my research? Yes
If yes, then how do I deal with the fact that I decompiled the tool in my paper? Would it be considered rude/sketchy to say that I did it?
Can I make the modified tool available to other researchers (and yes, as executables and/or source code)? No

Edit: Thanks everyone. For questions 1 and 3, the correct answers for my case are now clear to me (see above). I'm still not sure about question 2, though. Are there previous examples in literature where people did this? Would it be acceptable to not address the fact that I decompiled the source code, by treating it like an irrelevant detail? Reimplementing the complete tool is not an option in my case.

What license was the original executable/code provided under? GPL? MIT? Something else?

In terms of civil legality, it depends wholly on the permissions afforded to you by the license; in terms of ethics, particularly if the license is somewhat ambiguous, I would say it is definitely on the shady side. I would prefer to reproduce the original work independently if at all possible.

@tonysdg No license specified, neither in the tool nor on its website.

@lighthousekeeper If the license is not indicated, treat author's words as the license.

@DmitrySavostyanov They didn't answer to my e-mail where I asked for the source code. So you mean I should send another e-mail asking if I can decompile it?

Is decompiling software considered unethical or illegal?

As I posted in my answer, I will also post here.   Not sure where you are, but as laws can reach across seas (depending on how much money a plaintiff has...)  If you do not know about the DMCA,here is a link to how it has negatively affected research in IT.

@BenCrowell In my specific case, I don't think the original code was bad, the decompilation result is pretty readable. The issue is a bad dependency to some other tool that we could git rid of.

@BenCrowell Yes, it's about getting it to run (and extending it), I've changed the question accordingly. The part about code quality was in parantheses because it applies a bit to my situation, but not very much: the code is a bit smelly, but still readable, so we can easily clean it up.

If you have only emailed them once for the source code, I would follow that up with another email or two (probably sending the same email again). When you get 100 emails a day, some of them get forgotten about.

"Would it be acceptable to use vague formulations to hide the fact that we decompiled the source code?"   Not sure about acceptability, but I am pretty sure it would be unethical.

@NZKshatriya OK, but can you explain why? My point is that it doesn't matter for my research if I re-implemented the tool or decompiled it. The outcome would be exactly the same (modulo possible bugs).

It is just the way you wrote that line.  Hiding things is unethical is it not?  You say you found that it is ok to decompile to use for your research.  Why not disclose the fact you decompiled, but do not reveal the methods used to accomplish said decompilation?   When I see the words "vague" and "hide" in a sentence talking about source code, it does come across to me as something someone trying to play things straight would do.

@NZKshatriya OK, I see that my sentence pointed in this direction, so I changed it to something more neutral. My worry is not revealing the method of decompilation, but revealing that fact that I decompiled, because some people might think it's shady (even though I don't find it shady myself, after careful consideration of the arguments in the discussion so far).

Using a decompiler, you can work with the restored source code as good as if the authors had made the code available in the first place.

Not even close. Try running the decompiler on a free software program (to avoid any ethical tangles) to see what it generates. The output of a decompiler, especially when run on an optimized binary, is horrendous.

Is it OK if I decompile the code to do my research?

Legality depends on the jurisdiction you are in. Ethically, my view is that there is no difference between decompiling an executable to see how it works and taking apart a mechanical device to see how it works - both are perfectly legitimate means to learn about the state of the art.

If yes, then how do I deal with the fact that I decompiled the tool in my paper? Would it be considered rude/sketchy to say that I did it?

I don't see how it could possibly be rude. Your paper should accurately outline your methodology, so I would say you ought to include this information.

Can I make the modified tool available to other researchers (and yes, as executables and/or source code)?

No, as it would clearly be a derivative work. As you don't have any license to use the original work, I think this would be illegal in most, if not all, jurisdictions.

In my case, the decompiler output looks almost perfect; it only lacks comments and - thanks to Java's type erasure - some parameters for generics. I've weakened my initial statement about decompilers in general, though - thanks.

(USA knowledge here, but may apply elsewhere)
All I can say is this.  Anything you plan on doing with code that belongs to someone else, it is best to have permission in writing from them.
Decompiling falls under reverse engineering, and there are only certain situations that this is allowed without permission (such as dealing with viruses/malware, and suspicious payloads).
As far as making decompilation/reverse engineering tools.......that can be tricky here in the USA.....The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), which is an oft abused piece of legislation, actually has been used in court to prohibit this activity, even by researchers.  See this link

In U.S., unless specifically prohibited by an EULA you can engage in reverse engineering as long as your purpose and effect is not that of disabling access controls for DRM. Whether you want to fight for the complete extent of your legal rights against a powerful interests in court is another matter, of course.

@DepressedDaniel very true.

I love getting downvotes with no comments (so easy to address potential shortcomings that way /sarcasm)


text:
Why do theoretical computer science people use Comic Sans in their slides?
I have no data to back up this observation, but it's something I have noticed consistently in research talks and teaching material: People from the theoretical CS community seem to use Comic Sans a lot, a font-face that emulates the look and feel of hand-drawn fonts in comic books. Is this merely a convention or is there a deeper reason behind it?
EDIT1: Since a couple of users requested examples, here's what I came up with in a 5-minute search:

Probabilistic model checking in practice
Symbolisches model checking
A complexity measure on Büchi automata
Fundamentals of programming languages
Formal modeling methods

EDIT2: The point of this question is not to collect opinions, but to find out reasons why TCS people use Comic  Sans (and the answers so far already did an excellent job in this matter).

Oops! I keep noticing this in TCS as well as in maths slides. I would also be looking at the answers.

It's neither a convention nor is there any deeper reason behind. I guess, it's just a bit of a fashion.

I am a student of theoretical computer science and can tell you that Comic Sans is very frowned upon. Only people who try to be funny use that, and most of them fail horribly at it. Professional people just don't do it.

I never (I mean ever) saw any TCS presentation using Sans Serif. Are you sure you talk about TCS? and are you sure you talk about SansSerif and not Euler Math font of latex?

There are subfields in TCS. Would you please specify your subfields in TCS? Or give us some examples? I myself never noticed it just by reading online ppt/LaTex pdf files. Maybe I missed it?

As a comic book reader, I take offense when people say that Comic Sans "emulates the look and feel of hand-drawn fonts in comic books".  It doesn't look or feel like actual comic book lettering.

To me this looks like a big strawman of a question. I may have seen the occasional comic sans presentation once or twice in my 9 years of going to TCS conferences and seminars. I cannot count how many times I have seen beamer slides with Computer Modern. Maybe it's a theory B vs theory A thing, maybe not...I think you should support your question with at least a few examples.

Imagine I do a presentation with slides using Comic Sans. And then instead of looking at the contents of my presentation, you complain about the font that I used. What does that say about you?

@gnasher729 Well, what does it say about you that you interpret my interest in the TCS research culture as complaining?

Huh?  We don't!!!

Once I made a bet with a colleague, and if I had lost my penalty was that I'd have had to make my next conference slides in Comic Sans. Luckily, I won, though. :)

I am a bit surprised that no one here has mentioned dyslexia. While there is very little scholarly evidence to support Comic Sans as more readable for people with dyslexia, there is some anecdotal evidence. Perhaps there is some disciplinary correlation here? Not my field, and, hard to say. Here are some articles to check out: https://creativemarket.com/blog/is-comic-sans-easier-for-dyslexic-users-to-read  and
https://theestablishment.co/hating-comic-sans-is-ableist-bc4a4de87093

My first thought was that the folks with the abstract material to present might be trying to make the material more accessible. // I know some people in the special education advocacy world who use Comic consistently, to try to make their material less off-putting. // For TCS, specifically, I would like to see you establish some set of papers, then calculate the percentage that use Comic, and compare that against some other fields.  Without that, it's hard to know if you just happened across an unusual sample. // You could write to the authors of your sample papers and ask why they chose it.

There's no deeper reason behind it. I think people just like it, particular its informal feel.
Theoretical computer science is a pretty informal and laid-back field. Although in many fields Comic Sans would be considered unprofessional, the standards for "unprofessional" in TCS are much more relaxed. For example, I've observed that it's far more common for professors and students to be on a first name basis with people in the TCS world, and the tone in which papers are written are much less formal. It is typical for times problems to be described with little narratives or jokes, and often problems retain names based on how they were originally presented. For example, there’s the Handshake Lemma, the Traveling Salesman Problem, and the Arthur-Merlin Protocols. That’s not to say that informal names and presentations of theorems don’t exist in other fields, but in TCS I would go as far as to say it is typical.
Heck, in his recent landmark paper on Graph Isomorphism, Laszlo Babai wrote something that could very reasonably be interpreted as a sex joke. In many fields innuendoes such as the one found in his paper would be considered wildly inappropriate. I don't know if the sex joke was intentional, but the line (although it's been noticed by many people) hasn't seems to cause any blowback or embarrassment.

"and the way papers are written are much less formal" I disagree with that, at least in the scientific content (unless you mean on the tone of the paper, which I agree and which you should clarify to avoid obvious misunderstandings)

"Theoretically computer science" or "Theoretical computer science"? I don't know about any theory that predicts the formality of an academic field. (Is an academic field like a magnetic field but emitted by academies?)

@PsySp Fixed, and same to Immibis

+1 for making me read a graph isomorphism paper to spot a sex joke (as a non-native speaker, I only got it because I watched the Austin Powers movies).

Hmmm. Most of us use Macs and have since 1984. And we are very funny.

This phenomenon is not limited to theoretical computer science or academia.
The reason for this is plainly:

Most users do not think longer than a few seconds about their font choice and its effect. Thus it happens that they think using a comic/quirky/sloppy font is a good idea for a professional talk – even though it’s the typographical equivalent to giving your talk in a clown costume.
Once they made this choice, this kind of users wants to realise their intention with minimum effort. Hence they browse through their list of fonts – which is most likely the same as the operating system’s default. On many popular operating systems, this will inevitably lead to Comic Sans – even though it’s rather ugly and worn-down for a clown costume.

Now the field influences how “professional” people are. In a field where formal attire is customary, I would expect Comic Sans to be less likely – but I have already witnessed professors for medicine giving talks in tie, suit, and Comic Sans. Also the field’s predisposition to LaTeX may have an effect as it’s a little bit more difficult to use Comic Sans there.

In computer science, it clearly occurs more often in TCS than in other subfields. That's why I assume there are some subfield-specific peculiarities at play (as confirmed by Stella's illuminating answer).

@lighthousekeeper: In my experience there are at best tendencies (see my edit).

Not related to computer science, but Comic Sans is supposedly a good font to use for teaching children to read.

@astronat: There are much better fonts for that purpose. Keep in mind that Comic Sans was created in a very short time without that particular goal. There is no reason to expect that it hit the bull’s eye and is the best choice for this purpose. (Further reading).

"even though it’s the typographical equivalent to giving your talk in a clown costume" - thankfully typography probably isn't even in the top 20 most important things to think about when giving a talk :-)

This answer makes me wonder what clothes would be the "typographical equivalent" of Computer Modern (with and Sans Serif), Arial or Times New Roman.

In my experience, the use of Comic Sans correlates with the use of PowerPoint. You see it less often on slides done using LaTeX or Keynote.

Would Comic Neue be a better idea?

@JouniSirén : I suspect many LaTeX users do not know how to change font even if they did want it :)

See https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/q/38226 for some thoughts on Comic Sans.

I don't use it in slides, but I did consciously choose it for use  for some time. My reason was that because of its design, it is very much easier to distinguish different letters visually that could be confused (i/I/l/1 etc) at first glance, and for computer based work that can be very important. The instant clarity of what I'm looking at was worth it and it was otherwise easy to read.  (Spend 3 hours trying to figure out an issue only to find it's a 1 not an I, or an i not an l somewhere ..... I removed the problem by choosing a font for my text editor that excluded the problem entirely)
It was the closest widely available  font to otherwise-"standard" fonts like arial, to clearly shape these letters differently enough to be immediately clear.

What font did you choose for your text editor?  (And what is your text editor?)

The reason I heard from a professor who does this is that slides in Comic Sans are more memorable. Apparently during an exam students are more likely to remember the poorly placed explanation with the spelling mistake in Comic Sans than the perfectly aligned, worded and spelled explanation in Computer Modern.

What you say there is either ridiculous, or it is true. Or both. I wonder if there are any citations for this.

@gnasher729 There is actually some research in this direction.

@lighthousekeeper - I'm confused.  I skimmed the article you cited, just a bit, and it looked as though the authors used Arial as the "easy to read" font and Comic italicized grayscale as one of the harder to read fonts.  That seems contrary to what Stilez said.

@aparente001 Indeed, this seems to be a methodological problem of this study - the authors assume that Comic Sans is hard to read (like the professor in nwp's answer did), without providing a rationale for this assumption.

@aparente001 But then, this problem wouldn't affect the interesting finding that the subjects performed better with Comic Sans Italized than with Arial.

While the evidence on Comic Sans and dyslexia may still be anecdotal, there is indeed evidence that some fonts are easier for dyslexics to read.  That's why I prefer Verdana.  Plus, Verdana clearly distinguishes lower-case "ell", upper-case "eye", and number "one".

I think the reason is that a lot of academics and academic disciplines are by nature anti-establishment. What better way to show that then Comic Sans as a font.
I think of it is the equivalent of academics wearing shorts or Hawai shirts to work etc. Basically it's saying judge us by our work not by looks, dress, fonts or other such secondary features. In a slightly different sense it's mocking the establishment with their suits and ties and cow-towing to convention and authority. Universities pride themselves on being iconoclasts.
Now even within academia individual Departments can be less or more conservative. e.g. Economics / Business would run on the conservative side. On the other hand programmers etc. are on the liberal side.
And hence the comic sans.


text:
Should I repeat words from the abstract as keywords?
To maximise discoverability of my manuscript, should I avoid repeating words that occur in the abstract or title in the keywords?
I have a feeling that common academic search engines don't really differentiate between the title/abstract/keywords.
So should I "waste" some of my precious free text keywords for central concepts that are already mentioned a few times throughout the abstract?

Are you free to choose your own keywords or do you need to choose from a fixed list?

I though of free text keywords when I wrote the question. Edited.

I usually avoid words from the title but would use words from the abstract. This is not meant as advice though - the question makes me wonder whether any relevant kind of search would take into account the title and keywords but not the abstract, which is what my strategy implicitly assumes.

I get the feeling that you don't think much about the user in front of the search engine, who is as important as the search engine itself for discoverability. If I search for a keyword, I would first check out those articles that contain that keyword in title and keyword list, then those where the keyword is in the keyword list. If "my" keyword is missing from the keyword list, I'd assume that the article is only tangentially related to my keyword, even if it is in the title.

I see no reason that you would eschew a keyword simply because it already appears in the title or abstract.  The purpose of keywords is to highlight the topics covered by the paper, for assistance in categorisation and searches.  Usually there will be a cross-over between the best keywords and the title/abstract, simply because the latter are likely to mention core topics of the paper.
In regard to your consideration that you might "waste" a keyword that is already in the title or abstract, I think that is unlikely to make any non-negligible difference in the discoverability of your manuscript.  Most journals allow a variable number of keywords anyway (though there is sometimes an upper limit) and some search engines might be influenced by the number of times the word appears, so repetition may make it more discoverable, not less.  (Note that sometimes you are free to choose your own keywords and sometimes you are restricted to a list of available words, so that might also affect things here.)

Keyword have been misused often for SEO. Therefore, repetition will actually cause the document to be penalized in Google, that is, the document will be less discoverable instead of more.

@RikH, Do you have a reliable source for your claim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyword_stuffing

Working as a patent examiner for nearly a year now, there probably have been multiple instances where I found out about an important patent document from the appearance of a single keyword, usually when someone was noting what terminology they were using and were listing some synonyms. I think it's good to think about which keywords are missing from the title and abstract. If there's no good way to work them into the title or abstract, it seems reasonable to put them in the keywords section. You could also put these keywords in the body somewhere. To elaborate on what I wrote earlier, I've seen synonyms in parenthetical statements in introductory sections like "X (also known as Y)". The latter would make it more clear that a keyword is a synonym and may be preferred for that reason. (To my knowledge, keywords are not given weight beyond the body of the paper in most academic search engines, so it shouldn't make a difference if the keyword appears in the body or keywords.)
Semantic searching does help get around the synonym problem, but for more esoteric topics (like those studied by academics or in the work of a patent examiner), the search engines aren't always aware of the synonyms. It's reasonable to try to help searchers in this.
(It should go without saying that this is not the opinion of the USPTO or US federal government. :-)

Many publishers will actually turn the paper keywords into clickable links on the abstract page on their website. For instance, both SIAM Epubs and IEEEXplore will turn each keyword into a link to start a new search using that keyword as the search term. Words/terms in the title and abstract won't be turned into clickable links, so including the important terms in the keywords as well will benefit the article on the publisher pages.

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


text:
Should new researchers volunteer to review conference papers?
I am a graduate student pursuing a master's degree in Information Systems, and I have never published a paper before.
I am planning to submit a paper to a conference, and the conference specifically asks if those submitting papers are willing to also act as reviewers.
I am willing to review, but I'm not clear if it would be appropriate for me to volunteer, given the stage of my academic journey.
In the general case, are these kinds of voluntary review opportunities typically appropriate for students? Or are these limited to those who already possess advanced degrees?

Can you tag a field? It is important when discussing conferences that have "papers," as I gather the norms are much different in math/CS and related fields than in others.

@AzorAhai-him- Field is Information Systems, edited to add. No tag exists for it.

You are a bit early in the journey, but if you have research experience in a topic and let the editor of the journal know your background then you could ask. Likewise for the conference. Send a note to the conference or program chair about your interest.
Doctoral students toward the end of their studies are more likely candidates, along with those with doctorates, but you could make the offer and see what happens.
However, don't stray from what you really know and don't spend so much effort at it that you lose track of your own studies. That is, by far, the more important task.

I think you should be fine. The volume of submissions in many conferences overwhelmed the peer review capacity and it's now not unusual for organizers to ask all paper authors to review for the conference.
It may be intimidating to write your first paper review, but it's okay, trust your guts. The success of peer review system relies on every reviewer trying their best to judge a work independently. No one should tell you that you're not qualified, as long as you feel so. A good source to learn how to write peer reviews is https://openreview.net (especially the ICLR conference). Also here is the CVPR reviewer's guideline if it helps https://cvpr2022.thecvf.com/reviewer-guidelines.


text:
Is it better to add a transcript of a non-completed degree for a master's degree admission?
Im getting my degree this year (in june presumably) in physics. And while I was getting it I was at the same time getting a degree in mathematics. (By degree I mean completing undergraduate studies in both of those things, I'm from Spain and I'm not sure about the equivalence...).
Now, I dedicated to physics full-time and by the time I will have finished physics (june as I said) I will have approximately 50% of my degree in maths. Independently of the maths degree, next year I will apply to some post-graduate studies outside of my country and I would like to know if I should apply with my physics degree or if it would make any significant (and positive) change in my application to say that I've also been studying half a degree on maths and include a transcript of what I've studied in that degree.
The problems is what I commented on BPND answer, plus the fact that transcripts are 30€ plus 80€ the sworn translation, and if I can keep expenses down, that's a plus. My question is if the difference by including it will be positive. The average grades are 9.24 (GPA 3.9) and 9.2 (GPA 3.82) in physics and maths respectively, out of 10.
The GPAs were calculated with some online converter I found, using all the subjects and the credits for each one.

Many universities will demand a full transcript of your academic history, so, in that case, you will need to attach both (or a combined) transcript(s) to your application.
Even if they only ask for the transcript of your main studies, you might want to attach the transcript for the math lectures and exercises. Especially in this case, where math acts perfectly as a supporting discipline for a phyiscs major.

Ok, the universities I'm checking out doesn't explicitly require a full academic history, they just require having a BA degree in order to start a master degree, so I could apply with my physics degree. My only worry is that my average score in the maths degree is a little bit lower than the physics one (9.24 and 9.2 in physics/math respectively) out of ten. And I'm worried that a lower score could lower my possibilities of being accepted. Thank you for your reply.

I edited the first post, another issue would be the money it costs to take transcripts, although that's not the main problem... I just would like to know if that grade difference would be negative (some online conversor to GPA x/4 gives a 3.9 for physics and 3.83 for maths)

Answer: You should apply with both of your degrees unless you did poorly during your math studies. However, the honest applicant would apply with both no matter what, as both of these degrees are part of your academic history.
Reason: Academic institutions want to see you have accomplished a lot. The more you appear to have done, the more likely you will be to get in, as long as you did well during you math studies. Furthermore, as was stated previously, universities often require a full transcript.

My first post has my scores for both studies. I didn't do poorly, just a little bit worse (9.24/10 in physics and 9.2/10 in maths). If more studies is better than that little difference, then that's what I want to know. Another issue is that my math degree is unfinished.

Based on that differe,ce I would think you should submit both. People apply with unfinished degrees all of the time, think of people in their final year of undergrad applying. You should include both unless you do not plan on finishing the second degree.

Even if he does not plan to finish his second degree, it shows improved knowledge in math, and with math being a good supporting science for physics, it makes it a good idea to include that specific transcript in an application (in MY opinion).

@BPND I don't plan on finishing it this year, and so I will apply with both unfinished degrees but only the physics one will be finished once the next academic year starts. Ok, thank you both, I will use both, then.


text:
How to give a good lab tour?
I am often called upon to give a "lab tour" to visitors, including but not limited to:

prospective graduate students
candidates for summer research positions (including undergraduate and high school students)
researchers or executives from our "industrial partners"
professors and graduate students from other universities, who have come to speak in my department seminar series
journalists or other media representatives

The goal of these lab tours is to leave the visitor(s) with the impression that we are doing interesting, important, and exciting research.
The research that goes on in my lab mainly looks like... students sitting at laptop computers. We are a telecommunications lab. A lot of the experimental equipment we use is not actually housed in the lab, and the pieces that are there in the lab are not that unique or interesting to most visitors. (Think a few Openflow switches and lots of wireless devices, none of which is particularly visually exciting.)
Given this, I am wondering how to use these "lab tours" to my best advantage. What can I do in a lab tour that I couldn't do with, say, a visitor sitting down in my office and talking to me over my desk?
Right now we mainly walk around the room and talk about the posters hanging on the wall, giving any students who are around a chance to give their elevator pitch. This doesn't seem very effective, and visitors often seem kind of bored.

So, just that I get this right: What you call lab is essentially your workgroup’s student office?

@Wrzlprmft In practice, something like that, yeah. Combination big shared office and storage room.

Maybe it's a problem of failed expectations: the visitors expect a lab, but find an office ;-)

Our group is similar to yours as all we have that is not an office is a self-made computer cluster. What we usually do is that all or some people present their work to the visitor (on their own), but I concede that this is something that works for our research topics and group structure and may not work for others. Also, I have no experience with visits from journalists or industrial collaborators. So, I am trying to address your question on a more general level:
First of all, it helps to realise that the main benefit visitors can get from visiting your offices and only there is personal interaction with members of your workgroup¹. So, your tours should be organised around this: Have a rough plan to whom your visitor should talk, about what they should talk, how long they should talk and in what order. Consider to let them have a few extended discussions with selected people than hearing a dozen elevator pitches (if their time does not suffice for more). Let your students know (preferrably beforehand) the background of your visitor, so they can adapt their explanations and what content they present, so that they neither bore nor overwhelm them.
In our group, we usually use our latest presentations from conferences or our seminar for this, as they provide a collection of polished and relevant plots, graphics and videos. Depending on the visitor, we may give a short, personalised talk.
Finally, a few considerations for specific visitor groups:

Let prospective new group members (candidates for summer research positions; people who want to do a bachelor/master/PhD thesis) talk to your group members alone and as long as they need or want. This way, they can get a good impression of what working in your group is like and do not get the feeling that they are talking to somebody who cannot be honest as their supervisor (or similar) is present. Also, you do not spend your time listening to something you already know. Present potential topics where possible, and if necessary, focus on them. Encourage them to ask questions as they are usually overwhelmed otherwise.
Remember that these people are not only interested in performing “interesting, important, and exciting research”, but also as to whether they would feel at home in your group and what you are doing matches their interests and abilities.
Show other researchers something they might be interested in or something on which you would like them to comment. Depending on the visitor, they might already have formed an opinion as to whether your research is “interesting, important, and exciting”, so they may not be interested in too much advertisement.

¹ Secondary attractions of a tour of your “lab” may be unpublished research results and explanations of your work for laymen. But very similar thoughts apply to these.

Depending on your data and work, it maybe beneficial to make some sort of visual representation and/or simulations of your work. People are draw to visual representations that move and do something. Stationary images, while informative, are not always interesting to the layperson (or well even those interested in the field). You could create a presentation that shows the hardware that collects your data, the raw data and then create a road map back to your students at your lab. Show screen grabs of any software that your students might utilize from day to day. You don't need to get too elaborate and there are many resources (power point, desktop applications, web applications, etc) that you could utilize to create your presentation with whatever level of effort you wish to put into it.
I would also suggest looking for someone to consult with, not affiliated with your lab, to view your presentation.This way you can get a fresh outlook on how your presentation flows. If your school has a scientific and technical (STC) writing program, I would also suggest you talk with someone in the program about your presentation. They might be willing to help out with making things more interesting and clearer for prospective visitors. You could possibly even see if a student in the program would be willing to create a presentation for you as a senior project.