text:
Peer-review in the year 2000
For a new paper about media archaeology in the context of scientific publication, I found an interesting topic which is not very well researched yet. As far as I know from research, in the year 2000 academic publication was done sometimes electronic and sometimes with printed material. Also, the Science Direct website was not invented yet.
But what is not given in the literature is, if in that time it was possible to do the peer-review process online or only with individual letters over postal mail service. Does anybody know the details of how the peer-review process was done in the year 2000?
I'm asking with a special question in mind. The idea is to describe the technical development of peer-review from the 1980s until the year 2010 with a focus on the work distribution among group of scientists. As far as I know, the idea behind peer review is that it can be done in parallel. But the scheduling must be coordinated, so my question is, if twenty years ago, this was done over e-mail, over postal letters or with the aforementioned Science Direct platform.

This is probably heavily field dependent. In mathematics, at least in western countries, I think most papers were sent to referees by email in 2000 (.div file and/or .tex file and/or .pdf file). However, I suspect in other fields (e.g. history, literary theory, anthropology, etc.) there was a much lower percentage of papers sent electronically. In any event, in my opinion 2000 is probably not a good year to focus on. I suspect a more "relevant inflection point year" would be 1997 or 1998, and maybe plus or minus a year from this, I don't know, but probably not 2000.

EditorialManager was released in 2001. I think Peer X-Press was around earlier, but cannot find much on it. My field was essentially fully electronic  (email and centralized aystems) by the mid 90s.

@DaveLRenfro I agree about email. In grad school ca 2008 I reviewed for a small regional journal that still did everything via email because they did not have an online review system.

I can go back as far as 1995, when I started my master's thesis, but if you want to dig like an archaeologist, you should probably go back a bit more.
In fact, in 1995, when we submitted my first work to a conference, we already did it by email (we submitted a camera-ready abstract).
For journal papers, in those years, the peer-review system transitioned from using the ordinary mail to the electronic one, and at the time there was an intermediate solution (at least in my field): you would submit the papers by email and you would receive the reviewer's remarks by ordinary mail (if I recall correctly: you know, memory sometimes fail us dinosaurs!). The peer-review process was managed by the editors by email. Below, you can find a picture of a handwritten reviewer's form which I received, by ordinary mail, in 1998 during my PhD (sadly – at the time – a rejection!).

Manuscripts should have been typeset in a one-column double-spaced format, to allow the reviewers to write corrections between the lines. Note, in fact, point 13 from the form above which says: "I have marked the manuscript and am returning it with this review". Some journals still require this format (which I don't like) nowadays, even though no one sends back corrections in this way anymore.
A few years later (probably around 2000), the first websites for the electronic management of submissions started to appear. I recall that at the beginning these were very fragile systems, which frequently crashed near submission deadlines, when the number of connections increased dramatically.
I don't know what was like before those years, but I suspect that a mixture of phone and mail communications was common.
Notes

As an aside, it might be interesting to note that, at the time, we didn't have personal email addresses for all the group members: there was an email address for the PI and one email address for all the others (indeed, the common email address allowed the group members to know each other's private facts). It took a couple of years more to have a personal email address for each person at my university.
Before the advent of emails, if a researcher wanted to ask for a copy of a paper (while reviewing a paper or for any other reason), they would have sent a letter. Some institutes had preprinted postcards exactly for that purpose. Here is a picture of such a postcard that I found in the drawer of my desk, a relic from another era.

@NajibIdrissi Actually, I couldn't find any, and I doubt so. It was really another era.

When you say ordinary mail, I assume you mean carrier pigeon.

Thank you for your story. It was surprising, that everything was done over postal service and not with e-mail. From research i know, that in the year 1998 the journal was the central hub for new submissions. So the paper must come before the review, from the journal to the reviewer. Had the journal editor send the paper to the reviewer in a monthly work package via postal mail, or has the reviewer telephone first with the reviewer and asks for a specific paper he want's to read? My question goes into the direction, how the work between the journal and the double blind reviewer was distributed.

@ManuelRodriguez Why do you say in a monthly package? At least in my field, reviews arrive in an irregular way, and that happened at the time too. Moreover, I'm not sure if at the time there was any double-blind review at all. Take also into account that most field do not have a double-blind review at all even nowadays (luckily), only the reviewers are anonymized.

@MassimoOrtolano: I mentioned “monthly package” because i have no idea how the postal system works. You're right, it made more sense, if the papers arrive irregular because one reviewer can get input from different publishers at the same time. It seems, that for a deeper understanding I have to analyze the postal pathways of 1998.

@ManuelRodriguez: You may want to take a look at What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?. As far as I understand (not being a dinosaur), the main impact of electronic communication is that regular mail was replaced with e-mail. The general structure of the process remains the same. (In fact if you ask me, the structure we have nowadays is a relic from that time and is inefficient in light of modern technology).


text:
How to tell my current project adviser that I want to try working with someone else next semester?
I have been working with Professor 1 for a semester. He has been very helpful and we have spent some time together this semester discussing problems. I enjoyed working with him and also find his research interesting.
However, there is also this other Professor 2, whose work I find interesting and he works in related areas. So, I want to work with Professor 2 for a semester before deciding whom to stick with.
Meanwhile, I want to continue the work that I have initiated with Professor 1. I want to convey this message to Professor 1 in a manner that will leave the possibility of working with him after next semester open. So, how should I tell Professor 1 that I want to do a small project with Professor 2 to try out things, without sounding rude?

Repeat after me: "I want to try working with someone else next semester."

There is a famous quote "The bitterest truth was always better than the sweetest lie". You should always the truth, just tell the whole stories about how you are interested in prof 2 but still want prof 1 for your current project that you initiated together. As a professor, he is a professional academician, so he should be able to accept whatever you said as long as you convey it truthfully. Academician always know that working with different people is always better than sticking to only one. Do your best and good luck.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
How to write a cover letter for a PhD position while involved in another PhD?
Disclaimer: I am asking on behalf of my friend, so I can not give many specific information. Still, I hope the information provided will be enough to give advice.
Let's say that a person got a position as a PhD candidate in a ok lab in Europe a bit less than a year ago. After a few months, the person realized that the current PhD project is not a good match for her (language barriers, communication problems, different work approach and pace from majority of the lab...).
After considering the situation, the person decided to apply for a few a different PhD projects in North and South America where the topics are a better fit, and where it is less likely to have language problems (the person found some open applications and researched them on her own time, while still working normally for her current position).
While finishing writing the applications and cover letters, a dilemma emerged about at which point should the person mention (if at all) the current involvement in a position as a PhD candidate? Fully aware that lying is not an option, the basic dilemma is weather to mention it in the cover letter or the first interview (if it comes to that). (The CV format required for most applications is such that the current PhD position is not readily apparent).
Basically, the questions would be:

whether to mention the current position as a PhD candidate in the cover letter / application, or at some later point in the process?
when mentioning the current position as a PhD candidate, how much detail about the current position (and reasons for looking for a new one in order to leave the current one) is the right amount of detail?

"PhD position" as being a candidate working towards a PhD degree? Or being a PhD working on a job that requires a PhD?

@Penguin_Knight I suppose the former is meant.

@Penguin_Knight "PhD position" as "PhD student" or "PhD candidate". Sorry

I can't imagine why it would be a good idea to not mention your current position. It's relevant experience. Is it because you might be seen as "jumping ship"?

@Irwin Exactly. Well, jumping ship, or starting a job you didn't finish / are giving up on. It's not looking for one position after another, it's about looking to stop the current PhD project and move to a different one.

@penelope I don't know that there's the same stigma associated with changing Ph.D areas/advisors as there is with changing jobs too quickly. Why waste away in a position that you don't like or can't do?

@Irwin I don't know if there is the same stigma associated, that's why I was asking here.

Just be forthcoming about the reasons why you're switching.  If you have evidence that you have a track record of success (grades, publications, etc.) in your former PhD program, there is little reason to believe that mentioning this information will count against you.  Even if you don't have a particularly "good" track record, it's important to be forthcoming about your experience nonetheless.
The key to a successful transfer into a different PhD program is how you justify changing programs.  This falls more into the category of your personal statement, rather than your CV.  If it is because you realized that you have stronger research interests in another field and wish to pursue research with a top professor in that field, then I don't think any institution would frown upon this regardless of your track record.
I'm not familiar with your track record, and I don't want to make any assumptions about you one way or another.  Thus, I want to address one more key issue:  If you are changing programs because to avoid "impending failure" at your previous PhD program, this will most likely be interpreted as "jumping ship" and institutions will not look highly upon this.  If you happen to be failing in your PhD program, you need to do some introspection and ask yourself some tough questions.  If a PhD is what I really want, why am I failing?  The more open and forthcoming you are about these questions in your personal statement, the more strongly you can justify your reasons for pursuing a PhD in another institution.

Hey, nice answer. Just to clarify, there's no "impending failure": it is going average-to-good as far as productivity is concerned, it's just that the subject and the environment didn't quite match to expectations and interests. It's not that it's impossible to finish the PhD project up to the end (although currently the person is less than a year in to the program), just that it's in a slightly different field that what the person was doing before, and even tough the person taught the project would be enjoyable, it is just not.

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


text:
Are there any standard regulations for oral exams for universities in Bologna process?
As described in Wikipedia article,

The Bologna Process is a series of ministerial meetings and agreements
  between European countries to ensure comparability in the standards
  and quality of higher-education qualifications.

Universities usually go through a series of supervisions to obtain the certificate that demonstrates the above mentioned quality of education.
These supervisions are, but not limited to, number of classrooms, regulations for exams, lab facilities, etc.
I am particularly interested in oral exam regulations. For instance, my former university had a strict rule:

There must be at least three lecturers/professors during the oral
  exam, and full voice recording is mandatory.

I wonder if such rule applies for all universities in the Bologna process, or my former university was being over cautious.

Looking at procedures for PhD defences might help you find your answer. (I'm unaware of any university that records defences.)

@user2768 I am not asking specifically about PhD defenses, but any oral exam.

@corey979 can you show the reference?

UK vivas usually only have three attendees (two examiners and the student) so this rule cannot be universal

@MJeffryes But are those universities in Bologna process?

@padawan Any oral exam includes defenses... So you need only consider those to infer whether universities follow the Bologna process.

@padawan I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I'm aware, the Bologna process was a treaty between countries, not something that individual universities sign up for?

@user2768 I don't understand your reasoning. "Oral exams" is a superset of "PhD defenses." You are answering a more general question by referring to a subset.

@padawan Oral examinations are indeed a superset of defenses. I don't understand how I'm answering a more general question. Surely I'm asking a narrower question? This suffices to answer your question assuming the answer is negative, which is what MJeffryes has pointed out.

@MJeffryes Sorry, I misread your comment. However, that still does not mean that those universities are doing the correct thing. What I ask is an item in the code of conduct for universities if Bologna process.

@padawan What is more likely: All universities in the UK are failing to correctly implement the Bologna process, or that there are no rules about the number of faculty members present at oral exams? The UK procedure for oral exams is (as far as I know) quite different from other countries in Europe, which is further evidence against the possibility that the rules are harmonised.

@MJeffryes Thanks for the clarification. I understood your insight.

I don't believe there are any Bologna-wide regulations regarding the conduct of oral exams.
In general, the Bologna process is designed to set up the means of making education "portable," not strictly uniform. Individual countries and schools are given wide latitude for how they internally implement the processes: for instance, just look at the wide of grading systems used throughout the EU.
As a counterexample to your question, I worked as a faculty member in Germany, and the rules varied between faculties, let alone universities. For instance, one or two professors could conduct the oral exam, notes were taken by a recorder, and the exam was rarely, if ever, recorded. The only situation where things got more complicated is if a person could fail out of the program by failing the oral exam, in which case having two professors, one of whom did not teach the subject, was required.


text:
Stay or leave for PhD
I'm a master student at a university in Korea and going to graduate next June. By now, I think about doing PhD and have to make a decision on "stay" or "leave".
Stay:

My professor is very nice and quite well known in my university. The
working conditions are good, PC, seats, no time restriction... (but everyone working like crazy).

The professor really nice to me (actually us - foreign student), I was found a good scholarship  for the master course ($1300/month) while
the    average is $700-600.

I don't have to make much effort on searching for a PhD position (don't need to take English test like IELTS, toefl) and the salary is good in comparison with other universities in Korea.

It's not really face to face talking but I agree with my professor to continue PhD there before I go to the graduate university. (Which I
am most afraid of).

My background is not good since we focus on publishing only very narrow field. I'm not very good at programming C/C++ as well, I use Matlab all the time.

Leaves:

I'm not quite sure about another place but in my University, they focus on
research not the graduate course. My background is quite weak.

My professor is very very busy and not really good in my current topic.
Almost every member in my team have to find their own way (follow the topic of their project).

I feel like this environment is not very good for the PhD. The communication between Professor and student is like a one way communication. We obey what ever we are told. Not really two way communication or discussions.

I'm 25, single, and want to do something.

Should I continue my PhD on the current Lab or looking for PhD position in some where else?
Ps: I'm looking for PhD position which related to signal processing and Compressive sensing. My current's topic is image/video compressive sensing.
Updates.
Mar. 2014: Thank for your advice, I decided to stay for my PhD but more for my personal issue. For my current PhD it is little disappointed.

my support is lower than what I discussed with the professor before starting PhD. We agreed on $1000 but later paid me $800/month due to lab situation (the other PhD salary is still the same $1000 or higher). After asking  many times, I now have to do an internship 1 day/week as an solution with $250 salary more.
The professor is very busy, even for checking my conference paper before sending.

Jul. 2015 Now I'm a little doubtful what to do.

The professor has no time for us and even for my journal paper
One PhD student left without a word

Advice for someone considering study in Korea: Master is enough, go somewhere else for PhD!

As to your first two reasons to leave--the PhD is a research degree, not a taught degree, and it is expected that the student and not the faculty advisor is (or rather, becomes) the expert in the area of the PhD. Your advisor is there to help, but not to lead. So if you do a PhD elsewhere, these two factors are not likely to change.

You haven't mentioned the most important considerations: do you like the research where you are? Are you productive (in research) there?

At first I dont like it since I have to switch from communication to image/video processing and the current topic requires mathematics. During the time, I feel like this topic - its a hot topic btw. For productive in research, I just have one paper in good conference (-in US),  one with positive first round review, one just submited to the top conference in my field, and I'm currently writing one Domestic Journal (same level with a good conf.). In that case, I think I'm a little productive in research.

@waiwai933, i mentioned about course for the background not for my major. I can write paper but my background in general is not good

Do not make the decision until you actually know what your options are. Apply widely, see where you're admitted, gather more information about those places, and then make a decision.

@AtenaNguyen so what happend?

Since you say you like the research where you are and you are fairly productive there, you can probably successfully get a PhD there. It sounds like your advisor is not perfect (busy, etc) but few advisors are "perfect" from their students' perspectives. And if you stay, you won't have to interrupt your research to apply to other schools and transition to a new group. Staying where you are is a "safe" choice.
If you go somewhere else, some of your weaknesses (which you are able to ignore in your current position) may be exposed, and you'll have to work on improving them. And you will probably meet new collaborators (especially if you go to anther country) and be exposed to new ideas and techniques that will be difficult to learn, but will make you a better and more capable researcher.
So the answer to your question depends on what you want to gain from your PhD: Do you want to get a degree and some nice publications? Then staying where you are sounds like the easiest way. Or do you want to improve yourself and broaden yourself as a researcher? Then you might be better off leaving.
Having said that - of course, even if you stay, you can still challenge yourself and improve yourself and your capabilities. But since you don't have to "prove yourself" in your current position, there's nothing forcing you to do so - you'd have to be exceptionally self-motivated and disciplined.

Sure, stay is a "safe" choice for me. There are several thing that I should update for the question. Firstly, my labs have 6 international students but all from my country. So, mostly we speak my mother language for discussion and not much discussion, co-work between my team and Korean team. In addition, If i go for PhD here, there would be 4 PhD in the same topic which is very dangreous for unique topic. (one of my senior have to switch his MS topic to new topic in hist PhD). And most PhD in my lab have to spent 5 years for PhD.


text:
How should PhD student show importance of research proposal in cover letter requesting access to important dataset?
I am a PhD student,  and I am applying to be part of a cohort of graduate student researchers who will be using data from a national survey (that everyone in my field wants to get to) to answer policy questions. The dataset  will most likely be a part of my dissertation.
The application requires a cover letter that needs me to explain certain parts of my research.
Here is what i wrote:

My current research interest is concerned with the interactions
  between families, students, teachers and staff in Head Start programs;
  specifically families who frequently encounter structural barriers due
  to their race, ethnicity and/or limited English proficiency. This work
  is important because of many reasons, but to name a few: the current
  climate of uncertainty experienced by families from diverse
  cultures/ethnicity/nationalities and how it pervades the education of
  their children, the forecasted minority/majority shift our population
  is going under and the overall right to equal access afforded to every
  child in the United States. I believe my work will contribute to a
  better understanding of the barriers these families confront on a
  daily basis and to a dialogue about practical solutions in the form of
  policy changes in order to ameliorate said barriers

I asked my adviser for feedback, and she said

You have said why the work is important and how you will contribute.
  But from what you have written, I do not know what it is that you are
  doing that will contribute to the field. What is your research,
  exactly? Why is your study, specifically, important?

I am really not getting it. I have been grappling a lot but i end up writing things like my methods. Any way you can illuminate will be appreciated.

I think she is saying your paragraph is too vague. What question are you trying to answer? You want something like: A large literature says X is important to Z. There is also an emerging body of evidence saying Y is crucial for Z. However, there is not any evidence on the joint effects of X and Y on Z. This research asks whether the Y enhances the effect of X on Z. Evidence that Y changes the effect of X would suggest that policy A should be revised by...

Right now I read that and I see that you have named a research topic, but I can't identify a research question. Read some papers in your area to understand what a research question is.

Your advisor's critique is exactly right.  You've made a convincing case that your subject is important, but not that your work is important.  This:

My current research interest is concerned with the interactions between families, students, teachers and staff in Head Start programs

is the sort of vague writing that a lot of academics are prone to (I'm always trying to beat it out of my writing).  Being "concerned with the interactions" is a very abstract, high level statement that doesn't actually say anything.  Concerned with how?  Which interactions?
Finding out whether teachers say "hello" or "hi" more often to family members is an investigation of the interactions among the people you describe, but it's an utterly uninteresting one.
Start concrete, with the specific research questions you plan to ask.  Think about what you excited about your research. How would you describe your work to a non-academic? What's the story you that keeps you excited about how your research will actually matter - the line of causation from the work you're going to do to actually making people's lives better?

Henry i think you have given me some genuine things to think about. One of my mistakes was probably that i did not think a cover letter needed much elaboration but i guess i am wrong. Thank you so much, especially for your kindness.

When PhD students are narrowing down their dissertation topic, I often tell them this is a two-step process. First, you need to consult with enough literature to demonstrate that it is important to study. Then identify what about that topic has not been studied. From what I know about research on Head Start, there are findings that exist on many of the issues you identified. What exactly will you be asking about this topic that will produce new or more specific knowledge. If you cannot answer that, you may need to find additional literature or review what you've read more critically.
Another source of support may be from organizational reports or government reports/evaluations. What are specific issues they are seeing that haven't been studied? Hope this helps!  Good luck!

Nicole, thank you so much for your advice. I know my research will produce some specific and new knowledge so i gather for this one thing i am writing i have to be much more specific than i thought i should be. Thank you again for your kindness in your response.

Great! Glad that it was helpful. Fellowship and grant application writing is a specific skill that takes time to really develop. So, best of luck with this one! However, if you don't get it you shouldn't be discouraged, because you will get better at writing about your research over time.


text:
Is it ethical for a journal editor to use a generic rejection response when desk rejecting a manuscript?
Is it ethical for a journal editor to provide the same response to many authors?
Here is an example generic rejection comment made by a journal editor:

All manuscripts are initially assessed by the editors to ensure they
  meet the criteria for publication in the journal. After careful
  evaluation of your manuscript, I regret to inform you that I do not
  find your manuscript suitable for publication in Journal because
  it does not meet the impact requirements of the journal. Therefore
  your article has been rejected from Journal.

Ethical sure, informative probably not but I guess journals that handle a very large number of submissions would have such a system in place.

The edit does not clarify the question enough.  We have a one sentence question, to which the answer is clearly "There is nothing inherently ethical in giving the same response to many authors.  Rather there are situations in which it would be unethical to give different responses to different authors whose submissions share a common feature (e.g. not meeting a deadline or not submitting files in the requested format)." Just quoting a paragraph which is -- presumably! this is not stated -- received from a referee report does not provide enough context.  I have voted to close as "unclear."

@PeteL.Clark The question is about form letters.  I find it very clear.

(i) sending a letter to an author, as stated in question (ii) letter does not address any details of the situation ("generic"), implying it was duplicated (iii) if they had a reason, they would not need to ask.  A question based on the ignorance of the asker would be a good question, not an unclear question.

Did a journal actually reply by literally saying "Journal" rather than the name of the journal??

@curiousdannii it is customary here to not give revealing details, specially when it could indicate a wrongdoing on the part of the journal, as the OP is fearing.

@Davidmh Saying "Journal X" would be much more natural in that case

@curiousdanni The OP submitted a manuscript to http://www.journal-news.net/ and it was rejected without commentary.  The Journal is ridiculously competitive.

@emory could also be this journal.

Yes.
It is ethical—and moreover, common and accepted practice—for a journal editor to provide the response that you quote to many authors.
You've received what is commonly known as a desk rejection, where the editor uses their own judgement to determine whether the paper is suitable for and likely to be accepted for publication in the journal.  If the editor's professional judgment is that your paper is out of scope, or that there is no realistic chance of acceptance, then this response is not only ethical but the best response you can hope for, because the near-certain alternative is several months waiting for referee reports followed by rejection.

I agree, but I think form letters are unprofessional, especially when they contain obvious errors.  Editors should at least take the time to insert one sentence which shows they determined the topic of the paper before rejecting it, as a matter of courtesy.

@AnonymousPhysicist Alas, ethics and courtesy are often very different.

@AnonymousPhysicist Letters with errors (and certainly letters with obvious errors) are unprofessional. A form letter, if accurate, is perfectly professional, if perhaps not as helpful as it can be. Editors should take the time to verify that letters they send out are accurate and error-free, and that's all they are ethically obligated to do. Anything beyond that is certainly courteous and in general good practice, but I wouldn't say that it's required for the response to be considered professional.

"courteous" and "good practice" are examples of professionalism.

The editor's salary comes from the subscribers.  Would it be ethical for the editor to waste their time and the subscribers money on individual responses for the large stack of unpublishable submissions they get every day?

@StigHemmer you are asking a loaded question by deeming such responses a waste of time. Actually it would be ethical for the editor to do their job in whatever way they think is most appropriate. If they feel that that includes writing individual responses to authors (and my answer explains why that might be a good policy to have), then yes it would be ethical, and would not be the waste of time that you assume it is.

Nobody likes to receive form letters, just like nobody likes their call to a customer service center to be answered by an agent reciting some form script and answering our questions with equally canned responses (not to mention having our call answered by an automated answering service that doesn't even let us talk to a human being). We all appreciate getting individualized service that reassures us that the person answering our service request has thought about, and is answering, our specific request. Conversely, getting a canned response, whether it's from a journal editor or anyone else, makes us feel dehumanized, unappreciated, and unvalued, as if our request was not even thought to be worth the minimal effort of crafting a simple English sentence for. In this age of increasing automation it also makes us wonder if our request was even looked at by a human at all, and can leave a nagging suspicion (especially among the more neurotic among us) that some error might have occurred and that the response we got is simply incorrect.
With that said, for a journal editor to provide an individualized response to authors is not an ethical obligation; it is simply good service. Like any service provider, some journal editors provide good service, and some don't, either because they care less about doing so or because their workload simply does not afford them the time to do so. If as a "customer" you are unhappy with the service you got when submitting a paper to a journal, the sensible thing to do would be to avoid submitting to that journal in the future, and to avoid supporting that journal by refereeing papers, suggesting to colleagues to submit there, etc. (Indeed, there are several journals that are personally on my black list due to mistreating me in various ways as an author in the past.) Presumably a journal providing poor service of this type to authors will become less successful than a journal that provides good service, all other things being equal (which of course they rarely are).
TL;DR: The practice you describe may not be the best policy to ensure the journal's long-lasting success, but there is nothing unethical about it.


text:
What author position on publications is best for early-career academics in physics: First or last author?
I am physicist, I do research in theoretical biophysics, and I just got a permanent position. I am still collaborating with my former postdoc advisor, with whom I already published, and we are about to submit a new paper.
When I was a postdoc, the best thing for my CV was to be first author. It is not entirely clear to me what would be the best thing now for my CV. Should I aim at being last author, corresponding author, or still first author?
I have asked this question to people working in different scientific areas, and got very different answers.

You should read this question and Kieran's answer: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/535/what-does-author-order-indicate  It won't answer your question, but will explain why you've been getting different answers.

Maybe this question and the answers can give you some hints: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/82059/when-is-it-most-appropriate-to-transition-from-first-to-senior-author

In general, I think last author. I'm pretty close to your field, though at a similar career stage, so I'm not the person making the decisions on your grants, so take this with that in mind! I'm also going to answer for the US, since that's the culture I know best.
In my experience, biophysics follows the cond-mat tradition of last author = group leader. Therefore, you being last author with a PD/grad student first author could indicate that this is a project that you led, and a student that you mentored, and that your PD advisor acknowledges this as "your" project. If there are only two authors, I think it doesn't matter as much. Being last could mean that you were the project lead, or that you left the manuscript in such a bad state that your PD advisor had to do most of the editing and then put him/herself as first!
I think the strongest sign of independence would be: your trainee first and you last. The worst sign would be you first, your PD advisor last (i.e. you are still just following their instructions, rather than developing your own topics.)
One caveat: that analysis assumes you're at an R1 or otherwise have students/PDs who can contribute first-author-level effort. I've also seen: trainee moves to a position at a non-R1, and doesn't have graduate students, but continues a collaboration, and usually publishes papers with former PD first, then UG trainees, and PD advisor last. I don't know how common that is, though, and if you're in that situation, it might be worth mentioning to your department chair that that's how it works, and that you are not just salami-slicing your PD work.

@Saturnus - I should mention here, this is the US convention, so it may be different elsewhere. "Group leader" here means the principal investigator, who organizes the research effort, not the person primarily performing the work (usually a trainee)


text:
Required reviews completed
I have submitted a paper and I received a request for major revisions.
The first time the status changed from "under review" to "with editor".
After that I submitted a revised version of the paper. Now the status has changed from "under review" to "required reviews completed".

Why first time it wasn't shown this status?
How many days does it usually take to change the status from "required reviews completed" to next status?

I'm not clear what you are asking. What do you mean by "first time"? On your original submission? Are you just asking how long it takes for revisions to be evaluated by the editor?

Yes, original submission. I want to know about the differenc between with editor and required reviews of completed after under review. Before revision the editor mentioned we are interested to publish work and comment for reviewer questions. Is it positive sign. Also time taken to evaluate reviewer recommendation by editor

Why first time it wasn't shown this status? – What makes you sure about this?

I don't know why first time it wasn't shown

Most likely this means it has passed to the associate editor to decide what to do with the reviews.  In my experience the deadline for that action is typically about a week from the time the final review is available, but of course if the editor is otherwise occupied, it might take a while longer.  Patience!

what does it mean decision in process  status

Most likely, the AE has now made a recommendation, and the EIC has to process it.

How much time does it takes? The status has been showing decision in process for last two days. Is it positive sign.

Neutral.  Just means it's time for the next step.  Maybe a week or two.  Read the page describing the submission process.

What happens if one reviewer suggest accept and other reviewer suggest reject. The editorial board says it should become acceptable.

Is minor modification sent another round of review

Up to the editor in case of disagreement.

I received comments, one reviewer accepted and the other reviewer rejected. Editor adked for minor modification and I submitted to editor. Editor now sent again for review. What will happen now.

Read the FAQ. This is getting rather silly.


text:
Coursera and related readings to fill gaps when transitioning careers/studies/backgrounds
I've always had an interest in applying tech skills to improve the educational landscape. To do this, I've been building a video game to teach foreign languages as a side project. I've had positive feedback, but feel that I need a deeper understanding of the way students think and learn to successfully lead the project. I'm applying to a Master's program in Cognitive Science in Education at Columbia's Teachers College to fill these gaps.
My undergrad studies, however, were in business, computer science, and Chinese, and my career has been in business and software engineering. I don't have any formal training in Cognitive Science, Psychology, or academic research, beyond the second language acquisition and game-based learning theories I've read from academic journals such as the Educational Psychologist. While I do have experience as a volunteer teacher, and while my game is education focused and relies on data-driven learning outcomes, I'm worried that my background just isn't relevant enough for the program.
To strengthen the relevance of my application, I've begun reading related texts from Pinker and Kahneman, and have been taking Coursera coursework in Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. Q: are these good steps to take towards strengthening my otherwise unrelated / interdisciplinary background? Is Coursera viewed kindly as a way to build elementary knowledge in the field? Any recommendations or advice?

I suspect that the admissions office will look at your experience and the steps you are taking to fill gaps in your background and want to have you in the program. You might consider trying to find someone at Columbia to talk to before you apply formally.

Great answer. Additionally, you could look up course materials and requirements of the undergrad CogSci courses at Columbia.

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


text:
I have accepted a PhD offer. When to contact potential supervisors?
I have accepted an offer for a CS PhD at a US university. Unlike most other schools to which I applied, this university does not require that incoming students immediately start working for a professor of interest (POI). We receive a university scholarship the first year, and can take our time to decide.
My question is: when should I start contacting POIs*? I have someone in mind already and we met on visit day, but maybe my mind will change over the summer. Should I wait to meet her again? Wait until I move to the new city and start taking classes? Read a dozen more of her papers first? If I wait, do I run the risk of her going with another student—assuming she has limited resources and spots available?
*In this case, a "POI" is not necessarily a final advisor, just someone I would like to work with during the first year. I suppose in the ideal case, we get along very well and just keep working together.

What's a POI in this context? Can you edit your question to expand this acronym at its first use?

Done. Let me know if you need more clarification.

Short answer: six months ago.

@JeffE, already did. This question is about the next step.

The matter of when to meet or talk to your POI is definitely subjective, but in my personal opinion there's no harm in keeping in touch, if you expect to have a relationship with this professor in the future. I think that creating a dialogue with this faculty and discussing potential research projects as an incoming student rather than a prospective student places you in a very different position, and is better than blindly looking at her papers, etc. If nothing else, she may be able to guide you to other faculty as she learns more about you and your interest, and doesn't see a good fit.
Of course, none of this is concrete, but from my experience it was useful to informally keep in touch with POIs across the board and see where I would head in the future, both academically and at jobs.


text:
How does authorship work in large collaborations?
I am not in a field in which large (twenty authors or more) collaborations are common. However, I have always been interested in how authorship is distributed in those cases, particularly for extremely large collaborations (i.e., hundreds to thousands of collaborators).
How is it determined whether someone has had a signifficant contribution to yield authorship (i.e., why are there 436 authors and not 437 or 435)? How are authors listed (I know that LIGO, for instance, lists alphabetically)? How does one determine the major contributor? How is the paper drafted? Does everyone in the collaboration approve the paper?

How is the paper drafted? From speaking to my colleagues (some LIGO, some on other astronomy surveys eg LSST, eBOSS) the answer is: a lot of telecons. Like, a lot.

@astronat thanks, that's very interesting to hear. I suppose not all authors participate in those telecons, nonetheless. So there is probably some kind of hierarchy where senior members draft the paper and grad students feed the PIs who attend those telecons?

How is it determined whether someone has had a signifficant contribution to yield authorship?
Very large collaboration are common in physics. I guess it started with collider physics experiments, and then it became common elsewhere (see LIGO). The general rule in very large (hundreds to thousands of authors) collaborations is that everybody who passes a minimum threshold of contribution to the experiment is an author.
More specifically, an author is typically somebody working in an institution who pays money/puts work into the building/running the experiment. He/she has to have served at least a number of months up to a year helping build or operate some of the experimental equipment before becoming an author. Some collaborations make this threshold a one-off, others a yearly commitment.
Interestingly, building the necessary hardware is seen as a natural qualification for becoming an author, while building the software infrastructure does not always count as a qualification for becoming an author.
Exceptions can be made on a paper-by-paper base when somebody who is not a typical collaborator but has contributed significantly to a paper is added to the author list of that paper only.  This is the typical case for theoretician who would like to use the experiment's data to prove/disprove a specific scenario.
Junior collaborators become senior enough to join the author list, less junior collaborators leave the collaboration, new institututions join the collaboration bringing in new collaborators. As a result, no two papers from the same collaboration in principle have to have the same number of authors; tracking the list of authors becomes another task to add to the long-list of large collaboration administrative jobs.
How are authors listed?
Given the impressive collaborators list length (ATLAS and CMS papers at CERN list approximately 2000 people each) then the simplest choice is to list all authors alphabetically. Such a large number of collaborators publish typically  of the order of 100 papers per year. It is thus natural to expect that no author will ever read all the papers produced by her/his collaboration. Realistically, in such instances the average authors read 15-30% of papers he/she signs as author.
How does one determine the major contributor?
There is typically no difference between a null/negligible contributor, a significant contributor, and a major contributor in the author list. The only exception to my knowledge of the author lists "rules" above is for the Belle collaboration. In Belle papers, the main authors are listed first, with the others following in alphabetical order. If a reader would like to contact a Belle paper authors, he/she can write them directly. In all other instances, a reader would write to some committee that might eventually redirect him/her to the actual authors.
How is the paper drafted?
The main authors of the result draft the paper; this is typically a team of 3 to 7 people, although much larger teams are possible for very important papers. The paper is then heavily scrutinized by an internally assigned committee, then handed over to another committee, then handed over to the another committee; in some instances handed over a fourth committee. The typical time it takes to work on the paper is thus in the hundreds of days - typically as long or longer than producing the result itself. However, scientists typically start working on some other projects while waiting for the committees feedback.
Does everyone in the collaboration approve the paper?
Not literally everyone. After the committees work, the general rule is the "opt-in". However, just as any author is allowed to comment on a paper before it gets released, any author can decide to opt-out of being an author for that paper (although it happens only in exceptional and heavily controversial instances).

I recall a conversation I had some twenty years ago with a PhD student working at CERN, when I was a PhD student too, but in a completely different field. I asked him how they would write up their papers and he told me that, as a student, he would receive a phone call asking for a graph or two; he would produce the graphs and that was it.

Edit to my previous comment - Just as a "company culture" have a big impact on the way a private organization operates, an analogous concept of "laboratory culture" and "academic institution culture" do exist., and matter. Cern collaborations tend to have a more hierararchical structure then US and Japanese counterparts. At Fermilab, a PhD student (and supervisor) would normally write the entire paper. I have not seen this happening at CERN personally, although I am confident it does happen - perhaps not that often.

But how large is a typical collaboration at Fermilab compared to CERN? If you have, say, 200 authors at Fermilab, who are that PhD student and that supervisor?

Collaborations at Fermilab were 600 people at most. At CERN, it should be above 2000 at this point. Of course size does matter, as it's highly correlated with burocracy


text:
Journal misattributes cover image and only offers correction. Is this normal?
My PI was guest-editing a (weak) special issue for a respectable Wiley journal. He asked me if I had "cool cover images" relevant to the subject matter. Indeed I did; I had had acquired them on my own initiative on another professor's microscope at my previous university. I provided my PI with a few options and he picked one.
The special issue was published a few months later, with a strange caption saying that the cover image was “captured” by my PI at their current university. I had done several journal covers before, and they were never attributed to a single person. I felt cheated out of my work a bit but I couldn’t bring it up because I didn’t want to get fired while while working abroad.
Six months later, when my work contract was up, I contacted Wiley and said that that cover image was captured by me at my previous university. A regular Wiley editor contacted me back and said they regretted the mistake but to correct it they would have to “issue a correction”. I asked them, in a professional way, to correct this.
Then I got an email in a displeased tone from my PI acting annoyed that I did not contact him first. After all the image was captured in his laboratory. I said, no, it was captured with another professor’s equipment and labspace. (The other professor and my PI are friends; so no issue here.) Now, my PI is annoyed that I brought this up with the editor and, instead of apologizing, simply claimed that a regular Wiley editor wrote the caption herself without his review or approval.
To finish up this story, the Wiley editor and PI begrudgingly added a correction to the image attribution, but did not correct the original text or remove the mis-attribution. They left the original text up next to the cover image and the only way to see the correction is to click an additional link.
Is this normal for a Wiley journal to mis-attribute data in a clumsy way, and not even fix the mistake when contacted? Any leverage or avenues to actually get the mistake fixed?

Why didn't you bring it up immediately? Why would you be fired for correcting a mistake? Given the time that passed I can at least sort of understand Willey's position.

Because it was a bad situation on many fronts.

Hi, I upvoted your question because I think it's ultimately a fine one, but you would do well to remove the defensive tone from you question, and you might stop taking downvotes.

I agree that you were not treated well, but I'm not sure what additional redress you're looking for.  I'm also not sure how any redress would materially affect your academic career, so, while I certainly don't know your situation, I would have to guess that your time and effort would be more profitably spent on other aspects of your academic work.
Let me say straight up that in my field (mathematics) most journal issues do not have cover images, and when such images exist the use of them is not something that an academic would get any career advancing credit for, so it is possible that I don't fully appreciate the situation.  But -- you didn't do any additional work here, did you?  As you describe it, you contributed an image that you already had.

Then I get Displeased tone email from PI acting annoyed I did not contact him first. After all the image was captured in His laboratory. I said no it was captured in [other professor's] equipment and labspace. ([other professor] and PI are friends so no issue here)

After all your PI was the editor of the issue in which the image appeared and your PI.  You went over his head without even talking to him first.  That does sound mildly annoying.

PI is annoyed I brought this up with editor and instead of apologizing simply claimed regular Wiley editor wrote in the caption herself without his review or approval.

Couldn't that be true?  (On the other hand, if it is, then it should be less annoying that you went over his head, since it wasn't actually his doing.)

To finish up this story, Wiley editor and PI begrudgingly add correction to image attribution but do not correct the original text or remove mis-attribution. They leave the original text up next to the cover image and the only way to see correction is to click an additional link.

That is a standard form of correction.  Journals are often loathe to retroactively change their content, rather (often) preferring to issue errata / corrigenda.  In this particular case I see no compelling moral reason not to change the original, but still...you can't say that they didn't "fix the mistake."  They did fix the mistake -- just not in the way that you would (understandably) prefer.
It seems very likely that this is the end of the matter, and I think you should just move on.  You ask whether this is "normal for a Wiley journal."  I don't know, but I am a bit skeptical that such a practice would be uniform across all journals with a common publisher.  Moreover, I'm not sure how knowing whether this is "normal" would help you, except perhaps that if it is you might try to seek to avoid having this type of problem recur by not dealing with this publisher in the future.  But I think there are better ways of preventing this in the future: rather, in the future, when you are asked to contribute an image to an article that you didn't write, work out what kind of attribution you want before you contribute the image.  That is certainly your right.
In summary: you weren't treated well, and I'm sympathetic.  But probably you should reflect on how to be a bit more careful / less trusting next time and then move on.

I spent time writing this response out of a sincere desire to help.  In my response, I explicitly and repeatedly expressed sympathy for your position.  Your sarcastic response is not so encouraging.  But: telling someone that they may be able to avoid repeating an unpleasant situation by modifying their behavior is not blaming them for what happened the first time.  If you are determined to draw only the moral that you've been wronged and linger on that, no matter how small the stakes: okay, that is certainly your right.  I sincerely hope that you find your closure on this one way or another.

Pete wrote a friendly, constructive and compassionate response. The fact that he suggests different approaches is based on the fact that one can change one's own behaviour, but it's difficult to change others'. One can only arrange circumstances to make others' desirable behaviour more likely to happen and concentrate on things that can actually be changed and those who actually have value. However, if "blame" is what you seek, "blame" is what you find (goes both ways), but I do not see blame in Pete's response.

The time to bring up corrections is as soon as possible. I can't stress this enough. Now that you've waited six months, there're a lot of things publishers can no longer do conveniently:

The files for the cover might've been archived, with "do not edit" policies.
The files for the cover might've been given to archivers who are not the publisher (see below).
Although electronic files can be easily amended, once they have been sent out, they cannot be easily recalled.
Although electronic files can be easily amended, print files cannot. By law, a copy of every UK print publication must be given to the British Library by its publishers, and to five other major libraries that request it. What do you want the publisher to do, write to the British Library and request all the copies back? What about all the university libraries they've already sent the journal to? If they're subscribers, it's only fair that they receive something; if the publisher retracts the journal they need to make a replacement. That means printing another O(100) copies of them. Who's going to pay for it?

If you've waited six months you can't really expect Wiley to jump through the many hoops necessary to fix a minor error like this one, especially since it's not their fault (your PI probably mistakenly gave the wrong attribution and the journal simply followed instructions). You can hardly blame the journal for contacting your PI either - after all they have to confirm that you aren't someone else attempting to hijack your PI's honest work.
At this point I don't think there's much more you can do without doing things like sue Wiley (which will likely not work also). If something similar ever happens again, bring it up at once, before the issue is published, and discuss it with your PI first.


text:
Citing a previously unpublished master’s thesis, can I simply use part of my thesis to apply to a conference?
I wrote my master’s thesis which looked at something through two different lenses using two different datasets.
I want to use one of those angles to submit a paper to a conference, and potentially the other in the future. So my questions are:

Is this okay to do?
Do I need to cite my master’s thesis, even if it is unpublished?
Can I just copy parts that would apply, or do I need to paraphrase and cite different parts of the paper? For example, the analysis section of the paper, I give the background of the interviews I conducted. Can I just use this same language for the paper I want to submit to the conference?

It sounds like you're rewriting your previous research into a publishable form. That's completely above board and very common. You wouldn't have to cite your masters thesis because the thesis is effectively an earlier draft of this paper.
See this related question, except the OP wants to turn a published paper into a thesis.
See also this related question, where I asked about self-plagiarism in conference talks.

Thank you very much for the feedback on this. I'm just getting into academia in a sense, and it is all a bit confusing sometimes.

Yes if you make sure you don't self-plagiarize. For the exact definition of self-plagiarism, see the guidelines of the conferences and of the institution where your Master's thesis has been submitted.
Typically, yes. Difficult to tell without knowing the exact guidelines.
Typically, no. Again, difficult to tell without knowing the exact guidelines. Copying large parts is usually considered an act of plagiarism. Copying small parts would work, but only if you quote them.

In general, I'd be careful when submitting parts of your thesis elsewhere even if you reformulate it completely in your own words. Some reviewers are o.k. with it, and some might say "Oh, this is simply a recompilation of the author's thesis. Reject." I've seen both situations. You might wish to look at  the guidelines of the venue first. To avoid such issues, make an improvement wrt. your thesis.

So-called "self-plagiarism" is not plagiarism.

Thank you for this feedback. I really appreciate it, and it helps clarify my issue.

In my discipline (chemistry) and my time almost every good thesis at master level results in a following publication, as a full paper or as a proceeding, or at least contribute in part to them.
Although a master thesis probably is to be considered a publication, I can't believe it is indexed except at local and perhaps country levels.
Indexed or not, there will be  practically no way except for those in contact with you and/or your master thesis supervisor to know your results.
I doubt you can easily and heavily cut and paste as the result won't be a  (good) paper. You must rewrite a different publication within the limits of the article in mind.
As for self plagiarism, in the very wrong case it will be noticed after you will have win a Nobel, so is really up to you. But for the reason above, it is unlikely you will indulge in formal self plagiarism
(Unless the thesis is already few pages in length, but I do not think so).
Most important you must write and submit in concertation with, if any, coworkers, and surely your supervisor.
He/she surely will have the most appropriate answer to your Q.


text:
How to cite a multi-part blog post with separate URLs for each part?
I'd like to cite a technical blog post that was published in three parts, however, the parts don't have links to each other. Should I cite them separately as if they were different articles, or is there a way I could somehow combine them? E.g., if I were to use the main title of the series, and include a list of all 3 URLs.
It's a computer science undergraduate honours thesis, if that's relevant.

You have two options that are IMHO equally good. Either cite them as one item with three links:

[1] J. Doe: Foo bar (I., II., and III.), 2015, http://example.net/blog/1 , http://example.net/blog/2 , http://example.net/blog/3 [2015-04-17].

Or cite them as three items:

[1] J. Doe: Foo bar, part I., 2015, http://example.net/blog/1 [2015-04-17].
  [2] J. Doe: Foo bar, part II., 2015, http://example.net/blog/2 [2015-04-17].
  [3] J. Doe: Foo bar, part III., 2015, http://example.net/blog/3 [2015-04-17].

If they were three articles in an article series, they would be cited as three items for sure. But for blog posts, no canonical citation style is established (or maybe some style mention it, but it's not a universally accepted thing); this means that any style that contains the relevant information is OK.
As for me personally, I would probably stick to the second variant, unless you commonly cite multiple items with one number (some chemists and engineers do this).

From personal experience I suggest the second options. I don't know how it works in the US, but in Europe academia the first one is rarely seen. But as I said, that's my personal opinion.


text:
Special museum visiting hours for academics?
Anyone who has been to the Louvre knows what a zoo it is. With creaking floorboards and gawking tourists stacked up five deep in front of popular works it is not a conducive environment for study.
Are there special visiting hours at major museums for art historians and other academics that allow them to examine works undisturbed by large crowds?

Here is information on the Egyptian Antiquities research center. There are similar pages for other groups. I think you would have to apply for an appointment with a written research request

I've generally not had any problem getting stress-free access to places that are high on tourists' radars (I'm not an art person, but I have recently had a small bit of art/architecture stuff in my research). You'd probably not have any luck with asking for a personal viewing of the Mona Lisa, but for most other works, they'd probably be willing to pull it and bring it to a separate room/area for researchers. IANA art historian, though, this is based more on my experience with archives and cathedrals.

There is a general rule of "You might never know if you don't ask." Maybe those possibilities are not commonly advertized, but might still be offered to you upon request.

This will likely depend on the museum. So the question should be closed.

Generally no, there is no time set aside for academics only in nearly all museums. Academics are members of the public like anyone else and are invited in when the museums are open. With advanced notice, researchers may be allowed to view some items in the museum collection that are not on display (depending on a lot of factors), but for items on display you are expected to access the galleries like anyone else.
All that said, many academics who work seriously on museum material and move in museum circles often are invited to visit museums at non-opening times (e.g. On a Monday when the building is closed to the public but staff are working). Usually if you are let in at this time it is for a clear purpose, such as working with or visiting a curator, and you aren't left to wander about on your own as that's a huge security risk. I've been in many museums before opening, after closing, or on closed days, for various reasons (projects, personal tours given by friends who work there, filming, etc). "Because the public is noisy" has not been one of those reasons. I do my gallery observation work during regular opening hours with everyone else.
For the Louvre, go on their weekday late night opening. There are surprisingly few people there at that time and the lighting is magical.

In the case you dont get an special visiting hour in a museum you can use google popular times to avoid them https://support.google.com/business/answer/6263531?hl=en


text:
What are the implications of distributing a faculty annual salary over 9 or 12 months?
It has been mentioned couple of times in this site that faculty could be able to distribute their salary over 9 or 12 months. What are advantages and disadvantages of each? And can faculty who distribute their salary over 12 months work during the summer? Do they get 1 month vacation and sick leave? Any effect on taxes, health insurance, and deduction for benefits? Does it affect the amount of summer salary from the university or a funding agency?

I'd spend a 9-month distributed salary in 9 months and then starve for the next 3 months...

Note there is a third form of appointment, which is the genuinely 12-month appointment.

There may be some confusion here about the difference between 9 and 12 month appointments vs. arranging to have the salary for a 9 month appointment paid out over 12 months.
In the U.S., the typical faculty appointment is a 9 month appointment.  Under this arrangement, a faculty member is required to be present on campus and teaching (and doing research and service) from September through May.  They typically do not have formal vacation or sick leave but in practice can stay home (and cancel classes) if sick.  They can also go on personal travel when classes are not in session.  Faculty don't have to formally request time off as long as they attend to their responsibilities.
In this system faculty do not have to work over the summers, although many faculty do teach summer school or work on research grants and earn additional salary over the summer.  Faculty will also often work on unfunded research projects over the summer.
Many faculty with 9 month appointments choose to have their annual salary paid out over 12 months.  This doesn't create any obligation to work over the summer and has no significant tax consequences, but it is more convenient for household budgeting since summer salary can be quite variable and unpredictable from year to year.
For example, I just learned today that I will be able to earn a month of summer salary teaching a course that starts on June 8.  I'm still waiting to hear if some research funding for this summer will come through.  I've designed my personal budget so that I'm not dependent on summer salary, so I have my 9 month salary paid out over 12 months.
12 month appointments are quite common for academic administrators and some full time researchers.  These typically do accrue sick leave and paid vacation, which has some advantages but also has some disadvantages such as having to explicitly request time off.

There is actually a bit of tax consequences, since withholding is determined based on what is earned in individual pay periods. So you will pay more tax "up front" if the payments are distributed over 9 months instead of 12. So you may need to increase the number of exemptions if you want to avoid giving the IRS an interest-free "loan."

Yes, that was the reason that I said no significant tax consequences...

One disadvantage of getting a 9 month salary paid out over 12 months is that you are effictivelt giving the institution an interest free loan by letting them pay you over the summer after the year in which you worked.  Then again, the value of having this money early would be a few cents at current rates of interest.

To clarify things a bit- when a faculty member on a 9 month appointment has their annual salary paid out over 12 months, then any summer salary for research or teaching results in extra pay during the summer.

There are tax implications if your salary goes up because taxation is progressive. For example, if your increased salary gets you into the next tax bracket, e.g., 25 to 28%, then you are better off taking more of the previous year's salary in the previous year. The effect is likely not very large, though.

Yes, had a very similar situation when I taught.  Anything I agreed to do over the summer had to be paid on top of my base salary...which is just my way of agreeing with you...

@shane: That method means you overpay the US government. If you had a monthly salary of $6,000, your post-federal tax income would be about $4480/mo. Withholding at $8,000/mo leaves you with $5790/mo. That's about a $1650/yr difference on the same $72K salary.

If you get your nine month salary paid out over nine months and then have no summer salary, you'll typically have been overwithheld for the nine months because of the progressive income tax.  Similarly, if you have your nine month salary paid over twelve months and then earn additional money in the summer, those large pay checks would typically would have too much income tax taken out.  You have the option of adjusting your withholding to try to account for this, but if you under withhold you may be subject to penalties later.

In the US, there are no tax implications behind distributing a 9-month salary over 12 months. If you have a 9 month appointment, you can work other jobs those 3 months, or get summer salary from a granting agency. However, if you have a 12 month appointment, then your university will probably not allow you to take a second job (though you may be able to arrange to buy some of your "time" to work on a grant). Faculty usually do not get "vacation" per se, they just go on vacation when they feel they have the free time (during one of their 3 free months, technically). However, in strongly unionized arrangements, vacation and sick leave may be more relevant. The advantage of 12 month distribution is that you get a regular amount of money flowing in to your bank account and you don't have to be careful to leave enough in savings to survive the summer.
[EDIT] The comments point out the possibility of micro-(dis)advantages to the employee in spreading salary over 12 months. I suggest that we need a full analysis of all of these effects. For example, employees usually make some contribution to the insurance scheme, which is usually divided evenly over 12 checks. If you aren't paid over your off 3 months, you would have to have set aside money to cover insurance during that time. This could get bureaucratically complicated, w.r.t. factoring in the employer contribution, and might necessitate increasing the employer contribution during salaried months to balance the lack of employer contributions during non-salary months. There would also be administrative costs to the university involved in processing monthly insurance contributions from employees (assuming that employees don't just end up on their own insurance-wise during their off months). Given the various unknowns, I'd want to see a detailed economic analysis of the effect of 9-month and 12-month payouts for 9-month appointments, before concluding that one has a monetary advantage over the other.

So the point of 12 months payment is just to have 12 salary a year? Faculty should be able to manage their finances they receive during 9 months to cover 12 months.

I agree that people should be able to manage their finances, but some people seem to need lifestyle management assistance.

Paying the 9-month salary over 12 months also allow the university to better manage its finances.

@JeffE The university will get interest free loan, but I assume there will be  some benefits in return, possibly some pre-tax benefits

For some real numbers on this "interest free loan," for a faculty member making $60,000 a year this would come out to less than $500 annually at current market rates.  Or roughly $42 a month.  If you're hamstrung by that gouging my suggestion is that you haggle and haggle hard!

I use the 9 to 12 month salary distribution as I do not work full time during summer anymore. With current saving interest rates at 1% (e.g., capitalone savings account), for every $1000 take-home monthly salary, they may set aside $250 out of the paycheck every month to be paid during summer.
The interest you are giving away would be about $12 (Wrong calculations are made by other respondents as they use the time as 9 months on the whole amount they set aside for the whole summer).  So if your 9-month take home salary is $45,000, you are just giving away $72 of your money. Now that is a dinner out for a couple and a kid nowadays, but I end up saving more as my budget gets reset to a lower amount for the rest of the year.
There is no substantial tax implication for me, as taxes are taken on the gross income and are distributed with no deductions in the summer.

What everybody on here is forgetting or not aware of, is that you can get unemployment during the off months if you are paid on a 9 months basis.  That could add up to over $7500 a year if you make 60000 a year.

I think that is probably false. If you have a contract for the past and the coming year, then you are likely cut off from the unemployment system in the US for a short hiatus. The law may have changed, but I once had to fight this out with the authorities. The logic is (or was) that you have an annual contract, but it is just paid out over 9 months.

This is not correct.  You are on annual leave during the summer; you have not lost your job. (For example you are still covered by health insurance in the summer.)  This is different for contingent faculty for whom the case for unemployment can sometimes be made.


text:
Should I reject a request if I've already reviewed many papers from the same author recently?
I have received requests to referee three different papers by a certain author in the past year (one of them twice, after it was rejected from the first journal). I work in applied mathematics, and in my field three to four papers per year is the typical output of a reasonably prolific author (excluding those who manage a large research group).
I am starting to think it would be fair to decline the last review, because I don’t want to have too large an impact over the career of this author. Moreover, I believe that having a variety of opinions would improve the general outcome of the reviewing process. Is my reasoning sound? Is “I’ve already reviewed many papers from the same author recently” a valid reason to refuse? Is there any good way to decide how many is too many?

It is your time - you can spend it as you wish.  You do not need a "valid reason" to refuse a request.  That you don't want to do it is more than sufficient.

You don't say whether you've recommended the papers for acceptance or rejection.
If you've recommended them for rejection (but nevertheless you view the work as being a reasonable specimen of the form, i.e., not egregiously flawed or crankish), then I think your idea to spread the opinions around is a good one.  Sometimes I get sent a paper for which I think "I don't value this paper much, but so far as I know someone else really could."  In that situation I often decline to referee it.
If you've recommended both of them for acceptance: well, you would think the same argument should apply, but I don't find it as compelling!  Rather than declining to referee, you could just continue to read carefully and not assume the work is good because you found the prior work to be good.  And if you really have a clear idea that the author is consistently doing good work -- there's no conflict of interest there!  By consistently recommending their work for publication, you are helping them out but also the field.

Is “I’ve already reviewed many papers from the same author recently” a valid reason to refuse?

I think so, yes.  In fact almost anything is a valid reason to refuse in the current climate: so many papers are being written and processed at this point in time that anyone person has to limit their involvement.  Editors are getting turned down by referees all the time.  If you decline, do it quickly and suggest other possible referees, in all my experience they won't bat an eye.  As to

Is there any good way to decide how many is too many?

I think it has to come down to your own judgment, because (of course, right?) this also depends on your other professional responsibilities.  As has been discussed on this site before, try to apply golden-rule considerations to your general refereeing policy.
Having said all that, I did want to make one counterargument: in all parts of mathematics in which I am familiar (which ranges from very theoretical to very moderately applied), refereeing papers takes a long time in part because the task truly is very intellectually demanding.  For a given paper, there are a number of people whose expertise is so unusually close to the topic of the paper that they can evaluate it much more easily and quickly than most other experts in the same area.  In many parts of mathematics, this number is very small -- sometimes, unfortunately, it is zero.  If you are part of a cohort that has unusual facility and ease with the author's work, then maybe you can do in a day or week what some other (expert) mathematician would take months to do.  In that case you should think again before declining, it seems to me.

To add to the rejection case: if you've recommended them for rejection, then you probably find those papers not worth reading, so it probably won't be worth your time to read another paper by the same author.

I happen to be in the "counterargument" class.  I currently enjoy researching in a topic that is very specialized.  Only a few people other than me have published on it, and the last year or so has been particularly productive for me. I've suddenly found myself seeing my papers have a significant issue with finding reviewers. I can't say for certain why that is so, of course, but possibly that small number of people familiar and presumably interested in the topic have been declining. I'm looking at really long publishing times, even by pure mathematics standards, one way or another.

I recommend rewording one sentence above to "By consistently recommending their work for publication, you are helping them out but also the field." There is no gender information in the OP, and we shouldn't assume that an applied mathematician must be maie.

@GregMartin The consensus on Meta seems to be "let the author decide which pronouns they prefer, and don't insist for them to be changed".

Hence "recommend" and not "insist". The fact remains that gender bias is prevalent and ongoing in STEM fields, and defaulting to male pronouns is both a symptom of our own internal biases and a vector by which harmful bias is perpetuated. Most of us observe and bemoan the underrepresentation of women in mathematics (and on websites such as this), yet even the smallest suggestions for actually improving the situation are often treated with hostility ... and perceived consensus on Meta was formed by a community already affected by bias.


text:
Recommendation letter has slightly wrong info – should I mention it in my cover letter?
When I asked for the letter, last semester’s grades hadn’t been fully uploaded to the system so among the things my professor wrote, they said I was a top-5% student. This week, grades were updated and now I’m the top student in my cohort.
I don’t want to bother my professor again, and they might not respond in time for the deadline (Feb 1st). Would it be okay to add a small note at the end of my cover letter indicating my new standing?

You are not "the" best student, you're the one who got the best overall grades. With what distance from the next five students? Loudly insisting on that makes you look as if you're very keen on petty competition.

If I was writing the letter, it wouldn't matter to me if you were the top student in your cohort; I still might list you as a Top 5% (or Top 10%) student.
I've been asked to fill out similar references before, and I'm often asked if the person I'm evaluating would be considered Top 5%, Top 10%, Top 25%, etc. In my mind (unless stated otherwise), I am not being solicited for a precise numerical calculation based entirely on GPA or class performance; rather, I'm considering a myriad of other factors as well, such as reliability, attitude, professionalism, integrity, etc.
You don't say what your letter is for (employment or graduate school), but, either way, the student who is top of my class academically (that is, the one with the highest average) isn't necessarily the first student I'd recommend for hiring – and I answer the "Top X%" questions accordingly.
Moreover, your professor may not be evaluating you among the classmates in your cohort, but taking a more historical look at all the students he's ever had who have taken the class(es) you took. So, for example, if you took BWV 201 with me, and asked for a reference, I am going to evaluate you as compared to all the students I've ever had who ever took BWV 201 – not just the handful of students who happened to take that class with you last year, or the students you are graduating with on graduation day.
Bottom line: I'd recommend that you be happy with the high rating you got, and stick with that.


text:
How to avoid getting basic facts wrong in an exam?
I suffer from the problem that during an exam, I cannot recall basic facts, such as:

In a given equation, is a given variable the numerator or the denominator?
Is this a capacitor or a inductor?

I’ll know everything afterwards, but I will get stuck on these simple things.
I had nearly the same question on a practice test that doesn’t count and had proper mental clarity on the answer. However, as soon as it comes down to it, I get confused, waste time, and end up writing the wrong answer when my first natural instinct was the right one.
A little googling shows that it could be stress related, but I don’t really feel that that’s the case with me.
How can I address this issue?

Did you try studying?

How do the mods know that this is outside of a University setting?

@Eppicurt "Education" in that sentence is primarily concerned with teaching.  It's more immediately an undergraduate problem, which is outside of scope. Numerators vs. denominators is really unlikely to be a post-graduate problem.  Though graduate school problems are usually okay, and test taking difficulties are relevant in many graduate schools, so in that sense the question should be adjustable to be on-topic, though I'd imagine it'd be a dupe.

Exam stress and anxiety is a real thing and is most likely what you're experiencing, despite your subjective experience. By being under pressure that this the exam you're taking is the real thing and not a practice, you're likely to second guess yourself and overthink things to a degree that makes you unable to easily recall the basic knowledge.
An analogy to this is 'red light syndrome' that musicians experience in the recording studio. From Urban Dictionary;

Red light syndrome: Where a person has musical talent, but once they are being recorded, they fall to pieces. symptoms of red light syndrome include pale skin, cold sweats and frequent mistakes.

You're simply more likely to make mistakes when you're under pressure to perform correctly than when you're just studying or practicing.
Doing exams, like a lot of things at University/school, is something you need to learn how to do properly. You get better at test taking by doing it, much like you'd get better at performing a song in front of a crowd by doing it more often. The more you expose yourself to it, the more confident and relaxed you will become with it.
Replicating exam conditions as much as possible during practice papers is a first step. Go through the motions of sitting down and timing your exam, turn off your phone, don't look up an answer when you get stuck, etc. Doing this can help you feel more relaxed in a real exam situation.


text:
Alternative title for research assistant
I’m taking a (non-student) job as a full time research assistant in a university engineering department, and am wondering what alternate title I could use for this on my resume that isn’t misleading.
Research assistant has a connotation of being a lower level student job, and I have a MS degree and ten years of work experience, so I’m hesitant to put that title on my resume.  If this was in industry I could use research engineer, but in academia, that has a connotation of someone who is a principle investigator and has a PhD.
My job description is a hybrid between these: I’ll be doing research and publishing, but in support of someone else’s project.  Also some departmental work setting up labs, learning and maintaining the equipment and helping teach students to use it.  Most of my time will be spent on research activities.  Suggestions for an alternate job title?

The purpose of your resume is to explain your previous positions and your various roles in that position. I wouldn't worry about the title too much because you will include published work, project support, setting up labs, etc. And they will also know you have an MS and 10 yrs of work experience from your resume as well.

I think you probably need to use the title the university actually gave you. What will happen when a future employer calls your university to verify your employment history and asks if you were indeed a "Research Engineer" and they say, correctly, "no"? (This doesn't preclude you from asking the university to change your title, but if you've already signed that might be difficult.)

Not sure why anyone would think I intend to lie (I don’t intend to call myself a research engineer for the stated reasons), I’m simply asking what an appropriate job title would be with my background doing this type of work. I’m all for changing the title officially, but I need to know what to ask to change it to.And for the record, using a job title that doesn’t exactly match your contract is not lying, people often use more descriptive titles on a resume.  For example, if my official title is Electrical Engineer, and my actual job is Lead radar engineer, I would likely put that on my resume.

For my part, I wasn't suggesting you intended to lie, I was merely offering a hiring manager's perspective. Your titles between CV and employment contract ought be congruent; perhaps we're focusing on that rather than the point of your question. To that: discuss it with your boss.

Since you are in the US, I think "Research Assistant" is actually not as inappropriate a title for your position as you suggest. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_assistant
"Research Assistant" is typically the job title a PhD student would hold if they are compensated for work on a professor's research, whether or not they have a masters degree. It is differentiated from "Research Associate" which suggests the person has a PhD ('postdocs' often have a job title of Research Associate, though they may also be referred to as Postdoctoral Research Assistants). Your years of experience on the outside aren't particularly relevant to the title.
You write:

I’ll be doing research and publishing, but in support of someone else’s project

That's roughly the job description of a graduate student with a research assistantship.
Undergraduates may also have a "research assistant" title but in my experience that is not the most common use/connotation of the term, so I disagree with that statement at least within academia. People outside of academia may be misinformed, of course, but it's up to the rest of your resume to inform potential employers of your responsibilities and accomplishments besides your particular job title. You could be an independent consultant and name yourself CEO if you wanted, or Grand Emperor for that matter. It may be harder to change your official job title in a rigid university bureaucracy than you think - I'd concern yourself with other aspects of your resume instead.

I guess my main beef is that someone quickly scanning my resume will assume I’m a student with no work experience.  Of course reading further will correct that assumption, but I’d hate for them to not read further.  What about something like, ‘staff research assistant? Not sure that sounds any better from a professional standpoint, but perhaps it would dispel the initial ‘oh, this person is a student’ reaction?

If your resume is formatted such that your 10 years of prior experience are masked by your current job title, that sounds like a resume formatting issue and not a job title issue.

Ha, point taken! My resume is fine, but many companies require online submission through their own system, and the first thing they see is generally current job title.  Hence my concern.  But maybe I’m making a bigger deal out of this than it actually is.  Not gonna lie though...having the same title as a masters student isn’t ideal when I have more to offer.

Yeah, I could see how a form-based submission might be problematic - as well as resume triage by HR/someone not the hiring manager. You might try asking a reformatted question at Workplace.SE about submitting applications with an underwhelming job title, but I'm guessing their feedback will be similar: you are kind of stuck with the job title you have.

I know I'm resurrecting a dead thread, but considering I'm going through a similar process right now I figured I would leave my 2 cents.
I would caution against the advice of individuals who say "don't worry about it, let your resume explain your position", at least in reference to non-academic positions in the US. You should have two resumes/CVs, one for academia and one for everything else. In academia the recruiter or PI should understand what "Research Assistant" or "Graduate Research Assistant" means. However, in industry some large companies hire 3rd parties to do their recruiting. In the US the average time for a recruiter like this to read a resume is 5-7 seconds. While this website might not be representative of all recruiters, it does emphasis the importance of your position title. Here is an excerpt, emphasis is mine:

Level. If I’m doing a VP level search and your title is “manager” and you have never been a VP – goodbye. There are exceptions to this, but again it is the 80/20 rule. Again, clients pay me to find them the perfect fit. It is generally way too big of a jump from manager level to VP level, all other things being equal. It works the other way too. If  I’m looking for a manager and you are a VP – goodbye. I know you are qualified to do a manager level role, but it is clear you have grown past. Most clients and recruiters aren’t willing to take the chance that when a VP level position comes along that you won’t be gone. Less than 5 seconds to figure out.

Accordingly, I think it is completely feasible that even if you have your PhD and multiple publications the recruiter could see an "Assistant" Research applying for the "Senior" Research position and immediately reject you simply because of your position title.

Please don't leave the same answer on two separate threads. If you believe the two questions can both be answered by the same answer, you can flag the question as a duplicate.

The following suggestion comes from a German application coach and I am not sufficiently familiar with American application culture to know whether it would be considered lying, sloppy, or similar. It also depends on whether you are actually expected to state your official title or just summarise your activity somehow.

If applying outside of academia, use the description for the activity corresponding to the subject your highest academic degree, as long as it matches what you are actually doing. So, e.g., if you have a master’s in physics and do work corresponding to the training of that degree, use physicist as your job description.
If applying within academia, do not worry. Everybody will know what the titles mean.


text:
How can I cope with withdrawal symptoms from addiction while pursuing my PhD?
I am currently in the early stages of recovering from an addiction. I am finding it very hard to concentrate on my work due to withdrawal symptoms. How can I cope with this situation with a minimal effect on my work?

Does your university have mental health services that you can use?

Let me say first that we battled my son's addictions to opiates and heroin for over 10 years, so while I have little technical knowledge of addiction and withdrawal, I have a lot of first hand experience.  He went through rehab 3 times before it took, so I've nursed him through horrible withdrawal 3 times.  I say this so that I won't sound so ignorant in the next paragraph.  I know that each drug has its own peculiarities.
On March 3rd this year, I celebrated 30 years since my last cigarette.  I quit smoking just a few months before my Ph.D. qualifying exams.  So I was in the throes of withdrawal during the crucial study time.  (My joke is that I started raising hamsters, so I could kill something once a day.)  My main way of coping was to walk.  Study for a while and then walk.  Then Study.  Then walk.  I also took up yo-yo, so I had something for my hands to do when I got fidgety.  Tommy Smothers had just resurrected the fad and I got quite good.
The good news is that the physical withdrawal is relatively short.  So each week you should notice that things are a bit better.  Now is the time to develop good habits.  I wouldn't push hard, but I'd push medium.  Force yourself to do just a bit more than is comfortable, so that you learn that it's possible to concentrate, at least a bit, even with withdrawal distractions.
As someone said in the comments, seeking medical help might be useful.  Unless things have changed, the medicos first attempt is to give you Prozac or something similar to calm you down a bit.  This didn't work for my son, but everyone responds differently.
Hang in there.  As John Belushi said, "When things get tough, the tough get things."
Edit:  Another trick is to clear off the top of a 4-drawer filing cabinet and use that for your work surface.  When I just couldn't "sit down and study", then I stood up to study.