text:
PhD selection discrepancy
I've got 2 interview offers for a PhD application from 2 different professors (say A and B). Prof.A contacted me regarding the application in mid Sept. and informed me that he'd conduct an interview in mid. Oct while Prof. B contacted me a few days ago and informed that he'd conduct an interview next week.
While talking with Prof. B (via Email) today, I somehow happened to mention about Prof. A and an interview offer from him. So, Prof. B stated that he'd not be able to conduct an interview with me and informed me that I would have to go with either of the professors for an interview.
I don't want to blow my chance for an interview with Prof. B since it'd be extremely risky to just wait for an interview with Prof. A, as the result of an interview with Prof. A is not assured.
I may be chasing two hares at a time here, but I don't want to take any risks here unless they are unavoidable. So, what am I to do now?
P.S.: I've not yet contacted Prof. A regarding my situation yet.

Can you maybe provide some cultural context here? Country and field? In my country and in my field, if a professor refused to interview you because you were interviewing with another professor I would say run don't walk away from that person, but it's possible there are some cultural differences or political issues underlying this.

Are A and B in the same school?

Also, did you state (in your email to professor B) that you had an interview with professor A or an offer from professor A? The word offer often implies a job offer, not an interview offer, and professor B may be confused.

@BryanKrause It's the east. Singapore to be specific.

@Dawn Yes..And also in the same dept.

@user98798 Are they paying for your travel to interview or anything like that? I'm trying to see if there are some reasons that Prof B might say you have to do one or the other that don't involve Prof B being a jerk/not having your best interests in mind.

@Dawn I explicitly stated I had an offer for interview with Prof. A, not a confirmation. There shouldn't be a room of doubt in that regard. I just hope Prof. B is not there in this forum and reading these.

@BryanKrause It's a Skype interview.

@user98798 Just a Skype interview and he's asking to be your one and only?! NajibIdrissi's answer covers what I would have written in my own answer after your clarifications, so I won't bother writing my own. Unless there is some miscommunication here (which you should try to suss out, as Dawn and Najib have suggested; even if you were clear it is possible Prof B misread by reading your message quickly), Prof B sounds like a terrible person to work with. Best of luck to you.


text:
Is it typical for a candidate for a fixed-term, part-time postdoc to be flown long-distance for an interview?
I am a recent PhD in the US and applied for a part-time (65%), fixed-term (2 years) postdoc (official title: "Scientific Assistant") in Germany. They are willing to fly me out for a job talk and interview, paying for two nights lodging, and all transportation expenses.
This struck me as a lot of effort and expense on the part of the hiring institution for such a short-term, part-time position. I expected maybe a Skype interview and requests for reference letters. Is it typical for research institutions to do this for postdoctoral positions in general? Is there something about the nature of this position I'm missing?

Will this be the first interview?

It is my first interview with them (and incidentally my first post-PhD interview, period); not sure whether it's the first one they'll be conducting.

Then that is odd.  They must really want you based on your resume.

Follow-up: I didn't get the job. :\ It was just what I expected---a bit involved for an overseas candidate, but nothing excessive given the circumstances & the fact that they will be putting however-much-money into this position over the two (& possibly three; there's the 'possibility of renewal', as ever) years. They said they always offer to fly everyone they're considering in, for equity, & did a few administrative tricks to get the funds to cover it. Overall it was a good experience, but I'm relieved to find other interviewers only requesting Skype meetings (as much as I love travel!).

I write this answer from a US perspective in biomedical sciences and don't have any specific experience with academia in Germany besides friends who are there.

I would say this is not that unusual for a field with good funding resources and a position for which candidates are in high-demand (especially quantitative fields).
Even for prospective graduate students in the US in my field, it is typical for hosting programs to fly in prospective students and cover their costs during an interview.
What is a bit unusual is that (based on your comment) this is your first level of interview, as it would be more typical to start with a more informal interview over the phone, Skype, etc for a position like this. You would expect that these expenses would only be used for the top 1-2 candidates for a position. However, if the number of applicants is sufficiently low, they might feel like it is necessary to invite anyone that meets their other qualifications based on an application.
However, like hiring in industry, consider that the transportation costs involved are still only a fraction of what it costs to pay an individual to work for two years. Based on other Q&A here at Academia.SE, in-person interviews seem a lot less common in Asia, and maybe more generally in places where the ratio between salary and travel expenses is smaller.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Annotating during a paper presentation at a conference
I am going to present a paper at a conference for the very first time. Given the COVID-19 scenario, that conference is being held online. I have prepared a slide for my presentation. Can I annotate my slide during the presentation to help the audience get a better understanding? My topic is quite complex and full of protocols which I believe I can explain better if I can annotate.

Are you asking if it is technically possible (may depend on the online platform), if it is a good idea, or what? Once a time, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, a number of people wrote their slides live and in person using pens on sheets on the overhead projector - many were quite good at giving talks that way. Much harder to do nowadays, sadly....

@JonCuster was asking about the later one. Thanks for clarification :)

I don't know if it is technically possible, but you can make the slides animated, so that annotations appear just at the right time. General advice, keep each slide simple as possible. In a conference no one is looking for much details, the job a presentation should do is to communicate ideas and results.

What is preventing you from adding the annotations to the presentation PDF beforehand and make them "pop up" in the order you want to? PowerPoint can do that, latex has \pause for that and so on.

I very much recommend putting your annotations into the presentation from the start. You may want to refer back to your slides in a year, or share them with someone - and by them you will not know what you put on them by hand during the upcoming conference. Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/7574/4140

"Annotating" could mean several things. Do you mean to draw and write on the slides (either live or upfront)? That's a nice idea. I actually prefer if it's done live, which makes the presentation quite dynamic. To address the issue mentioned by @StephanKolassa, there might be the possibility to record the talk, either your actual talk or the rehearsal.

A general rule for presentations is to keep the slides clean and use the most important keywords in short sentences. Annotations on top can definitely help. I do not think the rules of a reasonable conference can bar you from doing so.
Be careful though that what you are planning will work. Perhaps a full rehearsal will answer that question for you.
Remember that added layers of complexity (e.g. interacting with your slides using annotations) increase the chances of technical malfunctions, which you might want to avoid. So unless you can do a full-scale test, I would not risk the annotations but restructure the presentation such that it is clear even without annotations.

Many conferences don't put many constraints in the delivery format of a presentation, so from this point of view you're probably allowed to annotate your slides.
From a technical point of view, you have to check whether the conference platform allows one to annotate the slides or not. For instance, some conference platforms require you to upload your slide deck and don't rely on screen sharing. In such a case, annotations may not be possible due to the platform's limitations.
However, many conferences have strict time constraints (e.g. in my field presentations are typically limited to 15-20 min), and annotating the slides typically increases the time needed to deliver a presentation. Are you sure that you would be able to deliver your presentation with annotations within the given time constraints?
Finally, since this is your first presentation, will you be able to annotate your slides with firm hand or will you end up producing wavy lines with imprecise starting and ending points out of nervousness?
In view of the above, regardless of the conference's policy and technical requirements, I suggest you to produce an already annotated slide deck. That is, incorporate the annotations you intend to draw during the conference in the slides with the drawing tools that your favourite presentation software has (or even by hand).

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


text:
Math Undergrad Wants to do Master's of Statistics
BACKGROUND
I am a Canadian who is just finishing my undergraduate studies in mathematics. I enjoy mathematics, but I have recently realized that I would rather study statistics in graduate school, and I am excited by the idea of working as a professional statistician. I really did not take very much related to statistics in my undergrad (intro to probability, intro to statistics, intro to stochastic processes, advanced probability). I did however do very well in my undergraduate math, so I have solid grounding in analysis, and other kinds of math used in statistics. I also have some research experience through an NSERC USRA (canadian undergrad research award).
Those in charge of the stats masters programs at my school said that we could make it work, and encouraged me to apply (and essentially told me I would be admitted). However, while my school is solid comprehensive research university, I do not think that its stats department is all that amazing. But, seeing as I would be a little behind, it is sort of a positive for me that the program is not super-elite. It is late for my to apply elsewhere for stats this year.
GOAL
My short term goal is to have a good experience as a master's student in statistics - I want to be exposed to both theoretic and applied stats and probability. My longer term goal is to work as a professional statistician. However I do not want to rule out research.
OPTIONS

Current School offers an 8-month coursework-only Master's, including decent financial support though a TA-ship. I like this because it is short, and what I am looking for in the short term: learning statistics. While I expressed some doubt about the stats department, I have no doubts that the courses will be of high quality.
Current School offers a 16-month Master's with Thesis, with good funding. This seems better and more comprehensive, however that is an extra 8 months during which I could be gaining work experience. Also, because I do not think my current school's statistics department is so great, I am less inclined to commit to research here.
Take some time, take some extra undergrad courses in stats, apply next year to a wider range of stats schools. I am not a huge fan of this option, as I have grown a little tired of being an undergrad and would like to gain some other sort of experience. It is also makes more financial sense here to study as a graduate student.
See below:

QUESTIONS

Is it possible/advisable to use the coursework [masters] at the current school as a way to learn statistics, and possibly pursue graduate studies elsewhere, perhaps after a period of working? Is a non-research masters an asset at all from the point of view of admissions to other graduate programs?
Because (1) seems convoluted, what are further pros/cons of the above three options that I may not see?

(On a meta note: I think in many ways this question could be applied to any field, I am not asking a whole lot about Stats specifically. So I hope it is considered appropriate, I am not so familiar with SE Academia.)

The biostatistics department and statistics department at my schools has many students who have backgrounds in pure math, and they do fine. I myself got an undergraduate degree in Bioinformatics and math and am doing very well in my PhD biostat program.

Well, my question isn't really whether I would be able to do well, I am definitely confident in my abilities to do coursework. It's more of question about the best way to reach my goal and get a good education whilst doing so.

The good news is that it almost doesn't matter which path you take; you've got sufficient drive and determination, and from your observations about yourself, skill.
You're clearly interested in getting out there and working, which is great. Just remember that the work will always be there (for decades and decades to come), and that your time at school will be finite; try to enjoy it. :)
To that end, I believe Option 2 is a really good option for you, and is the least risky option. TA-ships are fantastic, and if you can score one while being in school, it really helps cut down on financial pressure. Additionally, you're giving yourself time to really develop your own stats knowledge which will help you in either corporate or research environments. Even if your stats department isn't that great, your research is what you make of it; plenty of awesome people have graduated from non-elite universities and have since done amazing things, and it's not unusual to seek a little guidance or insight from people outside your department. Besides, if you're as talented as you sound, being a shining star in a department has its advantages. ;)
Getting to your Question 1, if you finish your Bachelor's while taking extra stats coursework, and then enter the workforce, that's fine, but it then becomes harder to reenter grad school due to various other real-life factors such as having to fully support yourself, possibly getting married (and/or having a kid) which may bind you to some location, and so forth.
Also, maybe your prospective job after Bachelor's will pay for your education, but going to school under those circumstances takes a bit longer, and it also means the school will have to be close to your job (unless it's an online program or whatever). It's just too easy for complications to creep in once you step foot out of school.

Thanks so much for the answer! I just realized that I wasn't clear, my question one was about taking the coursework masters to learn stats rather than undergrad courses. But that aside I think your answer has given me some good perspective!

@mb7744 You're welcome! I'm a mathematician, but not a statistician, so this opinion should be taken with a little salt, but I believe that the Master's coursework (and possibly thesis) will firmly give you the research option you mentioned; keeping only to Bachelor's coursework would give you less of an inroad for that option.

What if I were to use the Master's coursework from my current school as a basis to apply for better master's programs with more stringent requirements? Is that completely unheard of?

I know that sounds misguided, but frankly MSc Stats programs differ massively in focus and style.
My current school has about 9 graduate level stats courses, 4 of which are cross listed as undergrad. Other schools I see have massive variety of options, and neat things like co-op at the master's level, courses in consulting, courses in working with massive data sets, etc.

@mb7744 You can absolutely do that! The only risk you take is being accepted into your favored school's program (and/or getting a TA-ship), but master's coursework from your current school would go a long way to demonstrate your skill and determination, so you'll likely get in where you want to go.

Because I just received a notification that this is a highly-viewed question, I might as well check in 4.5 years later. I took option #2, and ended up with a fantastic supervisor and I very much enjoyed the research. Just as I was finishing the MSc, I found a great a position at a company that I still work for today. I believe a big reason I was able to job was due to the research and computational-statistics experience I gained through the thesis option. Good advice Ken!

Thank you. :) I'm delighted that it all worked out! Live long and prosper. :)

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


text:
Bad experience with my PhD supervisor
Recently, I defended my PhD thesis in one of the universities in this "lovely" world. I was studying in a university out of my country, in a different environment, language, and culture.
During my PhD, I was doing great works .. always motivated and working hard. My supervisor was pleased, and he was telling my colleagues: "Be like him (me)". I have good relations with my colleagues and they were telling me this after their meetings with him.
Unfortunately, despite the good works that we were doing, I was always mad of my supervisor because of his attitude.
He was always talking about morality and life values, but I didn't see any of these in his personality.
He is a very racist person (he thinks that he is anti-racist!) and he was always offending me with his silly jokes. I never told him anything wrong or replied in a bad way to his jokes, but I tried to show him that "I don't like your jokes". Also, when I finish writing up any of my papers, he was telling (asking) me that we have to add X. X is a postdoc working with him, and he is a sub supervisor. Unfortunately, X has never been involved in any of my research works, or even giving any suggestion.
The thing that made my relation worse with him is that: at the last year of my PhD, he asked me to work on a project for him (totally out of my PhD topic) because his postdoc cannot continue. In the beginning, I accepted the idea, but then while he was talking, he said: "if you don't work on this, I can't continue funding you". Actually, this was not the first time he says something similar: he did it during my second year, and he made me working on something for his projects.
At that time, I started working on the project, but I was outraged and upset (because of what he said) .. I didn't finish the work properly (I kept very small things to the Postdoc researcher). Then we had another meeting, and it was a very tense meeting; as a summary, he said that he will stop my fund. This was 5 months before the end of my PhD. In that time, I got an opportunity to work with a company where I did my internship. Actually, he could have stopped my funding during the first 2 months (of the 5 months), but he didn't do it.
After the defence of my PhD, while we were having dinner (a local tradition), he asked me: "why did you refuse my suggestions for more publications when you started working in the company?", I told him that I didn't want due....I mentioned some of the things that made me upset during my PhD (actually a couple of very general points). He didn't like my answer, and he started replying to some of my claims (he became mad). Anyway, we finished the dinner and we left the restaurant in a very uncomfortable way.
My problem now is that:
Soon I will leave the country where I am because I had awful memories in it and I don't want to stay here anymore. So, I was thinking of sending an email to thank him: why?

He helped me to start my PhD by accepting me and funding my
study.
I don't like the idea of leaving without even saying:
"Bye!".

I'm still angry about what I've experienced with him. On the other hand, I feel it's my mistake that I didn't stop his lousy attitude since the beginning.
So, what I want to ask is, do you recommend me to send him a "thanking + Bye" email?

Yes, you should thank him. You don't need to work with him in future, but, as you say, he helped you along. He helped you start your career and you can now be independent. If you did good work under his guidance it is worth a thank you, and you may be well positioned for good works in the future.
There are a lot of racists around, of course, and many of them don't understand what it really means. But your bad experience is now behind you and you were pretty lucky (and strong) to overcome the issues.
But you may need a letter from him in the future to continue your quest. Don't burn bridges that don't need to be burnt.

And the jokes of academics are often not as funny as they think and the worldview they have may not be shared as widely as they imagine.
There are, I suspect, hundreds of questions here from people who are in a bad relationship with their advisor but are not finished and so have serious decisions to make about continuing or leaving. You are lucky now to have that behind you.
Good luck.

Thanks @Buffy .. I"ll do what you suggested.


text:
Can PhDs legitimately claim to be doctors?
I’ve frequently heard people claim that individuals who hold PhDs are not “real” doctors. These people assert that only physicians can rightfully claim this title, and that it’s inappropriate for PhD-holders to use this term.
For some reason, many also think that the MD is much more difficult to attain than a PhD for example in computer science.
So - should Ph.D.s Be Referred To As ‘Doctor?
Ps: currently i am a PhD student and don't know why the question is being devoted!

Related (non-duplicate) question Also on the origin of the term doctor.

The answer is "Yes".

Yes they can legitimately claim that, just not that they are medical doctors (or doctors in any other field they are no doctor in).

The people I know who say this (of themselves) are usually being somewhat sarcastic and say this as a form of irony.

Probable duplicate of, or at least answered by this: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30790/how-can-one-differentiate-between-dr-phd-and-dr-md-or-do/30844#30844

@DaveLRenfro irony?! I am a Phd student and see it is unfair that our load study equally compared to medical students...

@Krebto: That's how the people I'm talking about feel as well, and by "irony" I mean they say one thing but actually mean the opposite.

This is possibly country dependent, but for Germany this is utterly wrong: "many also think that the MD is much more difficult to attain than a PhD" - Medical doctors get the equivalent of a "paper doctorate" thrown after them so they can be called "doctor" as part of their degree, while "real doctors" have to start a doctorate and carry out rigorous research to obtain the degree/academic title. Now other countries may handle this very differently and there this statement may or may not be true.

One of my former colleagues long ago told me:  "The only time I call myself Dr Friedman is when I make a reservation at a restaurant."

@GEdgar it also helps a lot in a competitive housing market when landlords suspect that you might be just another student "working" at a university.

@Krebto I just upvoted your quesiton.

In the modern USA the title of doctor is valid for both medical doctors and holders of PhDs in the US, but particular customs may vary by institution. The general rule of thumb for etiquette is to refer to someone however they wish to be referred to. If you have a PhD that insists they be referred to as doctor it would be very impolite to not do so. Likewise if you have an MD who insists that you do not use their title it would be similarly impolite.
In situations where it is important to avoid confusion it is common to spell it out explicitly. Rather than using the honorific use the explicit degree, for example it is very common for email signatures to look like:
John Doe, Ph.D. in Computer Science
instead of
Dr. John Doe
Similarly, an MD would tend to say:
Jane Doe, MD, Cardiologist
or even
Jane Doe, MD, Ph.D., Cardiology
I suspect that your question has another component, which is essentially whether or not it is "fair" for a Ph.D. holder to refer to themselves as doctor. This requires an assumption that the MD is more challenging to attain than a Ph.D., and that calling oneself a doctor is somehow illegitimately taking the status of a medical doctor. Let me just say that the people who have earned these degrees are generally less concerned about this than those who have not, and that the title someone puts after their name doesn't tell you very much about their individual ability, dedication, or experience.

One of the original meanings for the word "doctor" is teacher or scholar. It literally is derived from  the Latin verb docēre which means to teach. As such, a medical doctor is literally a teacher or scholar of medicine. A Computer Science doctor is a teacher or scholar of computer science. The title "Dr" is just a recognition of level of knowledge that a person has obtained in a giving field through recognized academic challenges.

For Germany the situation should be as follows, IANAL.
If you have your PhD degree from any university as listed in the Carnegie list (find the list here: https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/), then generally you can use the Dr. prefix instead of the PhD abbreviation.
(See FAQ item #18 here: https://www.berlin.de/sen/wissenschaft/studium/abschluesse-und-titelfuehrung/haeufige-fragen/)
This should generalize in my opinion to the whole country.

I would like to refer to a dictionary to answer https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/doctor
The word doctor (in English) can refer to

A physician; a member of the medical profession; one who is trained and licensed to heal the sick or injured. The final
  examination and qualification may award a doctor degree in which case
  the post-nominal letters are D.O., DPM, M.D., DMD, DDS, DPT, DC,
  Pharm.D., in the US or MBBS in the UK. quotations ▼ If you still feel
  unwell tomorrow, see your doctor.
A person who has attained a doctorate, such as a Ph.D. or Th.D. or one of many other terminal degrees conferred by a college or
  university.

Outside of academic circles, the former is the commonly used definition, so without context, "doctor" will be understood as "physician". And thus a PhD who isn't a physician appears to be a "doctor (PhD) who isn't a doctor (physician)" and this contradiction is commonly refered to as "not a real doctor" or "not that kind of doctor".
So I would say referring to a PhD as doctor is technically correct (and might be unambiguous with some context as in "doctor in computer science") but without context you do risk being misunderstood.
For languages other than English I don't have a good overview, but the same overload of meanings occurs e.g. in German ("Herr Doktor" is probably a male physician) while in Italian it is common to refer to your self as "dottore" after the master already (and then afaik the upper case / lower case spelling disambiguates the master from the PhD).

I've encountered this argument before.
Remember, It's not as if the term 'doctor' is protected. Two cases in point:

A two year law degree is called a 'juris doctor'. Newly minted JDs will be quick to remind you that they, too, are doctors.
In parts of the U.K., calling a surgeon a 'doctor' is an insult, as historically the surgeons were barbers (who'd 'doctor you up'), because barbers had the sharp tools necessary for surgery. Many U.K. Surgeons go by 'Mr.'

My advice - relying on titles is pointless. Use your intellectual prowess to impress.
If all else fails, insist you go by 'Professor'....or if in or from Germany, 'Professor Doktor'.

All PhDs are Doctors (specifically, of Philosophy). Not all PhDs are Professors.

Actually in some parts of the world the term doctor is protected. Germany is famous for it -- even people with PhDs from outside Germanu can't just call themselves Dr. Related to that a juris doctor is normally a post-graduate degree, but they don't call themselves doctors based on historical laws that once forbid lawyers from advertising (and so claiming to be a doctor was consider to promotional). Surgeons as I understand it normally complete medical school and become Dr, then when they complete there further training at a surgical college, they become Mister

@LyndonWhite Yes, but only in the UK.

@LyndonWhite if the university is on the Carnegie list, you can call yourself Dr. in Germany with a Ph. D. from a US university.

Only Ph.D holders must be referred to as doctors. Physicians have only bachelors degrees, although the medical degree was divided into two stages in the U.S universities, still, Physicians only have bachelors degree. Doctors are researchers who have finished their dissertations and became scholars in their fields. Physicians don’t write a dissertation and all what they do is to “treat” people from illness, not to “teach” students in universities.
Note:  The word “Doctor” is a latin word that means “I teach”, and it has nothing to do with treatment or medicine.

That is country specific - in the European programs I'm familiar with, the physicians' degree is at least Master equivalent (not bachelor) and it is hard to find physicians who don't stay a little longer to write a dissertation and earn the "Dr. med".

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


text:
it it possible to use the same alogorithm in two different publication?
Currently, I am conducting a social media analysis research and have implemented a training algorithm where it combines various features of set to show that specific classifier works better than others.
The question is, can I use this algorithm in further work? Is it possible to use the proposed algorithm in other research ideas (I am using it now at twitter dataset)-if I apply it to FB dataset will it be considered new contribution?

Yes, even more than two.

Actually, depends the topic. If you use virtually the same algorithm in two datasets, and perform the same analysis, it might not seem very good. Did you think to combine the two works in one paper together?

@PsySp no . I am thinking to work at separate papers. Why it is not good to do so?

Generally, yes.
It would be expected that there is some novel aspect in the second article, but the novel aspect does not need to be the algorithm.
It can be a different type of data (e.g., "bla algorithm applied to detect liver tumors" and "bla algorithm applied to detect stroke"), or a substantially larger dataset (e.g., "preliminary results of bla on 9 patients" and "results of bla on 500 patients"), etc.


text:
paper rejected, submitted to another conference, got accepted again by the first, what to do?
I have submitted my research work for a conference in data science, after two months of review it got weak rejection. So I decided to submit it to another conference (the submission was closed so I contacted the chair asking them if it possible and they reopened the submission system for me because I have a positive record with them and multiple publication for the last ten years). The first conference is A ranked and the other is B.
Now, the first conference contacted me telling me that I can submit my work to their symposium and the paper will be appeared as normal full paper in the final indexing.  My paper now is already under the review process with the B ranked conference. But, I would love to have in my records a publication with the first A ranked conference.
Can I contact the second conference again and ask them to cancel my submission? is such a thing acceptable in academia? because I am really looking to have the record with the first one. I am in my final year in the phd and will not publish anything soon because I am planing to start my thesis soon.

The outcome "weak reject" seems rather unusual. What was the precise wording from the notification? Was it clear that your paper might eventually still be accepted?

@lighthousekeeper the precise wording was rejection from the main track because of three weak rejections...so, its clear rejection for the main conference.

Then your paper was rejected (and not "weak rejected"), and later invited for publication at the symposium. A symposium publication is worth much less than a publication at the main conference. Are you sure that it will be published at the main conference? "Normal full paper" could also be at the symposium. –

@lighthousekeeper thats right, but checking into there last year IEEE digital library record for the main conference track and the symposium track both got credited and indexed as papers in the main conference track. as shown here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/9058428/proceeding

The symposium is unlikely to be ranked; it's a different conference.   Usually, the symposium/workshop is held in conjunction with the flagship conference it is setup to catch weak reject papers, and gain more registration fee.  The assumption is that the authors will make the corrections and undergo another round of review.  The submitted papers are treated as new.

If this would be my field I would (money allowing) go to both conferences. But I feel data science is something different. In all case I would attend and submit to the conference that has reopened the submission for you.

This should not have happened. Concurrent publishing is not a crime nor a sin, but unethical. However, communicating to the editors would make a lot more sense.

In general it is indeed a bad practice to cancel a submission, especially if some days have elapsed and the review process has started. The editor might have already dedicated significant time examining the submission, finding and assigning appropriate reviewers for its topic, etc. It is even possible that he has already sent it to reviewers and that they have already started their review.
In your case, since I understand that you asked for your paper to be reviewed as a favour after the submission system had already closed, it might even be slightly worse, since the editor made an exception for you.
If you are really sure that appearing in the symposium of the first conference is important for you and your career, you can probably indeed ask for a second favour from the second conference's chair. If you do so, I would recommend explaining the situation and apologising quite profusely. I would suggest ensuring that in your explanation it is clear that conference A is a unique and important opportunity for you.
Personally, I would be somewhat annoyed, but I wouldn't consider it unacceptable. Make sure, also, that the chair has no reason to believe that you submitted the paper to his conference while it was still under review for the first one. That would indeed be unacceptable, and could do great damage to your reputation.
Also, before you do this, you should probably make sure that you understand the terms in which you would be accepted into the first conference. Being accepted into the symposium is likely not the same thing as being accepted into the main track; and it might be treated very differently from an indexing or a rating perspective.

One way to deal with this is, to be honest. Tell this immediately to the second one. You can choose or decide upon the further course of action once the first is done.


text:
What is responsive mode in the context of research funding?
I'm about to finish my PhD in the North of Ireland (Belfast), and I am looking into post-doc funding for the first time. Funders seem to use lots of unfamiliar words, and one that puzzles me is "responsive mode." What is responsive mode?

What is responsive mode? Would you please tell us the context?

You are in "the north of Ireland" (Sligo IT?) or Northern Ireland?

I'm answering within the context of UK Research Council funding:
Some Research Council funding is allocated on the basis of specific calls for proposals (aka managed mode): so for example there may be a call to set up a Centre in End-Use Energy Demand, and universities (or consortia of universities) will shape proposals to deliver a Centre in End-Use Energy Demand. As part of the call, criteria will be defined about the sort of things such a Centre should deliver, that will be more specific than the usual - impact, engagement, publications - though they will not go as far as specifying particular research questions. Bid applications will be assessed against the usual generic quality and value-for-money criteria, but also against how well they meet the specific proposal criteria.
However, other Research Council funding is allocated in responsive mode: these proposals are driven wholly by what the applying Principal Investigator wants to research, and as long as it is within the remit of the Research Council, it will be considered, and assessed on its own merits. That is, the assessment will be against general criteria, and whether it is at all on-topic or not for that Research Council; but assessment will not be against how well it meets a pre-defined specification for a narrow research area, because for responsive-mode, that pre-defined specification does not exist.
Here's some guidance from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC):

Grants are awarded in response to unsolicited research proposals in any area relevant to BBSRC’s mission. As a general principle, BBSRC allocates as much research grant funding as possible in responsive mode. You can apply for a variety of investigator-led research activities through responsive mode.  ...
  Applications are assessed by the appropriate BBSRC Research Committee using the standard BBSRC competitiveness appraisal factors.

Responsive mode funding is only available to Higher Education Institutes and Research Institutes, whereas the funding in calls for proposals (managed mode) is available not only to those, but in addition it is also available to other Independent Research Organisations

Thank you for your detailed answer. I am in the north of Ireland and can apply to UK funding councils so your answer is very relevant.

Ah, in that case, and if you're just finishing your PhD, you might want to look at the "First Grant" scheme, as well as "Early Career" and "Future Leaders".


text:
How does getting an undergraduate minor instead of a major affect graduate admissions in the same area?
I'm currently a second year undergraduate student at UCSC well on my way towards a double major in Computer Science and Chemistry. I'm interested in either pursuing a graduate degree in Chemistry (potentially Computational Chemistry) or a job in Software Engineering. I would love to teach Chemistry but Computer Science is something I'm also good at and pays well. My current plan towards graduation is 5 years.
My question is this: how negatively would changing to a Computer Science B.S. with a minor in Chemistry affect my graduate admissions? Doing so would allow me to graduate a year or more sooner and still keep my options open. I've worked two summers of a Software Engineering internship and plan to pursue undegraduate research starting third year. Any other advice?
Thanks!

It would not directly impact your chances at admissions. If graduate school (either MS or PhD) is your goal then tailoring the work you do in undergrad towards working on research projects should be your focus. Talk to professors you like about their work, and see where they need additional support is a great way to start.

Talking to people who are knowledgeable about your specific situation is the best way to get started. Being able to demonstrate you have experience with various research methods and have an inquisitive mind are the best way to really orient yourself towards doctoral programs in my experience. If chemistry is where you want to focus, working with that faculty and getting substantial coursework in that area would help make sure admissions committees understand your qualified in these areas. Sorry, this is a very general response, but given your position it is most useful to know that really just pursuing research opportunities is the most important thing.

Thanks for your answer! With regards to starting research, my current plan is to take an Honors Organic Chemistry lab which allows for investigation of my own topic. I'd then start as a research assistant either in summer or the start of my third year. Would starting earlier be beneficial?

Having only a minor in Chemistry could hurt your chances of admission to competitive graduate programs in Chemistry.  Having a minor in Chemistry should have no impact (positive or negative) on your chances of getting into a competitive graduate program in Computer Science.


text:
Should I grant an extension on an extension?
A student asked for a homework extension due to unforeseen circumstances in their personal life. I am generally accommodating about this type of thing if they come to me in a timely manner, but this student did not follow up until a week after the homework was originally due. (It is online homework, so I have to re-open the homework in order for them to work on it again.) I asked him to email me which sections he missed and he did not.
He spoke with me in person again two weeks later and again I told him that it was fine, but that he needed to email me right away and come to me in a timely manner about these types of things in the future, or else I would not be so accommodating. This was the end of the class week, so I was planning on giving him the weekend to work on these assignments and have him turn them in at the beginning of the next week.
However, he did not email me until the night before our class, so I would have to give him time this week to complete the assignments instead. At this point, the assignments were due over a month ago, so I am wondering if it is reasonable for me to tell him that he is no longer able to complete the assignment since he waited 4 more days to email me.

"I know you don't deserve an F, but it's the lowest grade we have."

This would, to me, seem to depend not on dates and length of delay, but on the reasons behind them. I can easily see deciding in either direction, based on what the student gives for an explanation.
Everything may be perfectly explainable, including not sending emails. Or you could decide that the student was just slacking. But base your decision on the reasons, as best you can determine them, not just the time factor.

This is a good point- I think it boils down to the time factor for me because the student does not have a good reason otherwise!

The answer all depends on why the student was asking for an extension. Are they in and out because their parent is in the hospital, or were they just out with a cold the first time?
I do not think it's ever fair to email and say "you can no longer turn in this assignment," unless you have already given him a hard deadline. It sounds like you didn't explicitly say "Please let me know what sections you missed by Friday, and I will give you the weekend to turn in the assignment." Then you'd have a leg to stand on (lessons for next time!).
I would either a) tell him given the time that's elapsed, you'll drop the assignment for him, if your gradebook allows that; or b) give him a hard deadline, which could be quite short.

I don't think there would be a huge problem if, after an entire month, the instructor finally says "oh had you seriously still not done it? sorry but I need to hand out solutions so its too late now."

@ASimpleAlgorithm That's fair enough. If solutions are typically handed out in this class; using that timeline as a deadline is reasonable. Again, depending on the reason, I'd still suggest option (a) to allow the class to move forward without penalizing some poor student who got caught in something unfortunate.

I do not think it's ever fair to email and say "you can no longer turn in this assignment," unless you have already given him a hard deadline. — I completely agree with this sentence, which is why I always have hard deadlines and I never grant extensions. (I do, however, drop several homework grades, and in extenuating circumstances forgive homeworks beyond this drop budget.)

I have a late assignment policy in my syllabi that usually state something like "any late assignment will be penalized 10% of the total possible points every day it's late". Which means that after 10 days, the assignment is worthless points-wise.
With that said, I generally do grant extensions provided the student explains to me promptly why an assignment is late (via email or in person), and try to work out a reasonable new due date. I find that students who try to game this end up doing poorly anyway, either because they leave the assignment until the last minute, never turn the assignment in anyway, or this is the one assignment they do well on and do poorly on much of the other components of the course.


text:
How to shorten the list of authors in case of joint first authorship?
Articles often put a shortened list of authors at the top of the page (e.g., J Smith et al.).
What is best in case of joint first authorship (for example: John Smith, Jane Doe, ... 5 more authors)?
Should it be "J Smith, J Doe et al." or simply "J Smith et al"?

Can you please clarify whether you mean "two first authors" (as in this question) or just multiple authors?  I think you meant the first, but the answers seem to be assuming the second.

I mean two first authors. Sorry for being unclear.

Some physics papers have literally hundreds of authors (the whole staff at the relevant lab, sometimes). It varies.

.....J. P. A. M. de André, C. De Clercq, et al. (1133 additional authors not shown)

@CountIblis: interesting, but that paper does not seem to have joint first authorship

For things like the list of authors at the top of a page, the authors don't put those into their own manuscript at all: they are added in by the publisher during layout. The publisher will work to their own style guide. That style guide may be based on some combination of tradition, design aesthetics and user feedback.
In those rare cases where the author is responsible for putting these in, here are the rules, in descending order of precedence.

Do what the style guide says.
If that's not clear, ask the editor (for a journal paper) or your supervisor (for a thesis)
If you still don't have a clear answer, do what other recent documents that are most similar to yours have done (so for theses, this would be the most recent theses in your department)
If you still don't have a resolution, use your own aesthetic judgement.


text:
In recent academic history, why has research funding increasingly focused upon large interdisciplinary teams?
As noted in Derek Bok's "Higher Education in America," there is a trend in increased funding for large interdisciplinary research programs since the 1970's (Think NSF MRSEC, for example).
What is the root cause or viewpoint for a shift towards this style of funding, as compared to single-PI research grant? Additionally, if this trend continues, administrators will increasingly pressure their departments into focusing on this type of funding source. Will academia eventually approach a similar climate to a national lab (ie, large teams working on interdisciplinary projects)?

I am not sure the premise is correct, but maybe it is a scheme to reduce the number of applications that must be processed?

Maybe "interdisciplinary" is a direct result of "large".

The initial premise is paraphrased from Derek Bok's book "Higher Education in America," revised edition circa 2013.

Also, to address anonymous physicist, you'd need to define the way in which you mean large. I don't think "interdisciplinary" is a result of large. To address user153812's comment, I have changed the fifth tag from NSF to united-states. However, I'm not convinced that this is purely an american trend.

there was some research publication in which was postulated and confirmed that interdisciplinary is desirable.

I mean, there are plenty of things that indicate interdisciplinary work is desirable but thats also the case. There are also lots of reasons that its undesireable.

Personal experience, and a lot of inspiration from nature (I'm a biologist) suggests that interdisciplinary teams can view a single problem from different perspectives.
This enables teams with varying knowledge to attack a problem from the easiest angle.
For example,
When Canadians faced the problem of snow accumulating and freezing on power lines, men were sent up power-poles armed with poles of their own with a hook on the end to shake off the snow. When they were complaining about how tough the job was to each other (and coming up with pole & climbing related ideas to make the work easier), the secretary to the manager overseeing their work chimed in to say that when she was a nurse in the army, she'd seen the downdraft from helicopters knock objects around with ease.
Her fresh perspective introduced a new line of thought that would not have otherwise been introduced into the problem solving atmosphere.
When you're a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail. When you're a toolbox full of different tools, however......

I think you're answering something like "why are interdisciplinary teams effective?" which is a different question.  To me this doesn't explain why the NSF, say, or many US universities now are so high on interdisciplinary research.  I would guess the real answer is closer to something like:  "oh, that sounds like a big impressive word that we can impress people with."

I agree that interdisciplinary work is common and good. However, funding has historically focused on single PI grants, and now is shifting away. Thus the real question is why we are shifting towards these style grants compared to single PI.

Perhaps because interdisciplinarity is a trending upstream from our innovation-reliant society to our education systems, which are trying to catch up and more properly prepare students for ecosystems that not only produce but require interdisciplinarity. I'll reference a LinkedIn article "Inter-disciplinarity in Higher Education" by Nariman M. to maybe better illustrate my point. PS I have yet to read Bok, so thank you for mentioning his work.

I think your argument, that it helps for interdisciplinary ecosystems, is a decent argument if you mean to imply it is in preparation for the workforce. However, I still find this to be a sort of unsatisfying answer. I feel like I'm still missing something

User2341, may be because I didn't verbalize well the connections, the common threads of interdisciplinarity/interdisciplinary approach from research and its funding to the community, economy at large. I probably relied too much on the reader's ability to deduct my response. Didn't want to be long-winded.

Sorry deduce, not deduct.

I mean potentially, but at this point we are just speculating.


text:
Transferring out of Rank 1 PhD program to another PhD program
I'm a first-year at a top-ranked institution in a PhD program that I have not had a formal background in. My PI is really great. The only real flaw I've seen so far is that his students take a while to graduate (most seem to have taken 6-6.5 years...). But I enjoy the research, even though I've just barely started.
The problem is more with the department and classes. I'm truly uncertain if I will be able to pass (i.e. >= B) one of the required classes I'm in, and another class I'm taking I'm pretty much certain I will have to drop (before the deadline) because I just don't have the background necessary for it even though I was told I would. I've been studying for the upcoming exam for weeks, but I still feel very behind where I need to be. The fact that if I get below a B I have to wait a year to retake it is also off-putting. I don't think I could wait a year knowing my future hinges on one exam.
I really want to do a PhD though, both for my personal and career-related goals. I love research and being involved in that community. I don't love this stressful environment where professors seem to have no issue kicking you out.
If things don't go well, is it possible to leave this program to start anew at another program? I know this would burn all bridges here, but I'm just trying to brainstorm my options. I'm just not really sure what to do.
Of course, I will wait and see how I do on my upcoming exam, but I just frankly don't think it will go well. Does anyone have any advice? This all makes for a very stressful situation. I'll just keep studying for now.

You wanted to go to this top university, knowing that the competition will be fierce. But dropping out although you like the research and your advisor because you find coursework difficult? This is absurd. Dedicate fully to studying and pass the courses with the minimum required grades and then see what you want to do.

Thanks for the feedback. I realize it may be a bit premature or unfounded. I will continue to put my time in and aim for the best I can do. My classes are graded just based on one exam, so it's an all-or-nothing approach, really.

Doing a PhD at a top university is hard. Courses are really a tiny part of it. Just study hard and you will pass it. But more importantly: research is usually much more difficult than courses - if you think about dropping out because of a couple of tough courses what will happen when you reach the really difficult parts of the PhD? Maybe that is what you should ask yourself.

If you like your PI, and feel overwhelmed (which isn't necessarily uncommon during course work), talk to him/her. Say exactly that, express your enthusiasm but that it is harder than you expected, and ask for recommendations. Switching school is difficult anyway; don't run at the first obstacle.

Just to share one quote that has helped me a lot. By Earnest Hemingway: "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self." Do not compare yourself with other students in the program, that is a recipe for being demoralized. Instead constantly think about how being in the PhD program has increased your knowledge and benefited yourself in various ways. Good luck!

Right around the first midterm of every course I feel like just throwing it all away (I have multiple degrees and working on another one right now). It's the same feeling I have right before I go out to a party that I want to go to but will have a lot of people.  I think it's just anxiety.  What's the worst case?  You have to take the course again?  You're concerned that you don't have enough background?  Think instead of all the cool stuff you still get to learn.  I had a CS professor who asked the class,  "who has heard of 3-SAT?"  No one raised their hand.  You could tell the excitement in her voice.  "I get to be the person who teaches you 3-SAT!"  Think of it that way.  Someday you will learn 3-SAT, and a million other great things.  Now go study!


text:
Is it ok to get an external help for PHD dissertation?
I study architecture. I came up with a research topic where I needed to create a tool to test it with a sample. I have all the necessary data, however, I need a programmer to code the tool for the sample to use. As I said, I have all the data that I can provide the programmer with. Is it ethical to seek such help or should I do it all myself?

I would think in architecture it's ok, as long as you attribute it ... you are doing architecture, not programming.  Of course, if you learn it yourself, it'd be a big plus for your career.  I'd ask your advisor, or some other trusted entity in your department, however.

Why couldn't this result in a publication with the programmer as a co-author?

@Anonymous wouldn't it be more suitable to mention them in acknowledgment? Co-authoring in architecture when you are a programmer seems off.

@Qise Judgment call, I guess, on how substantial the contribution is.  (And whether it's work for hire, I suppose.)  But if statistical analysis can warrant co-authorship, software contributions certainly can too.  At least in principle.

Are you doing computational design, building science, etc.. or History of architecture.  The field is very broad, and depends on your location and discipline. there are areas that would be more like data science, and you are asking someone to make a program to do the analysis for you.

Before I retired, I was a statistical consultant and I often worked with people who were writing their dissertations. I always told my clients to make sure it was OK with their mentor and their committee. None reported having a problem.
I can't see why it would be a problem to hire a programmer for help in your situation; after all, a professional architect might do so. But it's always good to check.

In general you can ask for help in research. For a dissertation, however, local rules may override the general one. Your advisor should provide the best guidance.
There shouldn't be any issues as long as you provide the intellectual content, not just the data, but the type of analysis that drives the programming. If the programming becomes a creative act, however, there could be a problem.
And you will need to give an acknowledgement of the help in the dissertation and any resulting publication.
If you have some programming experience, however, an alternative might be to provide the code and have someone more experienced check it. Or give you some initial guidance in structuring it. You probably need to avoid the situation where the contribution of another rises to the level of co-authorship, which is an issue for a dissertation. But your advisor can best guide you here.


text:
I have 4 semesters of terrible grades from 6 years ago due to epilepsy. Do I have any chance at still making it into grad school?
8 years ago, I had a brain injury that caused me to start having seizures on a daily basis. The problem is that they were not typical, it just looked like I would faint, and then I wouldn’t be able to speak or move for 5 minutes after. Because of this, I went undiagnosed and was not referred to a neurologist for 4 years. I still went to school, and my memory was NOT what it once was, and my brain could not comprehend a thing. I kept going to class though, I was raised to finish anything I had started, and even though I studied and studied, I still failed a couple classes, and the rest I got C’s and D’s in. Before my brain injury I had A’s and a couple B’s. The next semester was the same, C’s, D’s, and an F. I dropped my course load to half the next semester hoping maybe with less info I’d be able to comprehend things again, but no. I gave up on school after 4 and a half semesters (One of those being a summer semester), and I finally got referred to a neurologist after telling my dad how bad my seizures had gotten, and he stepped up to the plate and advocated for me. My neurologist was able to diagnose me within 5 minutes looking at my EEG. I haven’t had any seizures in 4 years, unless I become extremely ill which is almost never, and I’ve even made the Dean’s list the last 2 semesters, and my GPA has been good, at my university it’s at a 3.68. But that previous university that I had epilepsy at is barely above a 2.0. I submitted my transcript, and a personal statement explaining what happened, but I’m just so worried all of my hard work is for nothing because of that stupid transcript. Do any of you think I still have a chance to get in, or am I doomed?

Does this answer your question? How are Ph.D. applications evaluated in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students? Am I likely to get into school X?

And if is doesn't, your question is far too dependent on individual factors to be a fit here.

Wow, your doctors failed you very badly.

They absolutely failed me. They tested me for drugs (ive never even thought about doing drugs my entire life, I rarely even drink alcohol), and accused me of faking it because they didn't see anything in my CT (you wouldn't be able to because epilepsy is electrical misfiring in the brain). It was so degrading truly the worst years of my life.

This is a textbook example of a case where any competent decision maker would disregard the period of bad grades. The relevant aspects are:

You have an identified reason beyond your own control for how the bad grades came to be.
The underlying problem is fixed, it shouldn't have a significant impact on your future performance.
You already have evidence for your post-problem-fixing performance.

Of course, there is still a remaining risk that an individual application could fail because it gets filtered out by GPA before a competent decision maker looks at it; or that the decision maker isn't competent and maybe has some prejudice against people affected by neurological issues, etc. But I hope that this is a small risk, and that your overall chances aren't diminished too much.

Thank you so much   im really hoping they'll be able to see how hard I've worked at overcoming everything and that I'm a good student now. Fingers crossed


text:
How to cite sources from the same author with conflicting last names?
I'm using the APA citation style. The author in question is Spanish. In one paper, he uses the format "John Forbes". In the other, he uses "John Forbes Nash". It feels weird to cite two works from the same author using different last names ("Forbes, J.", and "Nash, J. F.").

If I correctly understand Spanish names, this author's surname is "Forbes Nash" and so the second citation should be "Forbes Nash, J."

Is it clear in the John Forbes Nash paper that only Nash is used as the surname and not Forbes Nash together?

@BryanKrause No. But it looks like he omits his actual last name from most publications. The one with the full name is actually a doctoral dissertation.

@Wood There's no "actual last name" here.

Official names in Spain and Latin America consists of two last names, one from the father and one from the mother, e.g. Gomez y Sanchez. The latter can be omitted to conform to the prevalent naming scheme in the literature. You adopt APA by using the "first" last name, i.e. Gomez in my example.


text:
University affiliations are notified when they are inserted?
I'm having trouble inserting affiliation. My master's dissertation has been completed and I have graduated from university. I want to publish an article out of my dessertaion however my supervisor does not approve since my research has political factors and he does not want to get involved. If I affilaion to my university without mentioning my supervisor's name, there is a chance that my university won't approve it since the supervisor's name has to be included in the article. The university has the right to claim its' right if I don't put my university as affiliation and put independent researcher, since that was actually my affiliation at the time. How should I proceed?
Does my university have a chance of not getting notified if I put its' name?

I doubt a journal will do any checking of your affiliation listing.  (Just make sure the email address you provide actually works to contact you.)

Thank you. What about my university? Is it notified after publication?


text:
How can i shorten the link to my supplementary material inside the paper?
I have some supplementary materials for my paper, including graphs and videos, which are saved on Figshare. I have included a URL link to these materials in my paper. One reviewer has requested that I make the URL shorter and more easily accessible. I need a suggestion on how to do this. Should I use a URL shortener service or put the Figshare link in the references?

I think putting the Figshare link in the references would be better than using a URL shortener service like bitly.
There is also https://shortdoi.org/, which would work if you have a DOI from Figshare. This service might be more permanent than other URL shortener services. But you might need to make changes to the supplementary materials before the paper is published, so you should check whether this will be possible. For example read this: https://figshare.com/blog/figshare_new_features_Get_DOI_or_private_sharing_link/135
Or you could explain the issues to the reviewer and tell them you will make a shorter link when the paper is accepted for publication (in this journal or a different journal).

Another option could be to create a GitHub repository, and link to it in your paper. It's commonplace to add links to GitHub repositories in computer science.


text:
If a professor says he will not fund my internship as it will be my first visit, how can I convince him politely?
I contacted a professor in a foreign university for a possible research internship in his lab. He is willing to accept me as an intern, but has stated that since he barely knows me and it is the first time I will be working under him, he will not provide any financial support.
I have read his publications, his areas of interest match with mine, and I believe that his papers were among the most exciting ones I have read so far. Being an undergraduate, I have limited funding of my own and I don't want to miss this opportunity because of lack of resources.
Since he mentioned 'will not fund' instead of 'cannot fund', I feel that there is some scope to convince him. Can someone advise me regarding what I should say to do so, without being rude? I would appreciate any help.

I feel that there is some scope to convince him. — Nope.

what's the duration of stay (e.g. how much money you'll need)? What are your and target countries? Are there people in that lab from your home country?

I think you're reading too much into his specifc wording. He said he won't fund you. That's the end of it.

It may help to look at this from the professor's point of view:

You are not a student at his university (or even a citizen of his university's country), so internal research grants are not an option (indeed, he may face some backlash for hiring a non-student if research slots are limited).
You are an undergraduate, so your ability to be useful to him is very limited, especially at first as you are ramping up. (Undergraduates generally have limited time and skills compared to grad students and post-docs).

Given this, his position is quite reasonable: if you want to work "for free", fine; otherwise, this won't work out.
To change his mind, you need to reverse one of these assumptions:

You can find a pot of money (e.g., a scholarship) and ask for his support in applying for it
You can prove that you are really useful for the lab, and that paying you a meager salary is more cost-effective than other options. But, for most undergraduate students, this will be an impossible sale, and the professor will quickly tire of saying "sorry, no."

In short: I really don't think you'll be able to convince him. Your best bet is to look for scholarships or other funding. If that doesn't work out, you should tell him honestly that while you appreciate his offer, and would certainly accept it even with a modest stipend, you simply cannot afford to travel to and live in the foreign country with no income.

i would add few points: there might be sources of funding available in OP's country for "work overseas and come back home" type of research. Also, some universities might be able to provide limited support if professor vouches for the student.

He does not know you. He does not know how well you work. He would have to give the money to you, who comes with unknown background, rather than to a student from his course who he knows is capable.
Now, why would he do this? Interns are often (not always, of course) a time sink. If he accepts you for the internship, then do avoid trying to create a funding sink, when it is clear that he does not intend this to happen.
If he already said "No" on funding, do not push the matter. It will look rude, no matter which words you use.

Never work for free, unless its for a charity or a noble cause.

"... but has stated that since he barely knows me and it is the first
  time I will be working under him, he will not provide any financial
  support"

This is clearly a red flag. Look for some other internship or better not do anything than accepting this offer.
Had he stated that he did not have money to fund, then it would be a different scenario, but still I would say not work for free, but you could ask him to support you with a recommendation letter for a possible external funding source that you had identified. Anyway this is not the case, so my advice is , do not accept this offer.

It is not working for free, but for education and points for CV. A university internship is a give and take, and rarely do the professors get something substantial out of it, in the best case, a potentially interesting candidate for the future. I remember many years ago a bunch of interns in an institution on a 2-month program; the hosts were surprised that one of them ended up developing a nontrivial and actually useful piece of software. The others were effectively just hanging around, trying out stuff (no, they were not lazy or weak, but the knowledge offset to be productive was high).

yep, OP is not talking about "job for free" offer

@CaptainEmacs : Unless you are paid in cash, its free.

@user102868 If cash is your only measure, I understand that OP wants to profit from education by their professor of choice for free since they never say that they are going to pay university fees?

@CaptainEmacs If the internship is so pointless that the professor gets nothing out of it, then why should anyone care if it's on a CV then? That's a failure of interviews/screening processes (or if it takes so long to be productive, largely a waste of time), and shouldn't be an excuse for not adequately compensating for performed work.

@hichris123 As I said, it might be that it is to find out if the student might be a candidate for a later PhD, or can dabble a bit in a noncommittal mini-investigation (which may give some leads with a good student). Some profs also have other reasons for internships. Note that I always advocate to students to accept only funded PhD positions; an internship is not on that level and (at least in the country I am) there is hardly any funding source for these types of positions, either.

@user102868: unless the university gets more out of it than it puts in in terms of support, it's not work. This is the prof already agreeing to work for the student for free, and the student wants to prof to pay for the privilege!

@hichris123 The idea is that more time goes into the training than the prof actually saves, especially since he will probably more efficient doing them himself. But why wouldn't training be useful on a CV?


text:
How valuable are poster presentations for new Ph.D. student?
I have submitted my first paper in a very top conference, but the paper was accepted in the poster section instead. I am ok with that, as the reviews were very helpful.
However, is it interesting to travel (it is far from my workplace) to do a poster presentation? I have never done such a presentation as I just finished my first Ph.D. year, but I believe it would be interesting to meet people and have some feedbacks. I am just afraid that people will go through the poster and not ask questions, so the work would have been done for "nothing". I still hesitate because the conference is very good in my field.
Thanks for your feedback.

One of the big purposes of conferences is honestly just being there and networking.  If the costs are covered or you can cover them, I would say go.  What does your advisor say?  (Assuming you have one)

I am waiting to meet them :D

some conferences have special sessions for PhD students.  One I went to would actually pair up students with an established researcher from another university, provided the student put together a poster on  their research in general.  Check out everything you can about the conference and see if there's anything like that.

Ok thanks for the info. I know that there are a Ph.D. forum and Ph.D. sessions also. I will e-mail one of the committee members, may be useful.

just as an example: http://educationaldatamining.org/edm2019/call-for-papers/ scroll down for the "Doctoral Consortium".

It depends on your field of research.

Computer Science.

A lot worth indeed

Do I assume correctly that you are a student and have not finished your PhD?

@Buffy "I just finished my first Ph.D. year"

In fields I'm familiar with, you should think of posters as a personal and professional development experience - they are not something you get 'credit' for. No faculty member would be hired because of all the posters they had on their CV. So it's something to do to learn and grow and develop yourself and ideas. Just don't be tricked into putting all your effort into "easier" things (like posters, workshop papers, etc) and think you don't need to contribute to the primary venues.

@TommiBrander, yes, but it is a bit ambiguous, given the title (which I've now updated - I hope accurately)

It depends on how well the poster session is organized, and on the culture in your discipline (do people show up, do they engage with the people next to the poster or just do the pro forma lap past all posters and leave again, etc.). So there is no single answer to this question.
However, I come from a discipline that puts little value on poster presentations, and I disagree. For me the poster presentations are the ones that have been most productive. In a poster session there is much more room for me to interact with the participants, while in a presentation it is me talking followed by one or two questions. It is the interaction (questions) from the audience that tells me if my argument is clear, if I made any mistakes, if there are some interesting angles I have missed, if there is another group that does interesting complementary work, etc. etc. So I have received a lot more interesting feedback from poster presentation than from oral presentations. Also, if a part of my argument is unclear, it typically takes a bit of back and forth to pin down where the exact problem is. In a oral presentation there is typically little room for that, but such a conversation is perfectly natural for a poster presentation.
So my suggestion is to ask someone who has attended that conference before whether the poster session was half-way decent (not 7 in the morning on the day after the conference diner, 20 minutes walk from the main venue, parallel to lunch which was served on another location, or other disasters). If there are no disasters, then a poster presentation is probably well worth it.

Thanks for your answer and apologize for the late reply. The poster session will happen from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM, for 3 days. I also had the opportunity to re-submit my paper to another conference, that happens at the same place / same day. So I will probably go in any case and do both.

I am in a field with a pretty strong "poster session" culture. At a major conference poster session, you will find not only grad students, but well respected scholars presenting their research in poster format.
To be fair, poster sessions always align with 1:00-2:30 after lunch dessert time or 5:00-6:30 cocktail hour. So in essence, its a chance for doc students to network and present their research in a casual environment. For established scholars, its a casual place to chit chat about their latest project while enjoying a glass of wine or piece of cheesecake.
This is not the norm across all disciplines though. I have been to conferences where a poster session was akin to a throw away presentation where no one really showed up, even some of the authors.
My recommendation is to ask someone who has been to the conference to get a feel of what the poster session is like.

Thanks a lot for your words! I will definitely go as I will submit my work to another conference that happens in the same place and the same date as the other one.

Attending your first conference as a PhD student is a great opportunity to get acquainted with how conferences work in your field, to witness how your senior colleagues interact with each other, to learn what other people are doing in your area and identify new emerging and trending topics. I think this would be a great opportunity for you even if you didn't have anything to present. But since you have a poster presentation, on top of all the above you may get to present your work to an audience and maybe establish interactions that may lead to useful advice or even a collaboration further down the line.
It is true that poster presentations limit the exposure of your work compared to talks, but I think you should not worry about this at your current career stage.

A poster session presentation is a very useful way to introduce yourself to a conference.  A talk is higher profile, but also higher risk.  You should certainly WATCH a half dozen conference presentations before trying to DO one, and having a poster at a conference is a great mechanism to do so.

Huh? Are you saying that you shouldn't submit a great paper to a conference if you haven't ever been to a conference before, because you might end up giving a bad talk? This is terrible advice. If you've never been to a conference before and you have to give a talk, get advice from colleagues or advisors who have, and give two or three practice presentations before you go. You'll be fine.

@PeterShor -- my answer is to the student that asked the question, and is certainly influenced by my assessment of that student's state of preparation -- and for THIS conference, where a review panel has assigned the paper to a poster session.  THIS STUDENT should use the experience of the poster session to learn the ins and outs of conference presentations.  "You should" is not the same as "One should".  Would you advise this student to bypass this conference?

Absolutely not. But you should is very misleading language.


text:
What is the impact factor of EPJ Web of Conference?
The journal EPJ Web of Conference is indexed in many databases: DOAJ, EBSCO, CAS, SCOPUS, etc., but I cannot find its impact factor. Does anyone know it?

What an awkward name for a journal. It sounds made up to me.

@CapeCode It is a real journal though.

According to their Homepage this journal is supposed to be listed in Clarivate Analytics' Databases, Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports, but I cannot find it there. The are some EPJ Journals indexed in WoS. The one you are looking for is apparently not. The only EPJ journal indexed in the JCR is EPJ Data Science by SpringerOpen. As EPJ Web of Conferences seems not to be indexed in the JCR at the moment, it should not have an Impact Factor.

Thank you! I also looked at these databases without finding anything useful.


text:
PhD problem: a new student has the same idea as me
I am in second year of my PhD. I have a plan for my second paper, I did a full scale literature review etc. But then I put it on hold to finish my first paper.
A new student started this term and is coincidentally pursuing the idea for my second paper!
I highly doubt we can both have the same paper.
I know that co-authoring is a possibility. But, is there grounds for me to argue that she should find a new topic, instead of me. As it will mean that I wasted a large chunk of my first year on this topic.
We plan to use data for the same country, which means that we will ultimately end up with the same statistical model, because the data available is not the best, so there is not much leeway on what model I use.
From what the student has told me, her statistical plan (is the same as mine), which is also the popular method in the literature field.

What does your supervisor say?

She is yet to give her opinion on it, she said she would think about it.

Plenty of people have the same ideas, but this rarely bring to the same papers. A paper is not only about the idea, it is (mostly) about how the idea is pursued and developed, and this rarely happens to be the same (not even if you purposely work together).

Research ideas are generally not owned by anyone, so you do not have grounds to ask the student not to work on the idea, unless they obtained the idea through unethical means such as hacking into your email or eavesdropping on a conversation between you and your advisor. With that said, talk to your advisor is clearly the best way to figure out how to proceed.

In my opinion, if you gonna work completely independently, then both papers will have its value and it will be even better for the "idea". Who know what will be the conclusion? Of course it would be better if you both won't know about each other, but I think its fine like it is.

The problem lies in the fact that we are both planning to use data for the same country. If it was the same idea applied to a different country, then the problem is less important. But if we are working on the same country, we might end up drawing the same conclusions. Thank you for all your comments!

@Kelly has the issue been resolved, if so it would be useful information how it turned out (hopefully well!).

My supervisor took the view of some here, that the collaboration element or the learning from another similar project is beneficial. But he did say that it is better to put my idea forward before she does hers, to reduce any potential future conflicts, because I got there first I guess. To make it more complicated, I have become very good friends with the student, so it's a weird situation, because feel I can't share my ideas with my friend! In the next academic year, that's when any problems will come to the surface, I will reedit the post if there's any significant outcomes

You should probably talk to your advisor and possibly arrange a meeting with the other student, her advisor, your advisor and yourself. You need to sit together and discuss how your work and her work are going to differ, because nobody has anything to gain from two competing PhD students undermining each other within the same research group. Once you have fixed boundaries, you will be free to go your own way and collaborate on the common parts, which will benefit both of you.

+1 I really enjoyed reading your good answer. Thank you.

+1. Handled well (openly and collaboratively) this could be a win for everyone. By bringing extra skills to the project, and having someone to refine each others ideas, you're likely to produce more, better papers.

If possible, co-authoring is a great way to get more publications for less work.  So long as you trust the abilities of your coauthor, that is - do consider that as well :)

I have seen that research fields are a vast territory. I am sure that if you arrange a meeting there will be a lot of ideas and aspects of the problem to explore. Maybe it's to soon to say that the other student "has the same idea" as you do.

Your professor is your god on this one.

You come to him with wisdom and patience, and not with wrath.
You tell him:

this is the situation (describe).
you tell him/her that you will do whatever he/she tells you.
you ask him/her what to do.

You do exactly as your professor says. No more and no less.

Professors are not gods. They are humans, usually rational, that can have a friendly conversation and both argument their opinions and listen to your arguments.

authors: 2021果冻传媒_2021果冻传媒-免费完整版片

authors: 一级免费录像_一级免费录像免费在线完整版片


text:
Contacting multiple potential supervisors at the same department?
I am interested in topic X, and I would like to find a supervisor for that topic. At one particular uni, there are quite a few people interested in my topic, and I need to find out who might be a fit and whose interests are maybe not so aligned with mine.
Should I just message all of these people at the same department? Would it potentially reflect bad on me? I am also worried that in case two of these people are interested, I am facing a dilemma when applying.
How should I proceed, how do these things usually work?

TL;DR: You should contact all of the possible supervisors at the same time and ask for a meeting or a call. And you should be completely open about the fact that you contacted multiple advisors.
Why:

If you contact one after another this gives (possibly) a bad impression for everyone.
I understand that you would like to prevent the dilemma of multiple advisors being interested but this dilemma will show up anyways once you have chosen a advisor and started the work.
You do not want to be disrespectful but you are faced with a decision. Everyone should understand your dilemma and should appreciate your efforts to be as fair.
You should be honest to yourself. While I do support your way of thinking you are causing this dilemma yourself because you want to have the choice.

I would think that the etiquette will differ greatly across the world, so I don't know how well it is received that you would like to have a choice/control here. However, I think it is totally understandable and a good advisor will also understand your intent and process.


text:
Is there a difference between writing a recommendation letter for MPhil programs & PhD programs?
What I mean is, are there cases in which a professor might decline writing are letter of recommendation for a PhD program, but would accept writing such a letter for a student applying to a MA or MPhil programme? Is the professor seen as vouching for the student more, when he writes a letter for a PhD program than when we're talking about MA or MPhil programs? Or is there virtually no difference?

A professor might decline to recommend a student for a PhD program if they don't think the student can succeed. The same professor might recommend the student for a lesser degree, such as a MA or MPhil, if they think the student can succeed at that.

There may be a distinction between how letters are written for a primarily course-based graduate program and a (presumably more advanced) primarily research-based one.  However, in most cases, it would not be a great difference.  Qualifications such as intelligence, knowledge of the subject area, and reliability/maturity are important for both types of graduate programs.  Most letter writers would probably discuss these issues in similar terms whether the applicant wants to get into a course-based or research-based program.
On the other hand, there are differences between what a letter writer will emphasize when a student is applying to different kinds of programs.  When a student is applying for a research-based program, it will help to have letters from mentors who have worked with the applicant in a research environment, and such letters will carry a great deal of weight.  However, there are almost always going to be several faculty members who can write letters about a student's classroom performance, while far fewer (and often none) who can have worked with a student on research.
There are, moreover, some situations where a faculty member might have no problem recommend a  student for one type of program, but be more hesitant to recommend a student for other programs.  If the student has actually demonstrated that they are good in the classroom but have also demonstrated problems working in a research environment, a recommender might not feel that the student is not ready for a research-based program (like a British Ph.D. program) yet; however, this very seldom happens.


text:
Can I remind a professor that I submitted a "good" essay in her class? (LOR request)
I would like to ask my former professor for a reference, I'm not sure how to formulate it and am worried the professor won't remember me. I submitted a good essay in her class though (got an A).
Can I write:

Dear Professor,
I studied with you 2 years ago, I don't know if you
  remember. In any case, I submitted a good essay in your class and
  wanted to ask you for a letter of recommendation?

A better outline might be somehting like:

Dear Professor Smith,
I am planning to apply to Teleportation programme at the University of
  Wonderland for my graduate studies. They require two reference
  letters, and your area of interest is related to the programme I am
  applying to.
Would you please be kind enough to write a letter of recommendation?
I have taken your course Introduction to Supernatural Incidents (ISI
  101) in 2016 - 2017 Fall semester, and you have noted that one of my
  assignments were outstanding.

Keep in mind that if you suspect that the professor wouldn't even remember you, it is better not to ask that professor for a letter of recommendation, because chances are they are going to write a mediocre letter.
Why did I pick this outline
Because first of all, the reason for you writing a mail should be explained at the first sentence. An avarage professor mailbox receives around 100 mails per day. Thus, they decide whether or not to read the full mail in a few seconds.
The actual reason for such mail is your application for graduate studies, and you give solid reasons for the letter of recommendation. Note that in your outline, the letter of recommendation is just mentioned. It seems like you wanted to remind the professor that you were his student, and handed in a good essay.
Another reason is, the punctiation and language. Although overly-formal emails are not good, using a proper language helps.
To sum up, the professor wants to know three things very clearly, and as soon as possible:

Why are you writing this mail?
What do you want from me?
Why would I grant your wish?

thanks a lot. I don't think he will remember me immediately from my name, but I think that if I remind him of the essay I wrote, he will probably remember. Do you think that's a bad strategy?

He probably had more dozens of good essays in past two years. But maybe it would be helpful if you got A from that course. It is a nice justification to write a LOR based on the semester grade.

Thanks. Could you also explain what makes your outline better? I would just like to understand why you structured it the way you did / what's your thinking behind it.

@J.Miller I have edited my answer to respond your comment.


text:
If I leave mid-year, am I still eligible for summer pay?
I'm on a what appears to be a 12 month contract (Sept.- Aug.)  While we only work 9 months out of the year, the standard academic job year, we are paid over 12 months.  Well, I am now leaving my post mid-year and thus think I am entitled to half my salary because I worked half the academic year.  The administration says that I'm only entitled to one-third (because I only worked one-third of the calendar year).  As a result, I'm losing close to $7000.  Has anyone ever run into this?  Do you happen to know any sources I can cite?

Being cynical, it's not "are you eligible for", but "will you get", and the answer is surely "no".

It depends on if you are on a 9 month contract, a 9 month contract paid over 12 months, or a 12 month contract. Further, it depends on what your contract says about leave notice. Only you and your administration know what your contract says.

so, we can't ask questions asking for opinions in stack exchange? people ask because people need help..

I've run into this issue many times while I was serving as a department chair at a large US university. If your university's academic year salary system is similar to the standard one used at US institutions (which by your description it sounds like it is) then your analysis is correct, and your administration is wrong.
The point is that paying your salary over 12 months is nothing more than an accounting trick to spread out your salary (paid for 9 months of actual work) over the 12 months of the year. The reasons why this is done (as far as I know) are: 1. tradition, 2. health benefits, 3. the psychological convenience to faculty of being paid each month and being continuously employed, and 4. possibly other advantages involving things like taxation and labor law.
However, the trick is irrelevant to the fact that you performed 50% of your assigned duties for the year. It therefore stands to reason that you need to be paid 50% of your annual salary. I don't have any sources to cite, but this is just common sense.
I can also say from my experience that this discrepancy between the schedule of payments to faculty employed on a 9/12 basis and the schedule of work they are performing causes a lot of confusion, even among experienced administrators: whenever someone joined or left the department in the middle of the academic year, some calculations needed to be done to figure out how to make the salary figures work out, and people would get confused and sometimes require a bit of gentle persuasion to get to the correct answer. Thus, Hanlon's razor might apply here, and it's definitely worth going back to the administrators and trying to make them see the light. Good luck!

In the US, many universities pay the nine-month (or academic-year) salary in twelve equal monthly installments so that faculty who are not teaching in the summer (or do not have research grants that pay salary in the summer) do not have to starve during the summer. (Those who teach in the  summer or have research grants get additional salary for this work, over and above the 12 equal installments). The battle that faculty members are adults who are fully responsible for their finances and so should be paid their academic-year salary in nine equal monthly installments (and be responsible for putting away money for expenses during the summer when they won't be receiving a paycheck) has been lost a long time ago.
If you quit after one semester (half-year), you will likely receive a lump sum upon leaving equal to the amount that you would have been paid over the summer. Each month that you worked, you got 75% of what you "should" have been paid (i.e. one-ninth of your academic-year salary) while 25% was put away in your name for the summer. If you had worked for all 9 months, the university would be holding 9x25% of your "monthly salary" which would be doled out in three 75% chunks over the three-month summer, that is, your "monthly salary" would be the same 75% that you were getting all year long.  Now that you worked for only 4.5 months, the university has put away 4.5x25% for you for the summer, and you will get that money when you leave. It will be little over one-ninth of your academic-year salary.

Thanks Dilip!  I completely agree.  Alas, my administration does not.

Read your contract carefully. If you don't find the information, you should contact your worker's union.
Just for information: In my country (in Europe), there is something called the 13th and 14th salary (twice a year, you get an additional salary). Everywhere where I worked so far, if you work only, say, 5 months, you would get an appropriate share of these extra salaries (i. e. in this case, 5/6 of a normal salary).
However, I don't understand your summer salary system enough to be sure if it is the same concept. (If you would have to work only 9 months and would get payed for 12 months, it would only be fair to get payed for 12x/9 months if you work x months in my opinion).

I do not think the Summer pay OP means is the holiday allowance in EU. He says he worked for 6 months but 3 months were summer months and thus he will receive compensation for 3 months (because summer months do not count)

If they worked for 3 months (plus 3 summer months without work), then they should receive 12*3/9=4 month's payment. Did I sum this up right?

I think that the question has nothing to do with 13th-14th salary

Of course not, but in my (naive) imagination a fair procedure should be similar: If you leave early, you get the corresponding share of the 13th salary or the summer salary.

To further clarify, I don't believe the OP is saying they worked for three summer months. They worked fall semester; one third of their teaching pay was held to be payed out during the non-teaching summer term, as discussed in another answer. The key question seems to be whether their administration structured the contract such that they withheld-for-summer pay reverts to the university if the faculty member leaves before the summer months (which would be an abnormal and questionable construction).

I totally agree with you @RLH. Thus, if this is the case, OP should consult their worker's union.

To be fair, apparently there also exist other opinions: A now deleted comment said something like "am I right, you worked for only 4 months but want to be paid for more then 4 months?" in a tone which sounded to me as they would say OP's request was unethical.