text:
Is it ok to share a a client's dataset on github, along with my code?
EDIT: I originally tried to make the context as brief as possible, but I may have overdone it.
Context
I'm starting to put some data analysis I'm asked to do on Github, and licensing all my work (mostly R scripts and markdown files  displaying statistics, graphs and brief result descriptions). These are mostly medical and health research projects by graduate students. Faculty there usually ask for help in statistics/design and suggest their students do the same. Since I'm new, most of them are coming to me. Although I don't think it's relevant in this question, I have recently been offered a part-time position there for this exact purpose.
Reasons
The main reason for this is to provide the user student an always up to date version of the current work in progress. If something is quick to fix, say in a graph, they have an instant updated version of the current report I'm writing (usually in markdown).
I also like the transparency I offer to the researchers that ask for my help when I show the development process, what issues I have identified and the overall organization of my work.
Since most of them are not that tech-savy, I prepare the repo with plenty of README.md and other markdown files so they visualize the results and get relevant files without the need to create a github account. They usually report issues to me by email, and I open and close GH issues myself based on their feedback.
Perceived problem
It just hit me that, while my own work is my own to license the way I want, the dataset is not. I didn't participate in the collection, or curation of it. The first step I take before pushing anything to the public repository is to anonymize the dataset.
I usually show the users students the repositories of previous projects, and indicate they'll have such access to their results in a similar fashion. So far, no one has complained about their data being online. One of those projects I show is from a student of an IRB member.
Questions

Should I ask each user if they want me to remove the datasets from their repository?
EDIT: would it suffice to put a warning on the repository that the dataset is not licensed the same way the code, graphs and other contents therein available?
Should I remove all such datasets regardless? Why or Why not?
Is there something else I might be missing about this scenario?

I found this question (and accepted answer) enlightening, although it doesn't respond my question

Fomite's answer is already very complete, but additionally I wonder whether "you own work really is your own to license the way you want" because "These are mostly medical and health research projects by graduate students". If you've incorporated their research into your R projects, copyright might not be that simple.

@Fasermaler, good point. I meant I wanted to open source my code. What would you suggest?

I'd talk to the head of the group (or at least the one who offered you that position) to make sure there are no problems with you publishing the code and/or dataset. If it's previously published work, this might be no problem, data privacy concerns aside. If it's unpublished work or the group is expecting to get further results from the study, it may very well be undesirable for them to have the data and analyses 'out there' at this point. You might want to take it offline until you get express permission, particularly with medical research.

I know a number of security researchers who have had a lot of fun with "anonymized" databases...

Once the data is out in public, asking for it to be taken down is just theater.
Data collected by others, presumably giving the people from which it was collected explicit or implicit guarantees it was only to be used in so-and-so way, first doesn't belong to you to publish, and if it was yours, you can't publish it anyway without violating the agreement with the real owners, the people to which it applies.
I'd say you can not publish such data. Period.

My take, as someone who tends to use other people's data in extended analysis, and does enjoy having the most up-to-date version of an analysis/etc. up on GitHub:

Should I ask each user if they want me to remove the datasets from
  their repository?

Yes. You should, fundamentally, be respectful of other people's data. Which includes things like "I'm about to put this on a website". While you haven't mentioned if your repositories are public or private, there's no guarantee that data stored in a private repo won't end up in the wild, one way or another.

Should I remove all such datasets regardless? Why or Why not?

I don't know that I'd remove all the data sets that are already up there, but I would definitely ask for approval, and if you don't hear back, assume that the answer is "No".

Is there something else I might be missing about this scenario?

Yep...

These are mostly medical and health research projects.

You haven't said what kind of data, but beyond just whether or not your anonymization step is actually sufficient, is whether or not the agreements that generated this data - IRB approvals, informed consent documents, data use agreements, etc. actually allow it to be put online in this form. That is, by no means, a sure thing.

thanks for your +1 answer, and I'll ponder on your last paragraph. I updated the question to better reflect the context. Do you think your answer still applies with the information I added?

@philsf I do think my answer still applies - especially with students, "No one has complained" could just as easily be "This thought hasn't occurred to them" as "They're alright with it." Basically, especially with medical data, there's never a reason not to check and make sure everything is carefully checked.

I agree with @Fomite: handling medical and health-related data are often strictly regulated, and the user/student might not even have the right to give you permission to put them online - let alone making them publically available.

assume that the answer is "No" — I agree if this "No" means "No, you do not have permission to upload my data set." but not if this "No" means "No, you don't have to remove it."  Unless you have explicit permission, do not post other people's data.

Your main reason seems to have version control in a way that is easy to share with the co-workers (as opposed to the rest of the world). This you can rather easily have without the need for publicly accessible github accounts.
I have gitlab (https://about.gitlab.com/) on an internal server (initially it was on my desktop computer) to share code and data under version control with coworkers.

would it suffice to put a warning on the repository that the dataset is not licensed the same way the code, graphs and other contents therein available?

I don't think so. Personally, I'd go for an opt-in (they need to declare explicitly that they want the data to be publicly available; and that they have the right to do this decision). The more so, if medical data is involved (see also @Fomite's answer). In my experience, anonymization isn't always as good as it is supposed to be!
Note that even private github repos are not always acceptable, e.g. EU data protection/privacy laws often do not allow sensitive data to be stored on a US server even if the access to the repo is "private" (the privacy laws here and there are not really compatible).

You should never post a clients data, only people that should have access to the data is if it is needed to perform their job is the rule of thumb, any examples I post I change any identifying data, if you are posting a question that uses a clients proprietary algorithm that determines something that would also violate intellectual property and you can be prosecuted.


text:
Should I mention my co-authors while tweeting about our publications?
Assume we have a paper published in a conference or journal. Should I mention my co-authors while posting some content of the paper (or just paper's link) on Twitter or Facebook?
Let's assume I am aware of their Twitter or Facebook accounts.

I would like to counter with the inverse question. Is there a reason why you wouldn't mention your co-authors if you are aware of their accounts?  We haven't been given any reason for a "Why not?"

Here's an obvious reason: 140 characters. And some papers have lots of coauthors. http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16759/is-there-an-inflation-in-the-number-of-authors-per-paper

@AaronHall nothing stops people from sending additional tweets, though. This isn't like an abstract :/

If it takes more than a single tweet, you need a blog.

Having trouble considering so many coauthors with 140 characters? Link to the paper, which lists the coauthors. #winningatacademia

I would mention your co-authors, but check with them about how they want to be "linked". Even if they have a Twitter or Facebook account, they may no longer use it, or they may use it for personal contacts only.

Agree with Omen.
Also add the following:
If you shorten the URL of your work (using bitly.com or something similar) and "twitterfy" the title (perhaps make a hashtag combining a few select words from your title and the subject e.g. #semweb_info_integration_newway), you should be able to cite at least 5 or 6 twitter handles easily. I am not sure facebook is a good idea, considering (IMHO) for a lot of people it is more of a personal medium.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Archiving papers, simulation and experimental data, etc?
Archiving of papers and projects is very important for most of the people, and everyone has a method of it.
I, personally, try to have different folders for different papers. In the folder of each paper, in addition to my manuscript, I keep my simulation files, experimental data, program codes, etc, in different subfolders. Also, I try to keep track of my revisions on the paper, reviewer comments, my response to reviewers in different subfolders. My method has the advantage of all the related material for a paper are together, and I can quickly track the whole process from initial submission to the final proofreading. However, this usually leads to duplicated files.
I work with both my office desktop and my personal Laptop. I transfer my files between these systems by a flash memory. I agree maybe cloud technology is a better choice in this age, but I postponed it because of my poor internet connection at home.
I am curious to know how others approach to archive their works. I also hope to find some methods more efficient than mine, or get some tips to improve my method.
Edit at 2 Apr 13:
Thanks to these great answers, it is almost a month that I use Git for my version control. Also, I manage my repositories in the Bitbucket, which gives me unlimited storage for unlimited number of projects.

Related (but not a duplicate): http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5277/why-use-version-control-systems-for-writing-a-paper/

After you publish the paper, don't forget to publish these supplemental materials too!  Some journals allow you to include them, or you can put them on Github or on your own site.  Some grad student who wants to reproduce your work will be very grateful.

Just to mention that a tool like Figshare could be of hand. But I'm no expert.

I have a similar approach with folders, with two additions:

Everything goes into a revision control system.  In my case, I've got some things in Subversion repositories, and others in Mecurial repositories (I've also dabbled with Git, but haven't made the final transition).  The benefits of revision control are that you can always go back to a previous version, you won't have old versions littering your folders, and sharing with collaborators is relatively easy.  This should take care of your duplicated-file problem.

I also use Dropbox extensively, in order to have my files available on any computer at any time.  Dropbox provides a modicum of version control (30 days worth), but it should not replace a proper revision control system.  It does provide a cloud-based backup of your work.
Finally, regardless of how you're keeping your work arranged, make sure you keep an off-site backup (e.g., via Dropbox or personally-controlled media).

If you use a cloud-based version control repository such as BitBucket you can access the files via their web interface even without setting up git on the local machine.

@John Q. Public: It is. I'd certainly not suggesting you use it as a primary method! However, Chris suggested that an advantage of DropBox is that you can access the files on any machine; this advantage is shared by BitBucket so you don't need to duplicate your files to DropBox to get the advantage. Obviously if you're doing any amount of work you should use Git properly (btw, it's perfectly possible to run a portable Git from a memory stick).

Toward the less-addressed organizational aspect of the question, I find that I need to maintain a fairly structured organization in order to effectively manage my papers, presentation, code, etc. over time.  My methods result in a minor amount of duplication, but it is rare and there are never more than 3 copies of a document at the very most.  This is, of course, my own idiosyncratic system, but perhaps it will be useful as inspiration or a template for how you think about developing your own.
First, my driving principles of organization:

Since collaborative projects have to be shared in so many different ways, I do not use any specialty organizational software, but just the hierarchy of the file system.
My primary sorting heuristic mirrors how I organize my time (and how it is attributed to projects in funding bookkeeping)
Higher level directory names are shorter, since they are more persistent and more frequently typed; lower level names are as long as they need to be to understand what they are far in the future.
No directory should have more than a dozen or so subdirectories

Following these principles, my first layer of directories are sorted by the main business functions of academia:

pursuit: all proposals and funding pursuit goes here
projects: this directory contains one subdirectory for each funded project that is currently active (plus one for each major line of preliminary work).  Rationale: each grant/contract needs to have its activities tracked individually for reporting to the funder.
internal: administrative dealings with my institution, such as travel receipts, training documents, and internal process documents go here.  Travel receipts get their own subdirectory.
service: professional service, including teaching, recommendation letters, conference organization, seminar series, journal editing, and reviewing.  One subdirectory for each major topic (e.g., one for each conference, another for all recommendation letters).
notes: all personal notes and reading, with a subdirectory for talk notes, another for manuals, and another for downloaded papers (with further subdirectories for major topics)
sites: contains one directory for each website where I am one of the maintainers.

Every one of these also contains either an archive subdirectory, where I move completed tasks, either by topic (e.g., pursuit, projects) or by year (e.g., internal, service).
In any second-level directory, I maintain a README file that tells me what I will need to know when I re-visit something after forgetting all about it.  The directories for funded projects also have a stereotyped structure:

contract: This is where all contract documents go for funded projects.
admin: all reporting, deliverables, etc.
publications: each paper gets its own directory; the conference presentation for a paper and any derivative papers also go here.
presentations: all presentations not directly associated with a paper go here
Beyond that, there are directories for each major strand of work in the project
For publications, every published paper (and supplement) also gets a copy, with a long informative name including the year, in the publications directory for my professional website.
For collaborative projects, there may also be a top-level split between internal and shared, with certain documents having a master version in internal and a second copy in shared.

Finally, everything that I care about must be backed up in two different ways:

By the backup system of each machine that I use.
By means of some sort of synchronization software (with version control when possible).  I am currently using a mixture of SVN, git, Mercurial, Dropbox, and BitTorrent Sync, chosen per-project based on the collaborators.

Could you please tell me more about how you organize and archive your downloaded/read ebooks and papers? Also, do you have any naming standard of the files for yourself? Or you leave their name without any change?

In my archive of papers that I have read, I start by dumping everything into a single directory.  When any directory starts to have than a couple dozen, I break out clusters into subdirectories.  I name each paper as FirstauthorSeniorauthor-SummaryPhrase-JournalYear, e.g. SmithWang-PlasmidJuggling-PNAS2007

I have to thank you for your answer to this question. I give you the 250 reputation bounty, but I know it worth nothing in front of your great knowledge and perfect answer. Thank you very much.

Glad that is has been helpful for you, @EnthusiasticStudent

I generally write in LaTeX and do statistics in R so those can be easily versioned in a Git repository on BitBucket. On a sidenote, I chose BitBucket over GitHub that because collaborating is easier as it allows you to set up repos that can be forked but you can still prevent the forker from sharing it publicly. GitHub on the other hand (at least when I last looked) required you to tightly integrate into teams. Also, using Git submodules allows me to include common parts (such as my BibTeX files) into multiple projects without duplication of versions (though technically it does reside in multiple places on the drive), however this sometimes causes me some grief because I'm not very skilled with Git.
I have tried to acquire additional space in every way I can for Dropbox. It is now large enough that I can generally keep 100% of my active projects (some of them are the Git repos from above) in it. This way everything is always backed up offsite with no intervention. Because I work out of Dropbox as opposed to "My Documents" or the like, I also can seamlessly move from my Windows box at work to my laptop running Ubuntu or OSX. This also means that my stuff is not only backed up in the cloud but also on my other machine's hard drive. One tricky thing for me is the sharing between the two OSes on the laptop. For that I keep the Dropbox in a shared partition, to avoid wasting 2X the disk space.
Finally, I do an incremental backup every week or so when I think to plug my external drive in. That external drive is well cared for in a fancy case with fans and it is usually powered off except when I'm backing up. It never leaves my home.

So I have the storage part pretty well worked out. However, I'm constantly trying to tweak the organization part. Right now I keep a projects directory in my Dropbox with multiple subprojects labeled like "2012-XXX_YYY_ZZZ" in some attempt to sort them. In these directories are generally subdirectories for study materials (I work with human-subjects), analysis, notes, and any products such as papers that came from the work. In the analysis directory is generally a subdirectory with the actual R code. I try to name that directory something like R_git, as I generally use the ending to signify that something is backed up elsewhere in another repo. My system gets difficult when I create a product (such as a paper) based on two projects (perhaps two studies). In that case I usually just move the paper subdirectory out to the main projects directory to avoid duplication. I do sometimes find myself searching through directories trying to remember where a given paper was stored, so clearly my system needs more work.

By the way, when I was a grad student I was disappointed in the lack of blogs and resources discussing this topic. Specifically at the time I was often looking for Mac software to help me keep my life in order. Because grad school can be very different from field to field, it seemed that there were not many people writing about using technology in it. I discovered that the legal community does have such blogs so I used to follow some of those.

I do something vaguely similar, however I also use a makefile to integrate the simulations with the LaTeX source code for the paper (generally there are also a set of MATLAB files that generate the contents of tables and the figures).  Then if necessary, the experiments can be repeated and the results stitched in to the paper again, just by typing "make".  However, more recently I have been having to make a lot of use of my universities High Performance Computing facility, which makes it much more difficult to do this.  It works nicely for more simple projects though.

The question of archiving and synchronizing is a good one and for me relates also to backup and storage as key questions, particularly when working on more than one computer. I will describe what I do without implying it is THE solution, it works for me. I have my work computer as well as a desktop at home. I also have several laptops.

On the two desktops at home and work, the data resides on the harddisk, organized in a folder system that has developed over time. I have two 600 Gb 2.5" portable harddisks which I carry between work and office and which I use as shuttle/backups by synchronizing with the desktops at home and work. I use a software called Total Commander (shareware), which works fine for me but I am sure others can be used. This way I have three copies, at work, at home and on the portable disk(s), at all times (except in the worst case antyhing produced between syncs).
I do not have any data on my laptops but use the 2.5" as an external hard disk when I am away from home and work. I keep a second 2.5" for backup if I am away for longer periods and try to transport the two disks separately, one in carry on and one in checked in luggage. (I have to add I do not have any secret data so I do not worry about disks being stolen apart from my own losses). I could have all data on the laptop as well but have opted for having a faster but smaller SSD disk in the laptop so my data will not fit.
I use drpbox to keep a limited number of files that I use frequently and most often need to share with others. I also use Dropbox to deposit files that I think I might need for specific purposes when out of the office as an extra backup and to be able to access quickly. I do not use Dropbox as a backup but rather backup dropbox occassionally, particularly collaborative files.

This works for me and the solution has developed over time and now the synching is a natural begin-end of the work day and I live with three (four when I synch the second, pure backup, hard disk) exact copies. I could go for an automatic backup as well but have not felt this was worth it at this stage. With this system, I always carry with me all files I have ever produced. I clearly see this will be impossible for some activities but will be quite feasible for most.

Several great answers here already, but here's a few more things to consider:
You could take a look at rsync (graphical interfaces are available) and unison for synchronising data/documents between different computers (and/or a USB memory stick). Rsync is simpler but unidirectional, though you can effectively do a full sync by rsyncing in one direction then the other. Unison is much more powerful and results in the two copies ending up identical, letting you specify which files to ignore, how to resolve conflicts, etc. I use unison every day to keep my laptop and desktop in sync.
Also, don't discount your own university's networked storage if available, which will usually take care of backup and give you a level of protection against most problems short of a nuclear bomb. This can be slow when accessed offsite, for example, but for ours I find it doesn't matter too much as long as your files aren't enormous. If nothing else, it can be useful as a "master" copy that you synchronise your other copies against.
Finally, however you choose to organise your files and folders, spend a few minutes writing down how you're organising them in a read-me file so that, if the worse should happen, your colleagues can understand how to access your files and your work won't be wasted.

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


text:
Is postdoc experience valued by industry?
I have recently finished my PhD and am currently considering my options. I have come to the conclusion that the teaching or the "publish or perish" nature of academia isn't really appealing for me.
I have been talking to several people regarding my thoughts and I have noticed an interesting difference in opinion; senior academics have been stressing the value of doing a post-doc before a potential move to industry, whereas industry contacts say that it's much better/easier to do the move to industry within two years from dissertation. I inquired further asking whether or not the postdoc years would be valued by companies, and the answer was essentially that:

unless the postdoc years are immediately relevant to the applied job, it wouldn't really give any seniority, as companies want to nurture their own culture and staying in academia for "too long" might lead to certain "habits" not appreciated in corporate world.

I want to get further opinions on the matter; is doing a postdoc valued by industry in general? The field is life sciences and bioinformatics, if it makes a difference..

I have no hard data to back this up, but if freshly graduated PhDs can convince companies that their occasional supervision and guidance of student research assistants during their time as PhD candidates counts as some first team leadership experience (and in my personal experience, companies are well receptive to this line or reasoning), experience from a postdoc (who often is officially the head of a subgroup in an institute) should be seen to be even more valuable.

In terms of bang for the buck, on the job experience is a better salary builder than a post doc.

Just curious: why do you assume that senior academics (who worked for industry and are also biased for cheap postdoc system) has anything reliable to say on this topic compared to your industry contacts? Also, why do you want to clarify this in an academic focused board, instead of an industry focused one?

@ChrisWhite well, the reasoning is that the folks at Workplace.SE may not be immediately familiar with a science heavy industry like the ones I'd go for, with my background. Also there are quite a few users here that have gone the corporate way at some point after their PhDs.

@Greg I always try to take in opinions from both sides of the argument. Also regarding the choice of asking the question here, see the comment I wrote above in response to Chris White.

For science: the postdoc in my office recently got a senior engineer job in industry.

Have you thought about what extra skills or experience a postdoc might bring to you?  What would it mean (practically) for you to spend n years postdoc'ing?  How ambitious are you?  How old are you now?

academics have been stressing the value of doing a post-doc have they stressed how valuable is cheap labor for them to publish the papers?

I got contacted by a recruiter for an extremely high-profile company after my PhD, and accepted to go through the interview process. At some point, before my interviews, I was told by the recruiter "Don't worry, the interviewers are aware you just finished a PhD and will not take it too much against you". That was also the moment that I realized that the "industry" aspect of "industry" is not really appealing to me, so my experience with industry stops there. But in short, I did not have a feeling they valued my research background at all.

@penelope interesting anecdote, it's very much in line with my personal experience

I didn't even realize until now that this was a resurrected 3-years-old question. Out of curiosity (and ofc if you don't mind sharing), did you go straight for an industry job or for a postdoc first? And, once you did go for an industry job, how valued did your academic experience seem (PhD, postdoc, whatever?)?

@penelope I did a short post-doc first, then a second more normal postdoc. I have applied for numerous positions, both directly after the PhD and between the postdocs. Majority of the positions I applied to had PhD as a requirement (as I was looking for science-heavy positions). Those positions seems to value my research experience to varying degree, but as soon I was outside the research type of positions, there was little interest in the skillset I have acquired from my time as a researcher. Does that answer your question?

I guess it's what one would expect. I hope, in after all, you ended up somewhere where you are valued, regardless of your past experience, and that you're having fun with what you chose to do ;)

There certainly is no "correct" answer to this question, as it depends on two factors: (1) the company (some will see it as useful, most probably won't), and (2) the type of postdoc (with or without management tasks? project lead? PI on a small project? independent or highly dependent of a professor?).
However, at least here in Switzerland and for Computer Science, the rule of thumb is that as soon as you are 100% that you won't stay in academia, every further month spent as a postdoc is inefficient in terms of career development. Yes, some companies may count your years as postdoc as some sort of relevant leadership experience, but most won't, and even those that do will consider a similar candidate with the same number of years working in industry to be much more attractive.
There is also another angle to look at this - you are currently looking to move into industry, and you have differing opinions from people that are already working in industry and people that are not. In absence of any other information, you should probably give more weight to the information provided by the insiders.

+1 for "as soon as you are 100% that you won't stay in academia, every further month spent as a postdoc is inefficient".  But it's not just about career development...

At some level this strikes at the heart of the question 'what is a post-doc good for'. I manage a research group at a national lab. So, I hire post-docs, and I hire staff members (physics, materials science, chemical engineering, related fields). What value proposition do I tell the new post-docs, and why do I value post-doc experience for staff hires?
For the new post-docs, the story goes something like this. You just spent 5+ years doing a PhD. In the process, you learned how to do research, and did enough of it to have a body of work suitable to receive a PhD. Congratulations! Now you get to do it again. And again. And on a short time line.
A successful post-doc will pick up a project, and have presentable/publishable results in 6 months or less. (Note that my strong preference is that the first project will not be intimately related to their dissertation work.) They will then add another project, and again be productive on the second one within 6 months or less, while continuing with the first. By 18 months they will have multiple results, over multiple projects, and be able to give a great interview talk solely on their post-doc work. So, they must show that they can get involved in something, come up to speed quickly, and have impact on multiple on-going projects. Post-docs from the group have gone on to have successful careers at national labs, industry, as well as academia coming out of my group.
For staff hires, I strongly value somebody with a post-doc background that shows this. Why? Well, guess what - over the next 30+ years you will not continue to do what you did in your PhD research. Being able to show that your PhD was not a fluke and that you have the skills and desire to keep learning new things and be productive in new areas is a great story to tell. For industrial R&D positions this has resonated quite well with the hiring managers that I've talked to (had people hired by) - it really reduces the perceived risk for the hire. Similarly, for national lab hires (internal or external) it again makes a great story - staff that can move rapidly in new directions are very valuable. If the post-doc is aiming for academia, I will make more of an attempt for the various projects to more clearly related into one 'bundle' that would be a visible area of research interest and grant funding opportunity. Still, the principle applies - you show that you truly are capable and talented.
How important is it for you? I can't say. The more applied an industrial position is, likely the less that they would value the post-doc experience, even in the hiring process. They may even devalue it since you would be too 'research-y' for them. But I would maintain that even there, being able to tell a clear story demonstrating that you have the skills to jump on to a project and be productive very quickly should be appealing to them. Now, if they will hire you directly out of grad school, than there isn't much value to the post-doc. If you want the industry job, take it. But realize that you will be expected, and should be able to talk about in the interview, your abilities to jump in to something and make it work.

+1 for a neat summary of how post-doc and PhD are different.

Typically: no.
Sometimes it can be valued a bit (if you have learnt skills relevant for the job), but usually you would have learnt more working directly in the target industry. (Key phrase: opportunity cost.)

I think this is highly dependent on the industry and the position within the company.
I worked in small company and we provided technical solutions for heating, ventilation and solar energy in commercial buildings and homes. So, no R&D. In that environment, post doc experience doesn't give you any edge or benefit, since it is pure engineering — no science, no research.
My mother works in research lab for a pharmaceutical company. They recently hired a guy who didn't have a day in industry, but he had years of post doc experience on different projects. He had an impressive CV and he got a job. Now, instead of doing research for scientific benefit, he does same thing but for the clients who need to know if their compounds and drugs are safe etc.
If the company has any kind of R&D department, post doc experience can be a bonus. But if candidate A has 5 years of post doc, candidate B has 3 y post doc and 2 y in industry,and candidate C has 5 y in industry, candidate B is probably best for position in the R&D department since he has both scientific and industry experience. This was the logic of one hiring manager in one of the few companies here that still have R&D departments.
In some cases a post doc can even damage your chances for getting a job. My cousin had 2 y of post doc in biotechnology. He was turned down by a biotech company because he was overqualified (here, by law, if you have a PhD you need to be paid more than someone in the same position with a MSc). He removed PhD and post doc from his CV and he got a job (he re-applied for a similar position in same company).
So, the bottom line is this, the closer the job is to scientific research, the more beneficial post doc experience is.

As always, it depends.
I have seen some pharma/biotech ads that specifically request candidates with a few years of postdoc experience; these mostly seem to come from the larger companies. I suspect you might have a hard time even getting through the HR screening without the word "postdoc" somewhere on your resume.
For the vast majority of positions, a postdoc probably isn't valuable per se. You'd be better off working in your target job--if you could land it. However, if you're not competitive for it that job, a postdoc would let you develop both technical  (lab techniques, coding, etc.) and "soft" skills (proposal writing, managing) that would be beneficial when you reapply.
I've heard that some companies do look askance at candidates with lots of postdoctoral experience, particularly ones making an abrupt change in fields (e.g., biology to finance). This is supposedly motivated by concerns that you might have been terrible at your initial field or that you're going to be "stuck" in a academic mindset.

“Valued by industry” is very vague and not really relevant to the decisions you have to make. Everything else being equal, time spent in industry will make it easier to land a job (or a more senior job, better salary, etc.) but a post-doc is better than nothing!
So if you know you want to move to industry and only care about your career, there is absolutely no point in postponing the move and specifically seeking a post-doc. But if you can't find a job (or perhaps can't find a job where you are and don't want to move right now, e.g. for family reasons), a post-doc beats being unemployed.
I personally moved to industry after a post-doc and several of the things I did during my research years (including conducting empirical studies, writing and managing EU-funded research projets) were specifically mentioned during the recruitment process and helped me land my first industry job. So a post-doc can be valued, especially for R&D positions for large companies or when your topic of research is directly relevant to the business.

I think this really depends what you have done and learned in your phd.
If you want to move to consultant or finance after PHd, you really dont need to publish or learn any lab skills in your PhD.
But here, if your goal is to get an industry job in a biotech or pharm and working there as a scientist or senior scientist, you need to know all your stuff you learned from your Phd and you must be able to offer your lab skills as an asset to the company.
However, some Phd students may not have the types of skills that the company is looking for. In that case, you need to do a postdoc to learn more. If you have the skillsets, go for an industry job should be your choice. You dont need a postdoc.

As per my personal experience, nobody can answer this question for you, but yourself. The reason is that the answer greatly relies on your research area and what you have been doing in your post-doc.
Today, in almost every post-doc interview, you might be asked about industry experience and how you can get engaged with the industry stakeholders (basically that is one way for you to make money and get your research going). So, the industry experience can be quite useful for post-doc applicants.
However, things are drastically different in the other world (industry). Industry recruiters have a very pragmatic view and only value the experience that can help you bring profit/development to the company. The profit and development in industry is usually narrowed to a company’s agenda (better products and services). As long as you can push the company towards that agenda, you are valuable. Of course, if your post-doc experience can help you, then it will be valued.
You should also consider if your post-doc experience will decrease your value in industry or not. That would put you in a really bad position. Post-doc is a different experience and may make you develop working styles that are not applealing to the industry. This is most of the time the case, even for universities who hire administration staff.
In short, if your aim is to go to industry and work for others, the sooner you do it the better. But if you are not sure, you’d better think about it carefully. Having said that, there is no dead-end for a smart researcher. You can always change your mind and switch back, but the options may not be optimal (don’t have to be, as you are not certain what is going to happen).

I think that a postdoc can be useful to get some experience in a new field.  Suppose you did a Phd in Differential Geometry or Theoretical Physics and that now you want to work in the financial sector. A postdoc in a finance related field may help you with the transition.

In life sciences and bioinformatics, more  experienced you are, more employable and attractive to recruiters you will be.
EDIT:
These informations are based according to my university Alumni organisation, and department tracking of employability of their student.
More suggestions what organization are responsible for tracking such a records I added in comments below

Thanks for the reply, although more information would greatly increase the usefulness of this answer. What are you basing your answer on? Do you have any data? If this is your opinion, what credentials do you have to back this statement up?

I am basing, unfortunately, on alumni data from my university, I think you cannot access to it since we are probably from different universites, but maybe your university have this information? Usually part of Universities (sectors) that are responsible for tracking employability of their student are these ALUMNI student organisations, or Sector for career development, or just Uni statistic department ( not as educational department, rather as working units)

I had to vote this down. "The more experienced you are, the more attractive you are" is a truism that is true for every job. This does not even attempt to answer the core question "is a postdoc considered valuable experience"?

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


text:
When is a good time to go visiting potential post-doc opportunities?
I am in my last year of graduate studies. I have lately started networking for post-doc opportunities with some of the prominent people out there. I believe I have done a decent job in presenting myself so far, and I have gotten some people interested in discussing it further. The typical scenario would be to initiate formal contact by email then, if both parties are interested, pay a visit to the lab and talk with the people working there.
Now that I am starting to plan these things, I am wondering if the timing is optimal and if not how I should be putting them. I like planning these things in advance and not having to end up stressing about it all the way in the end. Heaving a big margin also provides time for project planning, as well as finding and applying for post-doc grants.
On the down-side, this last year is all I got to finish my projects, get papers out and also write a good thesis. All of which, I am sure, will take a significant amount of time. Ideally worrying/planning about the next step, should not prevent me from progressing as efficiently as I can.
So, in general, when would be a good time to take active and serious steps towards the next employment after graduate studies?

Possible duplicate of How early should a graduate student begin their job search?

The answer depends on your geographical and academic areas.

Postdoctoral positions in Europe are often attached to specific research groups and are funded through grants obtained by the head of laboratory/research group. As such their availability are often announced after the successful grant application, which means sometimes in the spring in general. On the other hand, if you have a specific person you want to work with and you have discussed this, it is good to get started early so you can help out as much as reasonable with the grant application process. (This is assuming that you have struck a mutual agreement that she will hire you if the grant is successful.)
Postdoctoral positions in the United States and Canada are, depending on field, are sometimes funded as in the European case described above, and sometimes funded by the department (departmental, "named" postdoctoral positions). In the latter case the application process may have begun already and you should consult the appropriate trade magazines or bulletin boards to keep yourself posted of these opportunities. (I see that your profile indicates an applied math background; many math positions are posted on MathJobs and AcademicJobsOnline, and you should of course keep an eye on SIAM publications.)
In fact, the schedule is also similar for faculty positions in the United States: you generally expect to be applying during the fall and winter (and sometimes the summer) of the year prior to the start date. (Something you should keep in mind after you land your postdoc job.)
The various countries' equivalents of the National Science Foundation also offer postdoc funding opportunities with varying deadlines. For example, the United State NSF funds postdoctoral research in various fields. And you are likely already too late: the Mathematics deadline was last week. While the Swiss NSF has a postdoct program whose due date is not under February next year.


text:
How does one assess one's chances of getting accepted into a PhD program in philosophy?
I'm about to complete my B.A. in philosophy, and I want to pursue a PhD in philosophy. I'm aware that it's a long, difficult, lonely process and that doesn't scare me off. But I can't help compare myself to the grad students who TA in my school's philosophy department. In particular, I lack the clarity of argument (especially verbal) and originality of thought that they regularly exhibit. I know these skills are developed, but I wonder if any part of them is innate. That is to say, it seems to me unlikely that everyone who desires to get a PhD and go into teaching is capable of doing so, just like not everyone's capable of being a professional basketball player, regardless of desire or training. Obviously you should go for your dreams, but it's important to be pragmatic and recognize your limitations.
My question is this: what would it look like if someone wasn't cut out for a PhD program, and how would they know? I ask because I want to be sure (as much as is reasonable) that I'm capable of being accepted to and eventually completing a program before I invest a lot of time and money into the application process.

This question is quite challenging for a bunch of internet strangers to answer. Have you asked your tutor/advisor/mentor-- even the grad students you mention-- what they think?

In addition to astronat's advice, I'd suggest you seek out any of your professors who are (or who previously have been) on the graduate admissions committee in your department. They've read lots of applications, and would probably be happy to tell you what distinguished the strong applications.

I am uncomfortable seeking advice from nonstrangers, haha. I know any answer will be very vague, and I'm OK with that. That's why I left out so much info about me.

This is, ironically, a deep philosophical question: heredity vs environment, nature vs nurture, predestination vs free will.  We're not going to resolve it here.  But a more practical question might be: what preparation is important for a PhD in philosophy (content knowledge, academic and meta-academic skills, etc), and how can one self-evaluate it?

Regarding your previous comment: unwillingness to seek advice from those who know you best is certainly a major obstacle to success in graduate school (and many other pursuits). So if you're going to work on getting better at something, start with that.

When you apply to such a program, you will need to get some letters of recommendation ... presumably from the faculty at your current institution.  So it is not out of line to ask those same faculty about your chances ahead of time.


text:
What happened to ScholarlyHub?
Does anyone have an update on the status of the launch of the open-access research-social-network ScholarlyHub?
Is this still an ongoing project or did they quit?
There was much coverage after their launch in 2017, but since 2018 there is not much news about it and their website & Twitter is not really maintained anymore, so it is not clear to me if we can count on this project.

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

For all practical purposes, any plans for a real website are pretty much dead, unless some rich donor suddenly shows up out of nowhere. For the foreseeable future, the people behind ScholarlyHub are mostly focusing their energies on advocating for open access initiatives in general.
If you need a Humanities-focused alternative to ScholarlyHub, try Humanities Commons.

Thank you for the quick answer! Where did you find out about this? This site sound like a really good idea, I would like to keep up to date regarding it's status.

I was one of the original donors in 2017, and for about a year or so, I did my best to keep up to date with news from the team. It is unfortunate that the plan has not advanced, but that's life. As for keeping up to date, it might be best to contact the Twitter account of Prof. Jeroen Bosman. https://twitter.com/jeroenbosman

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


text:
Currently applying for postdocs: had a demotivating discussion with my supervisor
In my penultimate year of PhD I did not apply for postdocs. I decided to take this year as a gap year. I remember that before telling my supervisor, they were very encouraging, and told me I had very good chances at top research groups.
In my last year of PhD I did not do much. I barely finished one paper, and I was doing random non-research things that were not specific to my field.
I have started applying for postdocs (Astrophysics) since October, through job boards. I applied for several positions (>25). I still did not receive any response for an interview or rejection. I guess they are still filtering.
But what made me so sad these days is that my professor started to tell me to lower my hopes, and that I will not have much chances this year. Maybe, maybe I will get one at a place I am not super happy to work there. And that I should focus only on that. But in general, there is a non zero chance I would get zero postdoc offers. They were always encouraging, and especially last year it seemed a good chance. Now, it is like I do not have a future.
I just feel so bad. My intention was to do a postdoc for fun, just to have a nice experience before leaving academia for good (you can not do astrophysics outside academia, at least in my field).
I am also starting feeling very stupid, and not good enough for the job. I am thinking about all the possible errors I could have made in my research, that maybe I will not be able to do research, and why I wasted so much time instead of being more productive.
I am in my late-twenties, and I still have these sort of insecurities. I guess I still really care about the opinion of others and their views of me.

Sorry to hear things are not going well. But, I am not sure there is a question we can help with. Or?

ok make sense, I cancel. Sorry, just needed to write out.

Please don't sabotage your question. If you want a question to disappear, flag it and ask the mods to delete it.

Thank you, I thought it was not allowed. Thank you very much for your response @Buffy

Looking for a job in academia can be really hard psychologically, what you're experiencing is normal. Maybe it's obvious but just in case: if possible take care of your mental health, preferably with a professional.

From your description, it is possible that the professor is talking about the state of the academic market in you field at this moment and not about you or your potential for research.
You know better from their tone, of course, but don't rule this possibility out entirely.
And it shouldn't have any effect on what you do to obtain a position. You have to keep pushing. I also finished (long long ago) in a terrible market. I tried over a hundred places before I found even a temporary position. I was lucky to remain in academia at all, but never gave up.

Fully agree - Covid continues to impact, well, everything...

"I was lucky to remain in academia at all, but never gave up" - that's the spirit!


text:
Can conference papers use the original words in published papers?
Conference papers are often only about 10 pages. When I was writing conference papers, some words seemed unnatural. Can I directly use the original words in someone else's paper? Not a conclusion or opinion. For example:

In this paper, we investigate and present a new type of hardware vulnerability to covert timing channels exposed by [Other people's methods]

I changed it to mine in the thesis:

In this paper, we investigate and present a new type of hardware vulnerability to covert timing channels exposed by others + [my method]

Is this feasible? I just used its sentences to express my idea

How much of your exposition is taken from this paper (possibly with minor word/grammar changes)? One sentence, or several paragraphs? If that's substantial, it's a whole different business.

I think you can. Some sentences will inevitably be the same in multiple papers. This is, in my eyes, not necessarily plagiarism. Plagiarism is taking "someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own". What you are doing here is taking somebody else's words that describe work or ideas and passing them off as your own.
That said, in a case like this there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't just change the sentence to avoid any perception of plagiarism. For example:

Past methods have exposed a new type of hardware vulnerability to covert timing channels [REFs]. Using 'my method' we investigated such vulnerabilities and present them in this work.

+1 Your revision also fixes a word order concern that (at least for me) caused an unnecessary pause in thought, namely "we investigate and present". The pause was to wonder whether the seemingly incorrect temporal order -- investigate followed by present -- was a wording oversight or something specific about the nature of the topic (of which I know know nothing about). Although your word order is the same, we now have "investigated" and "present" applying to different things.


text:
How do academics (faculty members, PhD students, etc.) balance their work and life?
How do academics (faculty members, PhD students, etc.) balance their work and life?
I am a PhD student and I find myself spending at least 10-11 hours working everyday.
Sometimes even 10 hours is not enough for the day, I need to burn midnight oil.
However, everyone (mostly my parents and friends, who are non-academics and do not have PhD degree) is telling me that I am working too much and that I shouldn't burn out myself by doing so much work. When I hear these comments, I can't help myself but thinking 'Yeah, but that's only because you are not working in academia...you don't really understand my situation'.
For those who are working in academia, do you think I am working too much as a PhD student? How much time do you typically spend a day working? If you think that I am working too much, how can I possibly strike the balance between my academic work and my personal life?
I am genuinely asking because I really do not know "how to take care of myself properly" while I am constantly facing a huge workload. I do think that this will hurt me in a long run, especially if I am to pursue a career in academia.
Thank you,

Does this answer your question? Is it important to maintain a work-life balance as a PhD student?

What answers can there be besides "stop working after X hours"?

What are they going to do if you don't? Fire you? Let them.

Do you enjoy it? Or do you feel it is too much? Or does this vary with time. For any response will depend on this.

There’s probably some areas that you can find efficiencies in to help improve how much time you spend working. Lots of us are just really not as efficient as we could be, but if you pick your habits and routines apart, you’ll probably find a lot of time you’re just burning away.

This is not specific to Academia - in most jobs, there would be so much work that one could spend the whole night working. Yet, in industry, people are often paid for working 8 hours (and might have to record the time), so somebody is telling them "around 8 hours a day is enough, the rest can be done tomorrow". In Academia, you have to tell yourself "It's evening, I've worked enough today, I continue tomorrow."

How much hours of work per day is too much? That is a question that only you can answer. There are some indicators: if you're feeling depressed, anxious, did not feel any joy in a while, need to use substances to cope, then you're probably working too much. Otherwise you might be fine.

We know from your post how many hours you work, and we know that people who know you think you're working too much. While there is probably an objective upper limit to how much one can work and be happy and healthy (I'd guess closer to eight hours than to 12 hours), the question how much work is good for you depends on how well you are doing. So, how are you doing? Do you feel anxious, depressed, or tired more often than you would like? Does you work give you a sense of purpose and accomplishment? Does it impinge on other areas of live that are important for you? How is your physical health?

Why is this a duplicate of an US question?

Firstly I'd say around 50 hours a week is not unusual for academia (whether that's 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, or 8 hours a day 6 days a week). Its about what I work in an average week i'd say. That doesn't quite answer your question, because rates of burn out are also high in academia. I will however add that all my friends that work in any of "the professions" - doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, management consultants, financiers, all work more than the standard 40 hours a week.
You should also qualify if you mean "working" 10-11 hours a day, or working 10-11 hours a day. A 9-7 work day might not be unusual for me, but that would include 30 minutes for lunch, and perhaps grabbing coffee with a colleague at some point.
Its almost impossible to say how many hours you "should" be working. You should ask yourself whether it is working for you or not. I know some super organized people who can mostly work 9-5 and still become very successful. I am not one of those people. But I do also maintain some hobbies, and try very hard not to let work interfere with those. If I am teaching a dance class, I leave work whatever I'm doing at the time. I rarely decline social engagements because of work. But I don't watch a lot of TV, read a lot of books, or play many computer games these days (or I didn't till lockdown killed my other engagements). These are my choices and they work for me (most of the time). People with children of course have no choice. Once you've decided what is important, then you can fit work in with that, and if its enough its enough. And if its not, its not.
A wise man once described to me something like a Laffer curve for work. If you work 0 hours a day you'll achieve nothing. If you work 24 hours a day you'll also achieve nothing (because you'll be dead). Somewhere in between there is a peak of maximum sustainable productivity. You'll never find the peak, but you want to make sure you are to the left of it, not the right.

"...Laffer curve...' -> sounds like the Extreme value theorem to me.

Disclaimer: Feom your question, I assume that you feel you work to much or have to little time for outside activities. If you are happy with your working hours and feel well, all is great. If however, you have the feeling you don't have enough time for life,  have to work in order to get better positions in academia, to make your professor happy or because there is so much work to do, keep reading.
My advice is simple: Work fewer hours.
Make yourself a schedule and leave after eight hours. (Of course, I don't mean to "never stay a second longer than eight hours", but "after arouns eight hours, finish your train of thought and then go home".)
There can be exeptions (like a deadline). If they occur only once in a while, that's okay - work longer and take that time the next time off. Or maybe at some point, you think you want to do this a dditional work because the problem is so exciting. Then it's okay to do it (at least for you, probably not for society as a whole). But don't negligate your friednds, family, hobbies, partner, time for yourself,..
Maybe this doesn't work out because your prof doesn't like it or because you don't have enough results then - but do you really want to work in a system where you have to work constantly so much that you are burnt out? (By the comments of your family and friends, there are jobs where this is not the case in your region.) Wouldn't it be good to leave the system when it doesn't turn out?
One more advice: In your free time, find out about industry. What kind of work do your peers with similar qualification? What do they do exactly? Do you have the industry skills you need? Goal of this shouls be to find out you have a safety net - if Academia treats you like a slave, you can just go and do something else. (Many students believe Academia is good and Industry is evil or that they are too bad for Industry or whatever - you should get rid of those thoughts so you can really say you are working in Academia because you like it and leave when you don't like it and not that you are in Academia because Industry is bad.)
My last advice: "There is too much work to do" is not only in Academia, it's in every job and every non-job. The difference is how people react to this - in your case it is"I have to work more", in other jobs it is "well, it's not my problem, I work my hours, if the boss is not happy, he has to hire additional personel". My point is: don't discard your family's and friends's opinions just because they are in Industry. Many academics work in healthy ways - yet you ask in an Academia forun. And if you look in the Internet for advice on working schedules and "I have too much work": don't discard any industry advice because you are in Academia. In amount of work, there is no difference at all between Industry and Academia.

Why does it have to be specifically eight hours?

I took eight hours because this would be the usual working time in my region. Thus it is a time on which worker's parties agreed (meaning that it is thought that eight hours is not too much) and employer's parties (meaning that it is not too less). One can of course change and adapt - but I wouldn't invent a value myself if I have no experience how much working is good for me, but  take a value which is "accepted" in society. (Plus, if your working time is similar to those of your friends and family, it's easier to meet them.)

Then I think that this answer ignores the crux of the matter. There is a tension between academia as a workplace and academia as a place for advancing knowledge (which also affects if and how one can advance in an academic career).

I don't see what you mean by that. Would you mind to elaborate? For advancing: If what you can do in reasonable time is not enough to advance, I suggest doing something else (and if everyone did that, Academia would be a better place). And the eight hours is adaptable to your own needs - but to really find them out, you should work a few months a "normal" time, I think.

What a reasonable amount of time is differs from the perspective of workplace rules/conventions and science. Put into an exaggerated example: when Einstein discovered relativity, he might not have treated his work as a 9-to-5 job, but from the perspective of science, any effort that he invested into it is justified by the groundbreaking outcome. If you follow Einstein's example or not, that is a question of your personal values and priorities.

I'd say that you should look at what is good for you, not for the "perspective of science". Your working hours should treat yourself well. And to find that out, I'd say it's a good start to work "normal hours" and then, when you have more data about yourself ("40 hours is far too much"/"I want to work more to justify spending less time with my partner") you should adjust.

OP currently puts in 10-11 hours. What makes you assume that it's not good for him and he should reduce it to 8 for some time?

His question here. It sounds to me he is working that much because he feels he has to, not because he wants to. And asks for work-life balance.

The stated motivation for his question are other people telling him that 10-11 hours are not good for him, which makes him question his choices. Basically, you say the same as these people (at least in the answer). But I don't see why.

Okay, fair point. I will add a disclaimer to the answer.


text:
What does "research design" refer to in a peer review form?
One of the questions posed to me as a peer reviewer is:

Is the research design appropriate?

In my understanding, that would be an applicable question if the manuscript I am reviewing was presenting some kind of novel design or methodology.
In this case, I am reviewing a paper that is mainly doing analysis of extracted data. Is the question no longer applicable (that is an optional answer) since there is no new scheme presented, or could it still refer to the chosen methodology for the data extraction and analysis, even if it is still not a new approach?

Why do you think it's only applicable if it's novel? I don't understand why the question suggests that to you, and it would improve my answer to know.

@AzorAhai-him- I am just wondering whether the word "design" means there has to be some kind of design presented in the work. Perhaps it is also relevant that a question about whether the methods used are described follows this one.

Are you a native English speaker / are you translating this prompt for us?

@AzorAhai-him- I am bilingual so yes, in a sense. I am not translating, the form is in English. Perhaps it is also useful to point out that this is a computer science journal, hence my doubts about the meaning of design.

Ah, I'm not in CS, so I'm not sure why "design" would only apply to novel designs.

@AzorAhai-him- There is a good chance I am overthinking this...besides, are the reviewer forms different accross journals if it is the same publisher?

Most probably, I don't want to lead you astray though. Probably.

Generally research design would refer to the methodology. Is is appropriate to answer the research questions? Is it sufficient? Is the suggested data collection and analysis (if any) valid? Is it likely we can trust the results that flow from the design?
The design could be entirely standard, but it still has to match the question and be appropriate to the population (assuming it is a data driven research).
Not all CS research fits the above, of course, so you need to extrapolate a bit. For example, if you are building a better compiler optimizer (I know, so last-century), then you need to specify in which dimensions it is better and how you will verify that it is.

Research design is simply the methodology used to answer the research questions. Usually the methodology is NOT novel. The journal is asking you, "Did the researcher choose the right methods to answer the research questions?"


text:
Would using 'they/them' in publication biographies stand out?
Some journals require authors to submit a photograph and a short biography to go along with the publication.
The question I have is: Would it strike you as weird if said biography had a gender neutral tone, using "they/them" pronouns? As in, could a non-binary author that is not out use those pronouns and not have a conversation (comments by advisors/co-authors) occur? Would it be something that could be passed by without a second glance?

Seems to depend heavily on your coworkers, sad to say.

Not an answer, just a suggestion to bypass the issue: Why not use your name rather than any pronouns at all, if you want to avoid coming "out"? With some skill, this could be phrased without too much repetition.

Even if this does not lead to a conversation, it seems unavoidable that your colleagues will notice it.

There's two questions here, one about the journal (which we can answer) and one about whether your coworkers would notice (which we can't)

To second @henning--reinstateMonica: Instead of using the name, you could also vary with "the author" or "the authors" which is neutral in English. In other languages like French or German this works comparable well.

As a reader, familiar with the gender-neutral usage of they/them, I wouldn't consider it weird. Beware, however, of two facts:

Papers are read by international readers with different levels of English who may not clearly understand the usage.
Frequently copy editors (e.g. I'm familiar with IEEE on this) heavily edit the biographies to adapt them to the publishers' editorial styles: sometimes, I have found that in doing so the copy editor introduces significant errors (because e.g. they do not understand local information). So, if you submit a biography using the pronouns they/them check carefully the proofs and be prepared to ask for changes defending your choice.

At the level of the journals, editorial policies are increasingly becoming aware of pronoun usage- see for example https://physicsworld.com/a/scientific-journal-publishers-announce-trans-inclusive-name-change-policies/ -- and this will probably increase with time but is still not universal, I believe.

I am looking at an IEEE journal currently...if you ve had experience with them making an issue over this I think I would rather avoid it

@riverwastaken I haven't had issues specifically on pronouns because I haven't used they/them, so I'm not suggesting to avoid this altogether, but I had issues with other stuff, and so I'm just saying to be prepared at requesting adjustments if the copy editor doesn't follow your preferences.

As in, could a non-binary author that is not out use those pronouns and not have a conversation (comments by advisors/co-authors) occur?

It seems to me that as soon as a person uses the pronouns they/them to refer to themselves in a journal publication, they are effectively outing themselves as someone who uses those pronouns. So, an author who wishes to maintain their status of being not out might want to avoid such a move. If they go ahead with it anyway, people may notice, and there are no assurances that they will not make any comments about it.
In other words, if one is going to come out selectively or gradually, the pages of a journal are maybe not the best place to start from.

"effectively outing themselves as someone who uses those pronouns."  This is confusing.  Pronouns are what other people use to address an individual; their use can't be secret.  It is pronoun preferences or gender identity that can be revealed.

@AnonymousPhysicist There is an implied (to describe themselves) at the end of that sentence, which is made explicit by the first half of the sentence "refer to themselves". I see no need to be more redundant.

The first part of the sentence is also confusing, as most people who are referred to as "they/them" refer to themselves with "I/me" most of the time.  This is not important.  You could write "If a person identifies themselves with they/them in a journal article, they are indicating that they prefer to be addressed with those pronouns."

@AnonymousPhysicist The context here is a biography typically written in the third person.

I am aware.    ......

The answer is: it would probably strike most people as weird, odd or different, yes. But: that is not a bad thing, as all change will probably at first inconvenience a not inconsiderable amount of people.
And if every non-binary or otherwise happier-without-gender-specific-pronoun person would start doing so, then maybe in a few years time, it will not be odd anymore but normal. So while it may take some courage now to admit you non-binary (or whatever else) status to a bigger audience, it will pave the way for those to come.

Or alternatively, in the future this will just look like an odd fashion that flared up for a few years in the early 21st century and then vanished.

I think it would stand out, but only in the sense it might read like a plural "they". Using "they/them" for gender still seems very context-oriented. Articles about an avant-guard artist can do it without confusion, often giving an extra hint. But just today I saw a business news article with something like "John Smith invented the technology, they are...". It only took a moment to consider it as a genderless pronoun, but I had to pause -- it seemed just as likely I'd somehow skipped the paragraph explaining who John's partner was, or "they" referred to the technology.

Certainly, some people may find it weird or ask about it. However, it is also true that if you ask to be called by they/them pronouns when meeting in-person, some people may find it weird or ask about it there. My advice is to use the pronouns that you are most comfortable with when writing a biography about yourself.
You can also write a new biography for each paper, meaning that you can use different pronouns on the biographies for different papers, if your preferred pronoun changes.

A decade ago this would have been extremely weird and stick out like a sore thumb; while it has been common for some time to use they/them when the referrent is unknown, it was unusual for a known person. But in the past few years recognition of non-binary genders has become much more common. I've heard that some conferences even ask registrants to specify their preferred pronoun, and will include it on the name tag if desired.
So in many contexts, it is becoming common to accept people's preferred form of address. I would be surprised if any journal would object to using the author's pronoun prefecences these days.
I'm answering this from a US perspective. I expect there are some other cultures where this would be less acceptable. I'm sure the journal editors will let you know if there's a problem.


text:
How much course preparation, grading, and student question handling can be reasonably expected of a graduate TA?
I am creating all homeworks, quizzes (two per week), exams (2x75 questions), review questions (2x75), projects, 20-page lecture notes (two per week), and answering all student e-mails, along with grading, every week for a large class.
The professor is new to this course and only has the lecture slides ready by Friday night so I am expected to prepare everything for the week within a few days. The professor has created no content for this course at all, and I put in at least 40 hours a week.
For context, I am a biotechnology graduate student at a large R1 US university. My contract says that I am paid $15/hr and set at 20 hours a week.
Is the professor allowed to have me doing this much work?

Also check your visa (if applicable) and pay.

I was a TA as well, and when one course took me more time than it should, I repeately brought it up with the professor. His first answer was to "scale down quality" of my teaching/grading, so it takes less time. But eventually I could convince him to take down my load.

The professor has created no content for this course at all, and I put in at least 40 hours a week. Is the professor allowed to have me doing this much work?

It depends on the individual university, but in practice almost certainly not. I a math professor in the United States, and by that standard this sounds absurd. From what I can tell, the professor's behavior is completely out of line.
When I was a TA, I was responsible for: running discussion sections, holding three office hours a week, grading, and answering emails. And, if I felt nice (which I generally did), running review sessions before exams. That's it. I was not responsible for creating any of the content for the course.
I would recommend making an immediate appointment with the graduate director, and asking what the expectations of your TA role are. Remember that, as a graduate TA, the graduate director is your boss, not the professor for whom you teach. If your graduate director tells you that writing exams or preparing lecture notes is not within the scope of your duties, then you can and should ignore any requests from the professor to do it anyway.
Good luck to you!

I mean don't just start ignoring stuff without saying anything. If you just never wrote the midterm, it won't make your situation better for this jerk of a prof to find out.

I appreciate your response, especially because you are a professor. I did not consider who my actual boss was, thank you!

When I was a TA, I was responsible for: running discussion sections, holding three office hours a week, grading, and answering emails. And, if I felt nice (which I generally did), running review sessions before exams. That's it. I was not responsible for creating any of the content for the course.

That's exactly how I'm expected to act currently, as I typically TA for one graduate course per-year at a private, US-based institution. Thanks for the focus on leadership's role to set expectations.

I think this is the only right answer, however as nothing was mentioned here: Did you talk to your professor and indicate that your workload is much higher than what you are paid for and that you never had to prepare such stuff previously? In case you have not I would talk to him instead of directly going to the director to see if he might not be aware of what he is causing?

In most institutions, a TA position comes with an associated number of hours per week the be expended.  In some cases, the TAs are actually paid by the hour, required to file timecards.  In other cases (like my own Ph.D. experience), the TAs are given a number of credit-hours, just as though being a TA is taking a course (and it often is effectively a course on how to teach).
In either case, you first need to find out from your employer (the department, not the instructor) what the actual expectation is.  Typically this will be somewhere between 5 and 24 hours per week---the lower end tends to be "grader only" TAs, the upper end for more extensive responsibilities like yours.  If you are regularly working a lot more than that (as it sounds like you are), then something is wrong.  Maybe you are being given too much work, maybe you are not working efficiently---it is impossible to tell without knowing your far more about you and your situation.
What I would recommend, however, is to start by spending the next week or two documenting the actual hours you work on each task, and then bring that to the instructor for a discussion about how to address the issue.  If they are not receptive, then the next step is your department leadership.

My situation is unique. I was the TA for this course last semester, but the professor passed away 2 months before the start of this semester's course. The new professor has decided to bring in a new style to the course along with completely new information, which I respect, but as a TA it is hard to create content for a course I technically never took. I only graded and held tutor sessions in my previous TA positions. As a student working on my thesis and taking a full course load as well as being a TA for two courses, time management is my best friend, I truly did not expect this workload.

@Stacy You may want to add that information to the question as well - knowing the circumstances may not change the answer to "should I be doing this much work?" but it might change how folks suggest you proceed in doing something about your situation.  Was the new professor planning to teach any sessions of this particular course this semester, or were they perhaps asked on short notice to cover a class that they didn't have any material prepared for?

The two salient points here are: "I put in at least 40 hours a week" and "I am paid ... 20 hours a week", which is a mismatch and you shouldn't be required to do so much.
The follow-up question is whether you are paid for 20h/wk annually and required to do extra during semester/term? Is the workload exceptionally high right now at the start of term, but will calm down in the coming weeks?
In either case you should talk to your professor first and explain that this is a very large amount of work to complete and goes well beyond your contracted hours (in the short term at the minimum). Listen to what they say in reply and what changes they propose and see if you can resolve it between yourselves. If you are unable to resolve it between yourselves after following up on the changes you agree then you can raise it higher within your department. I would personally avoid escalation before taking the chance to discuss it with your professor and ensuring it's not a simple misunderstanding or poor-estimate from their side.


text:
Applying for Graduate School after dropping out of my first degree
A decade ago, I enrolled in a STEM undergraduate degree because the part of the world I am from, engineers and doctors are considered as the only respectable professions and social sciences are a big no no. I did well in my first year but it was the second year when I started despising every single minute of my time in school. It got to the point where it impacted my mental health and I withdrew from the university completely.
A few years later, I restarted my academic journey, but this time in the social sciences, as I always wanted to do. I have received multiple awards and scholarships for academic achievement and am one of the top performing students of my batch.
I am now applying for graduate school in the same field in which I'm currently studying. My only concern is that my previous 'drop-out' will have a negative impact on my application.

Unlikely that it will have any impact at all. People change. People grow. Moreover your recent record is weighted much more heavily than the past for most purposes. And, there is little you can do in any case. The past is what it is.

What is your question?


text:
Does the Tech Industry outside Academia know which Journals are predatory and which aren't?
The question is pretty simple:
Are HR/interviewers/recruiters outside of academia who parses through your CV/resume, aware of which journals are predatory (say, from Beall's List) and which are not (say, IEEE, ACM, Springer) when they see one in a prospective candidate's CV?
To understand better, take the scenario of a multinational company recruiting candidates and many of them have a Publications section in their CV. In that case, does it affect the profile of that candidate who has majority publications in journals flagged to be predatory in nature?
Would love to know from the people of the industry or the ones who transitioned from academia to industry.

Picking this apart ... Neither HR nor recruiters typically will any idea of journal quality, and they probably shouldn't. Their jobs are to provide high level filtering and connecting. If the position is an entry level research position, the hiring manager might have some idea about journal quality but it really might not matter. However if the hiring process involves senior researchers, say for instance you're applying for something beyond entry level or if the position is highly competitive, then you can count on them knowing what's what.

Some interviewers/companies will care about the contents of your publications and may be expected to distinguish between good and bad journals. Some interviewers/companies won't have any interest in your publications regardless of where they're published. A third group may be impressed by the fact that you've published, without caring about the contents - but I suspect the weight this carries in any decision will be fairly small once you control for other factors e.g. academic background and employment history.

This is a pure academic view, but from someone who has worked with industry and has long associations with industry researchers in major computing-related companies.
Some companies will care, since they do research that is comparable (often superior) to what happens in academia. Google, Siemens, and IBM come to mind here. So, if you are looking for a research position at such companies, they will know the publishing industry quite well. And they are active producers of papers as well.
Other companies will not know or care, but those probably don't care much about publications in any case. If they are just interested in the minimal amount of research that goes in to the next product, rather than long term thinking, then they likely hire people with other, more immediately useful, skills.
And, for some positions at the same large institutions I mentioned above, there will be little reason to care. But those aren't really research positions.
Expect that the research organizations within such large multinationals are just as sophisticated as is academia.

Understood, and what about roles other than "Research Engineer" or alike? Consider an SDE Role, does it still affect, the sole idea I am trying to reflect in this question(or what I have a notion about...) is that when having a Publications section in my CV trying to apply for such roles, it shows that the candidate has a scientific attitude and what I see today is that any organization respects candidates who take an effort in Research which in recent times proves quite valuable of an asset for such companies in my field of Tech.

That depends on individual factors. Most software development is part of product development, I'd guess, with some devoted to research support. And, if you are in a product development organization, then other things might be frowned on - especially for someone new in the organization.

@aryashah2k: As Buffy points out things can vary dramatically. As far as the connection between research and software positions go, you often see research scientists, research scientists who can program, though typically not at a production grade, and software development professionals. The first two would tend to keep an eye on what's the latest in PNAS or Nature or IEEE, and the hiring managers would care about journal publications there. The latter would be judged more on publications at GitHub.

Alright, so publications at Github implies the source code behind my research made open source?

@aryashah2k: Not quite. I'm saying that it's common for software development professionals, both working and budding, to have projects at GitHub. When they do, it's realistic to expect those projects to be scrutinized heavily by a potential employer, things like documentation, architecture and organization, code quality, sophistication, adherence to recognized good practices, etc. If a candidate presents well in this sense, it can give him or her a leg up over the competition. All of this drifts from your original question about predatory journals though.


text:
Is it ethical to withdraw a conference long version paper after being accepted as a short paper?
Is it ethical to withdraw a conference long version paper after being accepted as a short paper?
Just recently we got an accepted short paper at a decent Computer Science conference. However, we submitted as a long paper and there is not a single instruction cautioning us that the PC could demote the paper.

Is this CS? (CS conferences are different to most other fields. idk if it would make a difference to answers)

Yes. Conferences play very a big role in our field. That is why some of them follow double-blind review, include author rebuttal and so on...

And for this reason, when you ask a question about conferences on Academia Stack Exchange, you should always mention that you are talking about a CS conference (In the main post, not just in a comment, as comments are ephemeral)

Edited. Even I don't think it will make any difference.

Given the anachronism of short-paper page limits (largely a consequence of the anachronsim of publishers pricing policies) I think you should even withdraw then; and emphasizenthat you would prefer a "PDF oriented" publishing process instead of a "print oriented". Also encourage conferences to move away from overpriced print publishers towards e.g. ACM and green open access.

Yes.
Publication requires both the consent of the publisher (via the editor or program committee) and the consent of the authors.  If you do not consent to publish under the conditions imposed by the publisher, you can just say no.

It is up to you to withdraw.
But consider that if the conference asked for a major revision (cutback, in this case), they'll have their reasons (sure, space is an issue, but they are telling you it is not worth a full paper as it stands). I think it is unlikely you'll be able to publish the full version elsewhere, at least not without significant further work. Perhaps the best course of action is to shorten this, and rework into a full version for elsewhere.
[Note that the above is just from what OP tells us, not even knowing the area. Further details could change my assessment radically.]


text:
Should I take delay " a few days" as a polite decline or literal?
What does “a few days” mean in the following context?  In response to me sending a short paper to a professor for review, he said:

Sorry, I'll look ..but might take me a few days".

Is this a polite decline or is there a real good chance he will look at it?

Is there a particular reason why he should look at your paper? Is he your supervisor or have you worked with him on the paper or was he interested in the topic? Profs are very busy (students underestimate that), so it is good if there is a special incentive here.

Did he say exactly this words? If he said "I'd look at this" then it implies no, he won't look at it. But 'i'll look at this' implies yes to me. And 'a few days' could be one week, btw.

We can't know, it's inherently ambiguous, it depends on tons of missing context (how busy is he? how many other things are in his intray? does he know you/your supervisor/dept? is it a great/good/bad paper? is he a reviewer in this field? is he the sort of person who would say "Sorry I'm too busy" or "It isn't good" or use an excuse like this? etc.). It strikes me as either/both marginally off-topic to Ac.SE and an XY question for "What are some good communication tips to getting a quick turnaround review of an unsolicited paper from a busy professor who doesn't know me?"

Does it help if you say "I appreciate you don't know me, are really busy and get many unsolicited papers, but if it was at all possible to skim it and tell me your one-line reaction by Date, before we decide whether to submit it, I'd be very grateful in knowing what to do with it."?

This might depend on location. In many Asian cultures, one never gives a negative answer (you might lose face, if told that that he will never look at it).

@Mawg and that is why you should never off source software development to an anyone in a Asian culture!  You can't work with someone that pretends to speech our language but yet gives different meaning to everything.

@Mawg Very much so. For an example in the other direction, in more direct cultures like for example Dutch culture (and I assume German culture as well) the intended meaning of the professor is even more likely to be exactly what he says.

I have worked extensively in Asia and Europe, as well as USA, and I much prefer "what I say is what I mean" over "try to guess my meaning". Especially in scientific or academic contexts (but, business too.

Of course it’s impossible to be sure, but if the professor didn’t intend to do anything about your paper, I consider it likely that he would not have answered at all or that he would have answered that he lacks time. The latter would have been the polite decline – there is nothing polite about saying that you will do something without ever intending to do it.
What is uncertain is whether and when the professor actually does as he intended. Many professors are notoriously busy and underestimating when they will find time to do something. Moreover, they may be disorganised and just forget about it. Depending on how urgent and important this paper is to you and whether you delay anything waiting on the professor’s response, I suggest to write a polite and short e-mail stating when you would need the response and that you understand if he would reply that he is not able to respond to your request up to that point.

We're not mind-readers. Keeping that in mind, my guess is that a professor at a top-ranked university is a reliable person and, therefore, wouldn't make empty promises.
If you need his feedback within a particular timeframe, you should politely ask him if he could send it within this timeframe, rather than wait for his feedback to happen.

He is a mathemetician.  He knows what words mean.  If he had meant 'sorry, I don't have time to do this sort of thing' he would have said so.
8 pages is short in some ways.  But it's still 8 pages.  I hope you took care to start with a few lines of précis.  Then a busy man can reply on the lines of "Do you add anything to X's recent publication on this topic?  If so, please let me know and I'll study your work more deeply."

In all likelihood what it means is
"I'm very busy right now - I've just read your email and want to move onto other emails. I mean to come back to your paper and read it when I have time, which will probably be in a few days' time"
And then he subsequently forgets/ doesn't have time/ doesn't feel like reading your paper. So "few" subsequently has a high probability of meaning "infinity", even if it didn't before hand.
If he has forgotten a gentle reminder may help - but if it is either of the other possibilities it will merely be irritating. Critical evaluation of papers isn't the most fun past-time in the world - if he doesn't have much to gain from the exercise, and he is otherwise busy, you are probably all out of luck. It can sometimes be quite difficult to get supervisors to read students' papers - and that's when they are going to be listed as co-author!

Famous professors' email inboxes are constantly overflowing with papers they genuinely want to read, recommendation letters they need to write, and administrative tasks that they have to take care of. I would say the meaning of "a few days" is "as soon as I can".
Since you have e-mailed him twice already, I would not do so yet again. Unless you submitted the paper for publication at a journal this professor edits, he is under no obligation to respond.
You said that you asked him "if the proposition there makes sense". I warn you that this is a bit awkward. It is perfectly fine (and indeed I highly recommend it) to send your work to scientists whom you think may be interested, and to ask for comments. But in most circumstances, it's a bit impolite to ask scientists whom you don't know to check your work.
All that said, I think it's more likely that you'll get a favorable response than not. It is December 11 today, and at most US universities final exams are concluding right about now -- which keeps most professors very busy with helping students and grading exams. Very possibly the professor in question has postponed everything which is (to him) not urgent, but fully intends to reply once exam season is over.

You can't make a conclusion. If you don't hear his response you may send a followup email after few days (2-3 weeks) and if he reply the same I will consider it a polite decline.

Take it at face value but interpret it in the context of the academic calendar where he works.  You wrote "top 10" so my guess is you and the professor are both in the U.S.  At many U.S. universities, grades have to be turned in somewhere around one week from now, I'm guessing.
You could try writing again about three days after grades are due at his university.

As someone who has completed a PhD, I have had a lot of responses like that. Every time, it literally meant it may take a while for them to look into it. In some cases, quite a while, if they're a professor or lecturer you can't really underestimate how busy they are (and then all of a sudden they may have time). If they're not your supervisor then you're probably not their priority, but I would take what they say at face value, they need some time.

The prof sent you a polite reply, and you should certainly thank him.  You can use your thank you note to clarify the situation.  Something like "Thank you very much.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and there is no rush" (if there isn't, in fact, a rush) would give him the opportunity to clarify any misunderstanding.