text:
How to label figures in response letter, so as to distinguish between figures in the letter and figures in the manuscript?
I am looking for the correct way to write the caption name of figures in the response letter for a submission to an Elsevier journal. In the manuscript, the name is

Fig. 1. This is caption

I need add some figures in the response letter as well as revised manuscript. The figure number of these files will be different. So, if I refer to "Fig. 1" in the letter, the reviewer will not know which one I am referring to, the Fig. 1 in the manuscript or the Fig. 1 in the letter.
I am not sure about using

Fig. L-1. This is caption
Fig. L. 1. This is caption

to label figures in the response letter, or any solution...

You don't need to ask people on the internet. Do whatever you want, as long as it's clear. The scheme you suggest yourself is clear.

I am going to take a contrary opinion to what has been suggested so far, and strongly suggest that you do not put figures in your response letter.
My reasoning is this: as a reviewer and an editor, I often see an author put material into the response letter that would be better put into the manuscript.  If you need to explain something clearly and carefully to a reviewer, you probably need to explain it clearly and carefully to your readers as well.  That goes not just for text, but for figures and tables and references also.  Rather that writing it twice (and typically ending up with significant differences between your two instances, since they're in different contexts), write it once in the manuscript and just refer to it there from the response letter.
In short: if you think it's important enough to put in the response letter, it's important enough to simply put into the manuscript.

Thank you. However, some figure only appears in letter (for clear explaination something), and it will not in manuscript. Then assumption that at least one figure in leter, then the figure caption is not same with manuscript to ignore the confusing

@user8430 If the figure is useful to clarify in the letter, I think it probably would be useful to clarify to many readers as well.

@user8430 I'm afraid that I cannot understand this most recent comment that you have written, due to grammar issues.

I corrected it "Yes. You means that we need to clearly explain by text instead of using figure, right? However, if I just put the figure to more clear explanation for which I written. Hence, I need have some figures in letter ( there figures may not appear in manuscript)."

@user8430 I have difficulty thinking of any case where it would be useful to put figure in a response letter, rather than putting some version of that figure into the manuscript.

For example, some journal limits the number of figure per amount of word. Hence, we only choose the best and importance figure to put in manuscript. Meanwhile, the response letter can put figure to make more clear explanation

@user8430 That, my friend, is what figure sub-panels were invented for.

Call it "Figure 1" or "Fig. 1" as in the paper. Otherwise how will the editor or reviewer know which figure of the paper you are referring to since that is the subject of your response?

Thanks. Because the response letter and revised manuscript are seperated together. And I need add some figure in the response letter as well as revised manuscript. The figure number of these file will be different. So, If I use Fig.1 ..., the reviewer will not know which one in manuscript or letter?

@user8430, if you refer to a figure in the letter, give it a unique label, otherwise if you refer to a figure in the paper, use the label from the paper. You wan the reviewer to know exactly where to look.

Yes, that is reason why I ask the question. I would like to know style of figure caption in the leter. Does it like "Fig. L-1" or 'Fig. L.1" or something

@user8430, there's no well-established style for this, and certainly no required formatting. Your suggestion will work fine.

Thank you. So If i used different figure caption. In response leter,  I will write as (Fig. L-1 (as Fig. 1. in revised manuscript) shows ....). Is it right?

@user8430, there's no right or wrong here, it's just good enough.

Just label and caption as in a regular paper, and talk about "figure 1 in the paper is clarified by figure 2 in the response" or some such, and state clearly which document's figures/tables/... you are referring to each time. I believe that is the least confusing, and least prone to misunderstandings.


text:
Is there any valid reason why we should NOT reduce the number of PhD offers?
DISCLAIMER
I am about to complete my Ph.D. (< 2 m.).
I had a very busy advisor, brilliant and intelligent, but acting as an ‘obstacle’ rather than an ‘incentive’ to complete the thesis (regrettably, a textbook case).
I got a rather good postdoc position at a US university (not frustrated ;) ).

Here are detailed some arguments (using some references from the web) why I think we SHOULD reduce the number of PhD offers and, as a result, the number of PhD students. The expected (positive) effect would be an increase in the quality of research, guidance, health, and career of those enrolling for a PhD. Ultimately, the money not used for PhD funding could also be redirected to senior researchers (postdoc, tenure-track) and help better balance the 'experience pyramid' of the research ecosystem.
Are there any good counter-arguments why we SHOULD NOT reduce the number of PhD offers?

There is an oversupply of PhD positions.

Although a doctorate is designed as training for a job in academia,
the number of PhD positions is unrelated to the number of job
openings. [...] America produced more than 100,000 doctoral degrees
between 2005 and 2009. In the same period there were just 16,000 new
professorships. [...] In Canada [...] universities conferred 4,800
doctorate degrees in 2007 but hired just 2,616 new full-time
professors [1].
According to figures from the Royal Society (UK), only 3.5% of science
PhD graduates end up pursuing longterm careers in university research,
and fewer than 0.5% eventually become professors [3].
Only a few fast-developing countries, such as Brazil and China, now
seem short of PhDs [1].

1 is partly explained by the low cost of PhDs.

PhD students are cheap, highly motivated and disposable labour. With
more PhD students they can do more research, and in some countries
more teaching, with less money [1].
From the point of view of a lab head, for example, each graduate
student is a source of cheap, clever labour that can do the grunt work
needed to make the next discovery [3].

Lack of guidance from supervisor (partly explained by 1).

I know of professors with 10+ PhDs [6]
The supervisor-supervisee relationship is generally awkward and
confusing, and sometimes – maybe even often – uncomfortable and
challenging. At my university there is no required mentorship
training. Everyone has experience throughout their graduate and
post-doctoral training, but in most cases, there is no formal course
or body that guides staff in best practice. Most programmes that do
exist are optional and ignored. [5]

Students do not start PhD for the good reasons

In one study of British PhD graduates, about a third admitted that
they were doing their doctorate partly to go on being a student, or
put off job hunting. Nearly half of engineering students admitted to
this. [1]

A lot of PhD drop-out  (partly explained by 3 and 4).

In America only 57% of doctoral students will have a PhD ten years
after their first date of enrolment. In the humanities, where most
students pay for their own PhDs, the figure is 49% [1].
72.9 per cent of the 11,625 students from the UK or the EU who began full-time doctorates in 2010-11 will obtain a degree within seven
years.[7]
Doctoral attrition rates remain high in North America, at an estimated
40% to 50% (Berelson, 1960; CGS, 2009; MERS, 2013; Nettles & Millett,
2006). However, they vary across disciplines, being higher in the
arts, humanities, and social sciences and lower in the natural
sciences (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; CGS, 2009; Elgar, 2003; Nettles &
Millett, 2006). [...] Perceived competence appears to be the
cornerstone of doctoral studies persistence (completion and dropout
intentions) and is predicted mainly by autonomous and controlled
regulations and advisor support.[8]

No economic and background advantage of PhD compared to Master’s

PhD courses are so specialised that university careers offices
struggle to assist graduates looking for jobs, and supervisors tend to
have little interest in students who are leaving academia. [...]
Writing lab reports, giving academic presentations and conducting
six-month literature reviews can be surprisingly unhelpful in a world
where technical knowledge has to be assimilated quickly and presented
simply to a wide audience. [...] PhDs in maths and computing, social
sciences and languages earn no more than those with master’s degrees.
The premium for a PhD is actually smaller than for a master’s degree
in engineering and technology, architecture and education. Only in
medicine, other sciences, and business and financial studies is it
high enough to be worthwhile. Over all subjects, a PhD commands only a
3% premium over a master’s degree [1].

PhDs face significant mental health issues (partly
explained by 3 and 4).

Approximately one-third of Ph.D. students are at risk of having or
developing a common psychiatric disorder like depression, a recent
study reports. Although these results come from a small sample—3659
students at universities in Flanders, Belgium, 90% of whom were
studying the sciences and social sciences—they are nonetheless an
important addition to the growing literature about the prevalence of
mental health issues in academia.  [...] On the plus side, having an
inspirational supervisor partially offset these risks. So did interest
in an academic career, even among students who thought they had little
chance of ultimately making it. [9]

References:
[1] Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time
https://medium.economist.com/why-doing-a-phd-is-often-a-waste-of-time-349206f9addb
[2] Too many PhDs, not enough tenured positions
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/content/too-many-phds-not-enough-tenured-positions#survey-answer
[3] Too many science PhDs? Not if unis train them for careers outside academia
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/sep/15/university-producing-too-many-science-phd
[4] The Scientific Century securing our future prosperity
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294970126.pdf
[5] Not all PhD supervisors are natural mentors – some need training
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2017/jul/28/not-all-phd-supervisors-are-natural-mentors-some-need-training
[6] How many PhD students are too many?
How many PhD students are too many?
[7] PhD completion rates, 2013
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/phd-completion-rates-2013/2006040.article
[8] Dropout intentions in PhD studies: A comprehensive model based on interpersonal relationships and motivational resources
http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2015_Litalien_Guay_Contemp_Educ_Psych.pdf
[9] Ph.D. students face significant mental health challenges
https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/04/phd-students-face-significant-mental-health-challenges

I completely agree and I have had this question for a while. It would be better to have less PhDs but better paid, the funnel is way to large at the entrance. Increasing minimum salary will mean less positions, I think it's the only way to go about it.

This looks like an opinion-based question. I can see some parts that would lend themselves to an answerable question, such as "would lower PhD recruitment lead to X", but as is there's no "correct" answer here...

There is an oversupply of PhD positions. You implicitly assume that PhD students want to become professors, but that's incorrect. You need to consider whether enough positions require a PhD.

"What is your view on this" is not a good sort of question for the SE network.

@nengel I have edited the question to better fit SE requirement.

"about a third admitted that they were doing their doctorate partly to go on being a student, or put off job hunting" - taking on a job that provides flexibility and opportunities for personal development in exchange for a lower salary sounds like a good reason to me (as good as many other reasons for or against, depending on personal preference). Similarly, picking the first acceptable job offer one can get is by no means special among doctoral candidates and arguably rather common among people who are not motivated by, or confident about advertising oneself to prospective employers.

Similarly to my above comment: In all, I think many of the quoted passages are so superficial or one-sided (for instance, the entire first half of the paragraph quoted for #6) that they make the question very likely to incite extensive discussions and thus not a "clearly answerable question".

You need to think about whose point of view you are seeing the situation from. In at least some places, the decision on numbers basically rests with the administrators trying to make money from running a university. To them, students = money.

very good question.

I have been reading this question quite a few times. There is something I am not clear. There is difference between PhD offers and PhD candidates. Would you please clarify why you say they are equal?

@scaaahu I made some edits to clarify this point. The idea is just that if we reduce the number of offers, we reduce at the same time the number of students/candidates.

@DJack Thanks for the clarification. I voted to re-open.

It really depends. In computer science for example there might actually be a small undersupply of PhD students given their high (and rising) demand both in academia and in industry.

Yes. The money granted by funding agencies may be specifically earmarked for PhD students, and may not be fungible. See Fornite's answer to this question. You could argue that funding agencies should fund fewer PhD students - but that's outside the purview of academics.
Having said that, I don't agree with your reasons for reducing the number of PhD positions.

There is an oversupply of PhD positions. Every prospective PhD student should already know this, and if they don't, they should educate themselves before making such an important life decision.
1 is partly explained by the low cost of PhDs. Every prospective PhD student should also know this, but they shouldn't complain, because they're getting a PhD out of it. We paid for our undergraduate degrees. To be paid to do a PhD degree is a blessing.
Lack of guidance from supervisor (partly explained by 1). So teach the supervisors.
Students do not start PhD for the good reasons. Students are thinking adults. If they do not have good reasons to start PhDs, but choose to start them anyway, that's not the fault of the program. If anything, I view this as an argument for improving admissions committees.
A lot of PhD drop-out (partly explained by 3 and 4). Same as #4. Students are thinking adults. If they choose to start something and then realize midway that they actually shouldn't have started - great, they learned something. If anything this is an argument that admissions committees need to select candidates better, because the motivations they look for lead to students who don't complete their programs.
No economic and background advantage of PhD compared to Master’s. Whether or not a PhD is advantageous to any prospective student is not difficult to research before applying. Every prospective PhD student should have already looked at the job market. Unless you're blaming society for not providing an economic advantage to PhD holders - and if society did that, there'd be even more demand for PhD positions - then I see nothing wrong with this.
PhDs face significant mental health issues (partly explained by 3 and 4). This is again something easily researched before applying.

tl; dr: PhD programs are not fraud operations; the costs involved in accepting them are not secrets. If a thinking adult doesn't do the homework before accepting the offer, that's not the fault of the program. If a thinking adult does do the homework and still chooses to accept the offer, it's not for an outsider to prohibit them from doing so. Everyone is responsible for themselves.

@Allure, let me guess, you are a professor or someone with a permanent position?

The problem with this answer is that it hinges on "they chose it, so we don't need to do anything about it". Which does not counter the arguments for making the PhD experience and academia better in and of itself. I could choose to work on a dangerous fishing boat, so let's not do anything about issues surrounding safety.

problem with your answer is that you are not aware that those positions are paid by tax payers money... not private money, and that most of time is very bad workign conditions

I think this answer massively overestimates how much someone would realistically expect to know about doing a PhD before they start. The information may be easy to find if you know where to look, and know that it is there to find. But I doubt many people research a career by googling 'is there a massive problem with mental health among those in this field?'

@ThomasKing one should certainly try to make the PhD experience and academia better, but not out of empathy; it's because if one does not, the best students will (sensibly) choose to do other things. There's also the costs to be saved from the high dropout rate.

@JessicaB maybe not a direct query on mental health, but googling terms such as "should I do a PhD?" or "are PhD students happy?" will return useful results.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
My grades seem worse than they are due to the idiosyncrasies of the Indian system. How can I explain this when applying to foreign programs?
I am studying for a Master's in one of the top IIT in India and looking forward to apply for a PhD candidature. My institute follows relative grading. Faculty are allowed to assign grade themselves.

Normally the student with the highest score in the class will be given S (10 points).
The students with the next 3-4 high scores will be given A (9 points).
This is followed by grade B (8 points) for next 5-6 student scores.
The next 5-6 students will be given C (7 points).
That is followed by the D (6 points) grade.
All the remaining students will be given E grade (5 points).

For elective courses, the situation is even worse. For some elective courses I studied, there were less than 15 students and so it was only possible for 3-4 students in total to get an S or A grade. While applying for PhD, how should I have to deal with this? My Head of department agreed to provide me my position in her course.

If you're applying to US or Canadian universities, check out: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/46852/15148

By the way, for applications to the U.S., do NOT attempt to "convert" your grades. Just report them as they are. Self-reported "conversions" are obviously not necessarily trustworthy, in the first place...

"there were less than 15 students and so it is possible only for 3-4 students in total to get S and A grade. " ARe you saying that ONLY a quarter of students can get the top grades and that this is bad?

This is called "grading on a curve", and American universities do it too.

How can I explain my grades?

Clearly, and with references: You have done a reasonable job in this post of giving us a basic run-down of how the grading system at your university works.  If you are trying to explain it to a university where you are an applicant, it would be useful to set out a document giving a brief but clear description of this system, and showing what rules correspond to the courses you did.  Explain this as clearly and simply as you can, and try not to make it too long.  Try to think like you are the person receiving this information, and ask what you would want to know to make it as clear as possible.
Also, remember that the university will not accept your word for this, so you should make proper references to the policies of the university where the grades were awarded.  Your university in India should have policy or grading documents that set out this information, so the relevant sections of those document should be included as an annexure, and you should make reference to them whenever you make an assertion about the grading rules in your courses.  Try to make it as easy as possible for the person reviewing your application.

Thanks, Will a letter from my department head explaining the grading system will do?

It would certainly help, but it would depend on the quality of the explanation.

Just a few quick notes on strategy based on having reviewed applications myself.

First, IIT system is extremely well respected, and I think people understand that grades are assessed heterogeneously across the world. So, you may get more credit than you expect.
Second, to my knowledge IIT admission is very competitive. So, I wouldn't hesitate to draw attention to that, even before discussing your grades (e.g. "I was one of the top 5% of students nationwide in the entrance exam", or something like that).
Third, when assessing unfamiliar transcripts, I look for variation. So, I might note, "(s)he struggles in linear algebra but excelled at algorithms." If you are strong in the subjects you want to pursue, that will definitely count in your favor.

In any case, an explanation would definitely help. I'd say the key points are:

If you use a 0-10 point system and not an A-F system, and the university receiving the application does not require that you report grades on the US standard, I would not translate into A-F grades at all.
If you have to include them, then I would include information about the quota system as recommended above, noting that it is very competitive.
In particular, it would be good if you can translate your letter grades into rankings (e.g. B = rank 15/55) so people can put them into perspective.

For US institutions, there are a few places in your application where you can do this:

Attach a supplementary explanation. Many universities allow you to include a page to e.g. explain if you missed a semester because of a family emergency, or something like that. So, you can either write a small note, or just include another copy of your transcript with grades translated into ranks.
Mention it in your personal statement. "While the grading system is extremely competitive, I was able to graduate 23rd in my class of 100 students" or something like that.
Ask your reccommenders to make a note as well. I have read letters saying, "As you know, XX is the leading university in country XX, with an extremely selective admission rate of XX. My assessment is that candidate XX is one of the top students in the class, with a particular aptitude for XX."

Finally, you should check with other students and professors. I can't imagine you are the first IIT student to encounter this problem, and I am sure the school has strategies since many students are accepted in US institutions every year. Your transcript might even include a printed explanation page automatically.
Good luck!

Following Ben's answer - if the institution gets a lot of students from IITs that grade like this, there is a good chance that someone in the graduate office has a good understanding of how these gradings work.
When contacting potential supervisors - I would recommend it being helpful if you could say something like "in top x% of students in degree".  If I got an application full of "S" with no explanation I would assume you are not a top student, as "S" = Satisfactory (min requirement met only) to me.

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


text:
Should I report apparent conflict with handling editor during peer review?
I have been dealing with an awkward situation regarding evaluation of my submitted paper. The publisher is one of the big well known OA, and the journal is one of their leading journals (in terms of niche visibility and impact factor). We were invited to submit a paper by a colleague who'd be preparing a special issue in that journal.
I have submitted a paper for their evaluation, providing few names of potential reviewers under request by the submission system. I eventually received the evaluation results by three reviewers. Two reviewers suggested structural and grammar adjustments, and one produced overly negative vague remarks which mostly missed the point of the paper. The managing editor (not our colleague) rejected the paper but offered the option to Revise & Resubmit.
Fine: we applied changes suggested by reviewers and replied to all comments, in a politely manner. Through the new cover letter we raised concerns regarding the rather aggressive behaviour of a reviewer. After a while we received further comments. The two previous reviewers accepted the paper, and the one negative reviewer produced further negative vague remarks, unrelated to the previous ones. In short, this reviewer clearly ignored the goal and technical background of the paper. Two additional reviewers were added, who made further questions and structural suggestions. Editor recommended major changes, and gave a deadline of five days to respond.
We did respond within five days with the suggestions applied and a cold, technical rebuttal to the one negative reviewer. Again we appealed to the editor via submission system claiming a suspected conflict of interests.
After a while the paper was rejected, no specific reason given. We read the comments by the reviewers: the additional ones accepted the paper whilst the one negative reviewer made further vague, one-line derogatory remarks without any mention to our previous response.
I wrote to the colleague who had invited us and asked him to take a look into the situation. He said he gave instructions that the paper should be accepted. The managing editor now contacted us suggesting minor changes but now presenting personal concerns about our paper followed by general comments which are beside the main scope of the manuscript alongside a long list of cherry-picked typos and grammar suggestions. This person states:

"I suspect that the MS is peppered with more mistakes and great care should be taken to ensure that these are corrected before the MS gets published."

We are given three days to respond.
I have submitted dozens of manuscripts and never went through such an awkward situation. I now strongly suspect that the conflict of interests stems from the managing editor itself, and wouldn't be surprised if the resilient nonsensical reviewer proves a sock-puppet.
I am not sure on what is the best to be done. I suspect the paper will get accepted ultimately, under request of of the inviting colleague.
Regardless of the final decision which is certainly coming, should I later contact the EIC and report this situation and managing editor? In case an editor is playing games other authors might be affected.

A relevant side comment on the issue of tight deadlines: I have discussed with a number of colleagues and several complained about suddenly being presented with <10 days deadlines to respond to reviewers. Most claimed encountering this problem with MDPI publisher...

It has been decided that your paper should not be published.
The rigid etiquette of the academic world does not allow anyone to admit this. Papers are meant to be accepted or rejected on their merits.
So reasons have to be given for rejection. From what you say, those "reasons" have evidently been synthesised in order to give an excuse for what has already been decided.
Get out. Even if you lose face in front of your co-authors, everyone will have forgotten it all in 12 months' time.

Unfortunately I believe what you say is true, but hopefully this is not how is works for all journals. Still, in my situation I believe the paper will ultimately get accepted because of the involvement of my colleague as an area editor , in face of the ridicule of the debated reviewer. I will update the post when I get a final answer from the journal. I’m taking everyone’s advice to not escalate the issue.

I have decided to answer my own question, as the conflict has been resolved. Perhaps my line of response will prove helpful to someone else.
In short, I have persisted in defending my technical points (with references and all) and appealed to other journal editors to take a closer look into the situation. The paper was finally accepted, and I have decided not to report the handling editor directly.
I am now happy with the outcome, and insisted on having the peer review published alongside my paper. The handling editor awkwardly published merely part of the peer review, what added to my impression of a conflict of interests (in the form of a sock-puppet reviewer). This editor claimed that I had not uploaded some responses to the system [?] and that it was then too late to change the online record. Then I appealed to the publisher asking to intervene -- but only on the specific issue of making peer review fully available as offered by the journal system vs. editor's response -- and this editor had to abide, yet again.
Now my paper is published alongside complete peer review, making the ludicrous behaviour of one anonymous person public (appropriately aliased as reviewer 2). The publisher is at least mildly aware of awkward behaviour by the handling editor.
I believe this person will at least think twice before playing the same game next time, particularly as I believe this is a professional (paid) editor. This should be enough in this case.

Splendid news! Thank you very much for coming here and posting the outcome as an answer. I wish more people would do that. And you have shown how one can grind down an institution in the end, by playing the game politely, patiently, and insisting that it should adhere precisely to its own rules.

@MartinKochanski Thanks, I always encourage OPs trying describing conflicts in SE to present the outcome later. In my specific case, I felt in advantage because (i)  paid journals see authors as clients; (ii) this reviewer's comments were truly loaded; (iii) an editor knows my established published record in the topic. Perhaps the strategy would have not worked in a different scenario.

You have not identified any conflict of interest in your post.  The managing editor can, and should, criticize your work.
It seems that the colleague who invited your paper mislead you by failing to clearly state they were not actually editing the special issue.
The reason you have not encountered this situation before is that most editors are not thorough enough to provide their own advice to the authors.  This is unfortunate.
Do not claim someone has a conflict of interest unless you have solid evidence.  The evidence needs to show that they have some way of directly benefiting from the rejection of your manuscript.  Unsupported claims of conflict of interest hurt your reputation.  Your negative reviewer is much more likely to be lazy, rather than a competitor.

I like your views on the invitation and the chiming in by editors. I fully support editors providing direct criticism and I get that quite frequently. (Desk rejected papers were not rare!..) However the core of the awkwardness comes from the combination of isolated nonsensical comments being used as basis to reject a paper accepted by others, in combination with short communication and deadlines from the managing editor.

Plus it’s next to impossible to make precise claims about an anonymous reviewer. I raised suspicion. The editor would be in a better position to judge. Unless they’re the same person, which is a possible parsimonious explanation.

When you submit for a special issue you have to expect short deadlines.  A smart, unethical person with a conflict of interest will not give nonsensical comments.  Instead they will craft their comments carefully to ensure you cannot rebut them.

I agree on the comments strategy logic, but perhaps they didn’t know the comments were baseless (i.e. not smart). On the deadline there’s a key info I’ll add to my post: initial submissions to this special issue are still open, for more 25 days to come. The 3-5 day deadlines to respond to reviews were set by the managing editor with no comments.

Just pull the paper.  Should have pulled it earlier.  There are a lot of fish in the sea.  Don't waste time on this journal.  You know how to submit elsewhere.
Don't bother with some complaint on the editor or reviewer.  There is nothing special to show rivalry and given anonymity, you can't really discern it even if true.
There are a gazillion of these little tiffs with writers and reviewers.  Sometimes just bad papers and author won't realize it.  Sometimes academics who like to puff themselves up as gatekeepers.  But who cares which.  Move on.  Their loss.  Getting into it further just reduces yourself.

I totally agree with this view, and will be happy to move on as soon as they give me a final answer. In fact I am mainly saving face in front of coauthors because I promised I’d handle the ridiculous situation, and it’s a prestigious journal in their eyes. I am not such a big fan of ‘OA mega journals’ for some reasons, dodgy peer review is one of such.

Yeah, I hear you on the co-author situation.  But just move on.

I absolutely second this answer. You do not even have to wait for a response from the editor, it will be of no value for you. I have heard enough stories where a paper was rejected by Major Journal A for 'lack of impact' or 'methodological flaws' only to be accepted as an accelerated publication in Major Journal B. Also, the co-authors will probably be fine with a re-submission to another journal. Most are familiar with that process.

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


text:
Should I tell my professor that I may need surgery in the middle of the semester?
I am an undergrad in the second year of a 2-year transfer program at a community college. I am retaking a class that I was forced to drop a couple of semesters ago due to family issues. The instructor is the senior guy in the department for my major, and I will be taking another course with him (both are 4 credits), requiring lab work.
The trouble is, I have known for a few months that I will need surgery. I'm on medications that are working, but the side effects in the strategic term are disastrous. The surgery will leave me bedridden for 3 days to 3 weeks.I am assuming at this point that I will have at least some flexibility in scheduling the surgery. I thought I could get it done over summer break, but that's next to impossible at this point.
So far as I can tell, these are my options;

Tell the instructor immediately (via email) or the first day of class.
Tell the instructor once I have any clarity regarding scheduling, in the hope that I can get it done over winter break.

Since this is a specialist in my major, who can help me with career guidance, references, and hands-on skills, I really want to make the best possible impression. His opinion of me is even more important as I expect to transfer next semester and would like to get As for both courses.
Unfortunately, in addition to making me unable to finish the semester with him, the aforementioned family issues resulted in an anxiety diagnosis which required special testing arrangements. He was not super happy with that. So, on the one hand, I need this surgery as soon as possible. On the other hand, I want to avoid the perception that I am unable to handle a heavy workload for any reason. How/when should I tell him about this, if at all?

There should be a university office that deals with this sort of thing (though I can't for the life of me recall what a standard name for this is in the US) and can tell you what you should do and what you can expect. Universities tend to have pretty well-developed policies regarding these matters, for legal reasons if nothing else. Have you looked into this?

@zibadawatimmy, policy is one thing, relationships and respect another.

Following the policies of an organization is showing respect to people who work within that organization. Depending on your jurisdiction, it may be exactly none of your professor's business about your medical condition, and he may be legally obligated to not alter his professional behavior as a result. Find the relevant office and get their guidance. If you specified where you are that might help people give you advice beyond that. If you're not in the US or the EU, for example, what I just said may not apply to you. I assume US from the community college bit.

@zibadawatimmy, granted, he may be objectively legally required to accommodate my issues. I absolutely will look into the proper channels within the school administration. However, all prior life experience suggests that appealing to outside administrative agencies does not poduce warm, fuzzy feelings within the relevant individuals. I would like A grades for the courses, as I expect to transfer next semester. I will update the question to reflect this.

You should inform your instructor as soon as possible that you may miss class for medical reasons. There is no need to explain what the medical reasons are.  The instructor is likely to want to help you.

At my school at least, one possible course of action would be offering to take an "Incomplete" finishing the work the next semester.

Short answer: Tell him now.
Longer answer:
As pointed out in the comments, go find the office dealing with such questions and contact them. You don't need to resort to legal rights immediately, just tell them your story and get some advice on how to proceed. They might also know things you didn't consider yet, e.g. some regulations on how much of a class you are allowed to miss, what sort of medical certificate is needed, etc.
After you cleared all questions with them, tell your instructor that you have a pressing medical issue that will force you to miss up to three weeks of class. Do that in person if possible, not via email. Ask him how to handle this and show him that you are still interested in his class and willing to take it, e.g. ask him if it is possible to get the lecture notes for these weeks and hand in the homework via email. Of course this depends on how you define "bedridden", so if you will be on heavy meds and unable to do anything, or if you will be sitting in your bed, fully alert and able to work on a laptop, but not able to stand up. I don't know what condition you have and I understand that this is private, but you should think about a plan on how to make up for the missed classes and present this plan in the discussion with the professor. This will show him that you are motivated and willing to take the class and is far easier to accept than you being gone for a few weeks and some legal office forcing him to still let you pass.
Also try to point out that you have some flexibility on when to schedule the operation and ask him for his opinion. Make clear that you can't say an exact date, but ask him if he prefers this month or that month, for example. All in all, talk to him, be frank and show motivation to make up for the missed time and you should be ok.
The above advice might also help with him not being pleased with your anxiety. It is hard for a non-professional to distinguish between anxiety and stress/fear of exams. Furthermore, some students simply say "I have anxiety", even if they are just a little stressed at the moment. Show the professor that you are still motivated for his class, that you are not trying to use your anxiety as an excuse for anything, that you are doing your best even though you have several medical conditions and he will most likely not worry about it anymore.

A little difficult to track him down over the summer.

Point being, should I email him now or tell him in person later?

Do whatever will get the message to him fastest; there's no particular advantage to an in-person conversation for something like this.  In particular, there's always a worst-case chance that the nature of this class means that such an absence simply cannot be accommodated; you'd want to know that before the term starts, so you can adjust your class schedule.

Don't do it.  Do not take the class or, if you're already enrolled, seek a medical withdrawal immediately and get your money back.  Here in the US, I can't imagine a school that wouldn't do that, given a valid medical reason.
Instructors can be understanding of medical problems but ultimately have to grade based on your performance.  If you can't be there, you can't perform.  Please consider whether you paid for the course because you just want it on your transcript or because you'd like to learn the material.  You cannot miss up to three weeks in a college course and learn the material.  You may not even get the passing grade.
Students with long-term disabilities usually arrive with realistic expectations of the accommodations they need and what can be done.  But students hit with sudden or unexpected illness or other medical issues tend to be overoptimistic about how many days they'll miss, their ability to make up for the absence and about how much leeway they'll have to skip the work but still pass.  If the class involves a lab and perhaps a partner where you can't just read the book, you simply must show up, there's no way you can be gone for up to 3 weeks.  The fact this is a class you didn't do well in last time does not help.
In my experience, (sigh, yes, I have some) what happens in situations like yours is that the student is advised this is unlikely to work, then they plead, oh, it's going to ruin their life, they'll lose their scholarship, their apartment, blah, blah, blah.  Often, they pull the "but Mom said" ploy by getting an instructor doing the lectures to agree before going to the lab instructor.  If they persist, eventually everyone gives in and they're told, okay, fine, we warned you, you're an adult, this is your choice, so do it.
And then they show up after the long absence unhappy that their instructors can't give them a personalized repeat performance of all the hours of lectures and so on that they missed because they've got a whole class that was there the first time and needs them now on the current stuff. They typically pull the worst grade in the class, maybe or maybe not pass and they're unhappy, often convinced the problem was their awful and inflexible instructors, who they slam on their evals.
Instructors typically have some flexibility to grant or deny these absences in their own courses.  I'm to the point where I basically don't ever grant them, no matter what the sob story.  It is virtually always a huge mistake.

I could care less about his lectures. It took me longer than I wanted to, but if the only parameter is exams I can guarantee an A as long as there are no drastic emergencies while I'm in the course. I've been doing the work already, it doesn't scare me in the least. My primary concern is the labs.

I am, in fact in the next-to-last semester of a scholarship, after which I will probably transfer. It's conditional on full-time enrollment.

Having said that, thank you for the advice, especially from someone in my field. I will consider offering to drop the course. By the way, looks like some really cool software you made there. Wish I could afford it.

@jamesson, contact me offline. Happy to comp you a copy.

I'm faculty, so I don't have any experience with scholarships but it seems likely they will grant a medical exception as well.  Your academic advisor may be able to guide you.

I pretty much agree.  For major medical issues, I tell the students that I'll make whatever accommodations the Dean's office asks me to.  That forces students to work through official mechanisms, doesn't force me to probe into sensitive and personal issues that I really don't want to look into, and keeps me honest with respect to making sure I treat all students the same, regardless of whatever unconcious bias (good or bad) that I might hold.

In fact, I specifically state in my syllabus that there is no guarantee that I will hold requests that don't come from official channels confidential, and I reserve the right to discuss such matters with students' advisors, the Department Chair, and the university's student help mechanism.  I carefully worked out the language with university officials before including it.

@NicoleHamilton, sent to personal email

Go to the Office of Students with Disabilities, with letters from your doctor about the two conditions -- the one requiring surgery, and the anxiety.
Then, imagine what it's like to be in the instructor's role.  As instructor, you would want a student with a disability (either temporary or permanent) to have a clear idea about what his needs are, what he himself can do to make the educational system work for him, and how the instructor can help.  So think about those things, and try to come up with clear proposals.  Be prepared to be a bit flexible and trying some alternate ideas that might be proposed.

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


text:
How to complete homework more efficiently?
I spend way too much time on homework. I find that I eventually get the material, but this goes after perhaps 7-8 hours wasted daily. I tend to get bogged down by the details of readings, etc.
What is a way to stay consistently on track, moving quickly, and finishing homework ruthlessly and efficiently?
I know some people simply do not do homework that is not graded, and I don't see how it is possible to do well in a course if you don't keep up with the concepts presented in class and reinforced by the homework. Therefore, not doing it is not an option for me.
Any suggestions?

You spend 7-8 hours learning. That means you are a full-time student. There is nothing wrong with that. Had you managed to get things done in 2-3 hours that would mean that you are not using all your time for studying.

I agree with Boris. I've found that those people who power through stuff aren't learning it very well. The only way to learn a topic is to spend time with it. Sometimes when things 'come naturally' to other people its because they have already seen similar material, so 7-8 hours now may be hundreds of hours saved later.

I have to disagree the first couple comments, "7-8 hours wasted daily" certainly does not sound normal. The amount of time is not necessarily an issue, but it is far longer than I ever spent on homework and if you feel that you are being inefficient you're most likely correct. It sounds to me like you are indeed getting bogged down in unnecessary things or (perhaps more likely) just struggling to piece all the little things together into the big picture.
A big part of higher education is learning how to learn efficiently. In your career and in life, this will most likely be much more useful than the actual material you cover in your courses.
I think there are a few things you can do that might help:

When reading a textbook focus on items that are formatted in a way that stands out. Textbook authors format material to emphasize critical and major points. A good lecturer will also make an effort to highlight the big picture topics and build up the details around them.
You might try studying or reviewing notes with a classmate before starting homework assignments. Ask for their insights on what the most important things are and try to formulate your own judgments as well.
Visit office hours. Ask conceptual questions about the topic at hand. You might also consider explaining to the TA or professor that you're having a hard time picking out the crucial material from the details and ask if they can help you focus in on the key topics.

It has been my experience that many students get bogged down in peripheral details when learning new topics, not seeing the forest for the trees. It has always helped me to ask myself what the most critical concepts are and then be sure to understand the details as they support these concepts. Hopefully, with practice, you will soon improve at picking out the key concepts and building a mental framework around them rather than getting bogged down in all the details from the start.


text:
How can a PhD student seeking to transfer to another PhD program prove his/her research skills when his job is mostly teaching?
Suppose that our friends Alice and Bob are both academicians (academician: a member of the faculty of a college or university) in universities A and B respectively.
University A requires a lot of teaching and administrative work, whereas university B requires a certain amount of research and only a small amount of administrative stuff.
Alice enjoys research very much but she cannot spend enough time to conduct research and be productive in terms of publications.
Bob, on the other hand conducts research since it is part of his job and does not really spend effort to improve his projects.
Let Charles be a member of the admission committee in university C that has an open PhD position.
If both Alice and Bob applies to the position, he will see that Bob has been involved to more research projects than Alice, moreover, Alice has no publications and has spent her time on teaching.
The thing is, Alice does teaching really nice and gets positive feedback from both professors and students. It is clear that Alice can do her job above-the-average. Bob, on the other hand does not even need a feedback. He proved that he can do research by his projects and publications.
Suppose that both Alice and Bob are started working as faculty when they were master's students and now they are PhD students who want to find a position in a different university because of their own reasons.
Considering that both Alice and Bob are currently faculty members, Bob is one step further from Alice in terms of getting the PhD position, if not many steps.
What can Alice do to prove that she can be a way more better researcher given time and opportunity?
Is there any "Charles" who is ready to give that chance?
If you are "Charles" (a member of an admission committee), would you give that chance to Alice? If you would, under what conditions?

As far as I can understand the question, it is asking about the relative weight placed on research versus teaching for an academic job.  Where in the world are you?  In the US system it is well understood that this is a spectrum, and you must locate your approximate position on the spectrum in order to apply to the right kind of academic job.  Elsewhere in the world the answers might be different.  I have to say though that your question is worryingly obscure.  In part you seem to be asking "How can I improve my research profile without doing any research?"  Um...perhaps you can't.

I've removed my comments about the previous version of the question, as it has now been clarified. However, I am still confused about why "academicians" are applying to a PhD position. What position do Alice and Bob currently hold? I think the answer to this question depends very much on that detail.

The term "academician" is enough to make the question obscure.  I am mostly familiar with this term from novels taking place in the Soviet world.   Outside of this particular context, everyone I know says "academic".  Moreover, by that one means a faculty position of some kind.  (Sometimes graduate students refer to themselves as academics, and it is okay because we hear the silent "apprentice".)  I still don't see what position Alice or Bob could have if they are doing research, teaching and administration and seeking to be admitted to a PhD program.  I repeat: where in the world are you?

@PeteL.Clark Most universities in Europe only offer PhD positions with scholarship and usually opens 1-2 positions per year. I probably could not understand your question about positions that Alice and Bob could have. Why wouldn't they have a PhD position?

"Most universities in Europe only offer PhD positions with scholarship and usually opens 1-2 positions per year." Most universities offer a lot more than 1-2 PhD positions per year.  However this is a non sequitur to my questions.  You say "Alice and Bob are academicians at a university" and that Alice has research, teaching and administrative obligations.  Then you say they want to apply to a PhD program.  So what position do they have now?  (It may be that in your part of the world, "academician" is a specific academic position.  If so, for the last time: please tell us where.)

In Turkey, and as far as I know in EU and US too, master's students can work as a teaching assistant or research assistant. Different than most countries, a research assistant is usually hired for administrative duties in Turkey. I thought I made it clear that they still have a faculty position by using present tense. Sorry for not being so clear.

I appreciate your response, but I still don't understand the key point: you seem to be claiming that Alice and Bob are both master's students and faculty members.  Maybe Turkish academic culture views them that way, but you should know that in most of the rest of the academic world that would be viewed as a contradictory statement.  Moreover, if they are master's students, that's a key part of the question, whereas insisting on just saying that they're faculty members and then mentioning that they want to apply for PhDs is going to confuse most of your readers.

Actually, that is usually the main motivation in Turkey for people to apply PhD positions in foreign countries.

I know that I will be unoccupied after I finish my PhD if I stay here since none of the universities accept in-breeding
More importantly, there are only a few opportunities to work as a researcher. People usually struggle with administrative duties even though they are academics.
A personal reason, there are only a few of opportunities to earn my keep by conducting research in the field of theoretical computer science.

In this post you said that you're a PhD student, but here you say masters student. Which are they? Edit that information into the post.

@ff524 I have specified their current situation. But out of curiosity, does it really matter if they are master's or PhD students?

@cagirici Yes, it definitely matters. As you have seen from the other post you just answered, people are somewhat wary of hiring current PhD students looking to transfer to another PhD, but not of masters students seeking to get admitted to a PhD program for the first time. Generally, transferring between PhD programs is not a "normal" academic pathway, but going from masters to PhD is.

I've made an edit to the post which I think reflects your situation, please check and make sure I got it right.

@ff524: Sorry to pick, but I don't understand your edited title either.  How can the job of a PhD student be "mostly teaching"?  Being a PhD student means that you are learning and then doing research to write a thesis.  Many PhD programs have required teaching, but you can't stay in a PhD program no matter how good your teaching is unless your research is adequate...and you can't stay in a PhD program indefinitely because you have to complete enough research eventually.  Perhaps you are getting paid for your teaching rather than your research, but that's not the same thing at all.

The idea that someone who is in a PhD program never gets the opportunity to do enough research to demonstrate their research skills doesn't make sense to me....how do you graduate then?

@Pete I don't fully understand the situation either. The closest analogy I can think of: there's an industry professor in my department whose job is mostly teaching. He's technically been a part-time PhD student in the department for a really long time now, but isn't progressing much; he's mainly teaching and also doing stuff in industry. I guess this is the kind of question he might write, if he were to decide to leave our department and start a "typical" PhD program? (The analogy isn't perfect, bec. this guy's teaching responsibilities have nothing to do with his role as a PhD student.)

@ff524 I really understand you and Pete both being completely confused about the question. I think I should explain my problem in a different question. Briefly, I need to find a paid PhD position in Europe or US since I will not find a job here after I finish PhD. However, most of the universities require either publications or references from their own professors. I neither have publications or connections with the faculty members. I am afraid that I will be stuck in administrative/teaching side of the academia or will be forced to work in industry if I stay in Turkey.

"What can Alice do to prove that she can be a way more better researcher given time and opportunity? "
How do you know? From your description, Alice pines to do research but has absolutely nothing to prove that she is a better researcher. Teaching and research are entirely different skill sets; being good at one does not mean being good at the other! She has allowed herself to be stuck in a mainly teaching role, rather than a research focused role. Universities don't just want researchers, they want sharks; people that know exactly what they want and go after it. Alice making excuses will not make her appear to be a shark.
If Charles is interested in hiring a researcher, why would he ever choose someone who has, from your description, absolutely no experience in research versus Bob who presumably has a track record? That said, if Bob isn't a shark either but just kind of drifted from lab to lab and acquired the 15th name on a couple of papers along the way, I can guarantee that they aren't going to be too interested in Bob either.
If Alice wants to do research, then she needs to make some fundamental changes in her life. Her best bet is probably to carefully read her contract with regard to responsibility hours then go to her department and demand a change in her schedule to allow her greater time for research. Then she needs to buckle down and produce and publish.
Alternatively, she can try applying for places and say that she is looking to break away in order to do research, but again research is expensive and she will really need to sell whatever experience she has in order to convince them that they should take the risk on her.
I'm genuinely sorry to have to be blunt like this, but I see no other way. I think there should be far more appreciation for teaching oriented professors in a learning institution. Instead they get some lip service and little else. But you came here for truth, and this is the truth as I know it. Nobody will care about what Alice might do if they see absolutely no background that supports such assertions.
On a personal level as an example: when going for the NSF graduate fellowship, I didn't receive one even though the reviewers stated that the idea was great, the proposal well written, and the research seemed reasonable and doable, because I hadn't published enough papers. As an undergrad, I had published three. That wasn't enough though, apparently. Nonetheless, it hammers home the point that it didn't matter how bright I made the future sound given that my past wasn't up to snuff.

On your last question: in the US, it depends very much on the institution. Research-heavy universities are going to pay attention to your publications and ignore your teaching. They will tell you that your teaching matters, but if you have good publications, nobody will care that you've never taught a class... whereas the best teaching evaluations won't help you get the position.
Once you start as a professor, your optimal strategy is to spend just enough time on teaching so that students won't complain to the department chair. There's a lot wrong with that, and if you enjoy teaching you may want to spend more time on it. But at the end of the day, you don't get non-renewed for poor teaching evaluations when you're a productive researcher, whereas the most glowing teaching evaluations won't help you get tenure if you don't meet the research requirements.
Teaching colleges care less about research and more about teaching, so there are places that value it. But these institutions, on the whole, are a lot less prestigious and pay substantially less. (There are exceptions, of course.)
I'll let others answer your question about PhD studentships, as I'm not familiar with that system. However, I do want to note that doing good research is often more about putting in the hours than being particularly brilliant. It seems to me that just about anyone in any field, after completing graduate coursework and reading 100 papers, can think of something that is new and interesting. It's finding the time to read those 100 papers (and to sit down and think about extensions) that is difficult. So your first goal should be to prioritize: less time on teaching, more time on research. Teaching can take up your entire day if you let it -- and it can be very rewarding. But if your goal is a research-oriented position, then you can't allow it to do so.

"It seems to me that just about anyone in any field, after completing graduate coursework and reading 100 papers, can think of something that is new and interesting." I'm not convinced this is true in my field (math).  Two provisos: (i) I mean that it is not automatically true.  I think that most students who can be induced to complete a math PhD can also be induced to think of things which are new and interesting, but unfortunately the training for one does not necessarily encompass the other.  (ii) Most math PhD students read a lot fewer than 100 papers.  Some read 0 papers (unassisted).

It seems that the question (now that it has been clarified) now asks about being hired to a PhD position, not a faculty position.

I think a lot of confusion in the question comments stems from Alice and Bob both being called "faculty" employed at universities while still looking for PhD positions. I am interpreting the situation as follows - if this is fundamentally incorrect tell me, and I will update or delete:
Both Alice and Bob currently hold a bachelor or master's degree only. Yet they are employed in some capacity by presumably lower-ranked universities. Their job title may be something like assistant professor and they are considered faculty with job security, but the job is essentially a permanent teaching / research assistant position. They currently are not PhD students or on any sort of track to a "better" position, so they are considering applying to a PhD programme in a different, presumably better university, likely in a country that it not familiar with their current situation.
(this understanding is based on a few incoming students from East Asia that were in similar situations before coming to our university - it used to confuse the heck out of us when they said that they were permanent faculty back home, but the key to understanding the situation is that in some weaker universities in Asia one can essentially be a permanent research or teaching assistant, which are officially called something like "pre-PhD professors")
With this understanding, I think @user2898391's answer is out of scope - it focuses on academics applying to faculty positions, not people that are currently on a faculty position of sorts which are now applying for PhD student positions.

After this lengthy introduction, my answer is to a large degree similar to the answer by @Broklynite.

What can Alice do to prove that she can be a way more better researcher given time and opportunity?

At the end of the day, Alice does not yet know that she will "be a way better researcher" than Bob. The fact that she gets great feedback on her teaching shows that she is good at teaching. It does not mean that she will certainly be a great researcher. As you say yourself, Alice is indeed one step farther "away" from a great research position than Bob simply by the fact that Bob already is on a research position (and, presumably, is currently learning the trade and improving, even if the position may not be optimal) while Alice in her current position is not.

Is there any "Charles" who is ready to give that chance?

I assume Alice's best bet is to apply to PhD student positions with a stronger teaching focus. For such a position, her current CV makes her a competitive candidate versus Bob. At least in central Europe, such positions do exist. I know that because I had a position like that for the better part of my studies. Another example is the web page of a former colleague of mine who is doing a PhD financed via a lot of semi-independent teaching (note the job title "University Assistant" - this is what this is called in Austria). However, there are two further challenges: (1) for such PhD student positions, strong knowledge of the local language is often required for undergrad teaching, and (2) those positions are not numerous and they are often not widely announced.

If you are "Charles" (a member of an admission committee), would you give that chance to Alice? If you would, under what conditions?

Only if I have a position that requires a lot of teaching. To be blunt, I see very little reason to hire Alice on a pure research position over Bob.


text:
When to take questions during a thesis defense?
I am going do do my thesis defense next week.
I am not nervous.
On the contrary, I am so over-relaxed that my instincts tell me this will cause a problem during my defense.
I am not sure when to take questions, though:

Should I accept the questions during the presentation or should I say that I will answer the questions at the end?
I am thinking of going with the second option, answers at the end. However, what if a jury member asks me a question during the presentation?

Edit: My thesis is on computer science. I'm going to defend it in English.

You should answer questions whenever you are asked. Period

If you are in complete mastery of what you are going to talk about, there is no need to worry about dos and donts . :) But, certainly, etiquette is necessary. Not just because of the audience can grade your performance, but because of mutual respects.

Please specify dicipline and country, defense conditions are variable.

In my experience questions are always asked during the presentation.

It also depends on where your are (which you didn't mention), and the rules and customs of your university.  At my defence it was made clear at the beginning that questions should come after the presentation only.

Please ask one question per post (I've edited out secondary questions from this one, you can ask about thanking your advisor in a new post). Also, polling questions like "What would you do differently" and very broad questions (like "do's abs and don'ts") are usually considered out of scope of a Q&A site (per the [help/dont-ask])

Unless you intend to annoy your committee/jury, answer questions when they ask (as @Alexandros already commented).

Thesis defence (viva) usually has a fairly rigid structure dictated by the country. For example, I know that the format is quite different between France, the Netherlands and the UK.

The following is written from my perspective and it reflects my biases.
If someone feels the need to ask a question during your presentation, chances are it is because you failed to explain something properly and they don't want to get lost. I, for one, hate it when a speaker just barrels through difficult material and I have to struggle to keep up (one time, the speaker pulled up a slide full of long lines of lambda calculi and went "as we can clearly see here..."; avoid that). Go through your talk plan carefully, identify the tricky issues, and make sure that you don't have hidden assumptions lurking anywhere. If in doubt, assume that the audience won't be able to follow you unless you explain things carefully. This much should ensure that all the questions come at the end and, more importantly, that they are substantial (i.e., none of this "I didn't quite catch your definition of blah, can you repeat it please?").
As for thanking your advisors, it's appropriate if you keep it short (like 20-seconds-tops short). You already have the acknowledgements of your dissertation to wax poetic all you want.

This is good advice.  But even if things are explained with perfect clarity, people might still have questions that they don't want to save until the end!  Not because they don't understand, but because they want more information.

Do's and don't of a thesis defense is hard to answer, but you seem to have two specific questions.
Questions during or after: Adding to Koldito (and I've just seen that Szabolcs also mentioned it), what are the regulations of your defense? My defense was highly regulated -- 30 minutes presentation, 30-45 minutes (or an hour? no idea anymore) for discussion. Under these conditions we practiced to give the talk in 30 minutes and did not plan for many questions, as it was understood that the questions will be asked after the presentation. So if in doubt, go for what is already established in your discipline at your university. I think it's more important to focus on the issues that your talk is a) understandable and b) within the time-frame. If you are asked a question anyway you can either answer it directly if it is necessary for understanding, or -- if possible -- say that you'd like to answer the question in the question period (if you have one). Same with any presentation, some questions divert and are not central, and they're best answered later.
Thanking advisers: Unless an adviser is narcissistic, I think it's enough to say in the beginning who your advisers were. The focus is on your work -- not you, not your advisers -- but what you did. Also you are not doing the presentation for the advisers, but address everyone in the audience. But if in doubt, do what comes natural to you.

A thesis defense is really a type of oral examination, and your advisor and committee are the examiners.  They can ask questions whenever they want!  And it would behoove you to answer them as best you can.  As such, it would be wise to prepare your talk with some flexibility, so that even if some time is taken up by questions you can still talk about everything essential, and if there are no questions you don't run out of things to say.
If local custom is that questions be saved until the end, that's fine - but let your advisor/committee enforce that on themselves.  If they choose to ask questions in the middle anyway, answer them.
If a question (or line of questions) becomes long and involved, and you are becoming sidetracked, then you could politely suggest resuming the discussion at the end.  But let your advisor/committee decide whether they want to do that, or continue discussing that question right then.
If people other than your advisor/committee are present, and you get questions from them, you can answer them briefly if possible; but I would avoid spending a lot of time on their questions.  For those folks, you can offer to talk to them further afterwards.

Ok good ideas.
advisor/committee are present, and you get questions from them, you can answer them briefly if possible; but I would avoid spending a lot of time on their questions. For those folks, you can offer to talk to them further afterwards.


text:
Should I worry that a graduate student somewhere gave a talk using my abstract?
I was looking for mentions of my work on the internet and I came across a seminar series in which a graduate student had given a talk using an abstract of mine. It is unpublished work which I posted on a preprint server. There was no mention in his talk announcement of who did the work, but it was unmistakable because it was in a very specialised area and got a fair bit of media exposure.
On the one hand, I think it is shoddy to give a talk about someone's work without mentioning them in your abstract. The student also never contacted me to ask if he could talk about my work or to get further information etc.
On the other hand, it seems unlikely that the student wanted to pass the work off as his own because, as I said, it already appeared in various newspapers and blogs with my name attached to it.
I thought of contacting the student or his advisor, but it seems a little heavy-handed, I don't know what I should say, and my default behaviour is just to do nothing.
On the other hand, I have been stung before by ruthless people in academia and I feel like I should be protecting my turf, particularly since I am not currently employed by a university.
Best case: it was an innocent misunderstanding, my work got some extra publicity because this student thought it was cool. Worst case: he makes some minor changes and publishes it under his own name and I am once again a doormat.

What kind of seminar series? Is this like an internal grad student seminar series where they take turns presenting papers, or did this student present the work at another institution?

Definitely an internal thing for graduate students.

Did the student just copy your abstract?  If so, that's probably just laziness, and nothing to worry about (credit-wise, for you).  Or was there something in the abstract that indicates they are claiming they did the work?

@Flounderer Maybe this was just an internal journal club. For these kind of things, it is expected that you talk about the paper of another researcher. Just contact him, there's a good chance that there is nothing to worry about here.

Kimball: hard to say; xLeitix: it's a postgraduate seminar.

The student also never contacted me to ask if he could talk about my work — Good for them. if you didn't want people to talk about it, you shouldn't have made it public.

"had given a talk using an abstract of mine" -- presumably you don't want to de-anonymise this student by linking to the details, but what do you mean by "using an abstract"? You can see his slides online, and one of them quotes your abstract without attribution? All you know is his presentation title mentions your work, like "Summary of recent news reports regarding result X", without mentioning you? The latter extreme might be nothing (the presentation itself might attribute properly), whereas the former is certainly something even if it's a smallish thing.

@SteveJessop the student just literally used my abstract from the arXiv as the abstract for his talk, without any mention of where it came from. I don't know anything else about the talk.

@JeffE I am not saying that I think the student should have contacted me. I just think that the fact that he didn't is evidence that his not mentioning me is fishy.

I think there are basically two cases here:

The student is presenting or leading discussion on your work as part of a "journal club" sort of series, and the abstract is your abstract because they're talking about your paper.
The student is baldly and ridiculously plagiarizing.

I think a good way to approach this is to assume case #1, and make contact with the student.  You might email the student (paper trail), cc'ing both their advisor and yours, with something like:

I noticed online that you gave a presentation on my paper [preprint link].  I'm interested to know how it was received, and if there was any interesting feedback.  Would you mind sharing your notes?

Now, if it's case #1, you've made positive contact with a possible fan and collaborator, and something really nice might come out of it.  If it's case #2, though, you've established a paper trail and made certain that the relevant supervisors on both sides are aware of it, so that if any incident happens in the future, your position is exceedingly clear and strong.

This is a great and well thought out approach. I have had classes before where  we have simply discussed various topics and gave a brief presentation on them - without actually doing research or writing formal papers. The general idea for those classes was just to get a general idea of innovative areas of research and methodologies as a way to brainstorm for ideas we may want to research more in depth.

@Ramrod: That may be the general idea, or even - as this might explain (yet not excuse) the lack of sufficient attribution - just to practice giving a presentation on an arbitrary topic without necessarily having a particularly deep interest in that topic.

@O.R.Mapper: an excellent opportunity to also practice giving correct attribution in a presentation when you refer to someone's abstract ;-)

@SteveJessop: Not necessarily; if the presentation was meant as a "simulation" of talking about one's own results (by students who do not have any own results yet, and hence need to be given someone else's results so there is something to talk about), it would be reasonable not to provide attribution. In that case, the result should absolutely not be publicly accessible online, though.

The first scenario sounds rather likely. At our group we do a similar thing: we announce the next session on a blog giving the next speaker and the abstract of the paper to be discussed (usually with a link, but it might get dropped unintentionally).


text:
Is it approriate to point out errors in the literature review in a thesis?
In a couple of either books or articles that I have read as part of my research there have been some minor errors (when taken in context of the whole work) when they relate to the area I am researching. My general research area is History.
For example one is, Area A operated as a B. Wherein fact it should have said Area A operated as a C.
The reasoning I was thinking of referring to them is to highlight while there is good literature on the topic I'm researching, sometimes errors can occur in more general histories which (hopefully) my thesis can address.
Is it appropriate to refer to such errors in that context?

If such errors in published literature are relevant to the question of your thesis, then yes, it is not only appropriate, but even necessary that you address them.
Otherwise, if the question of your thesis is not affected by these errors, and they are not major problems, I don't think they are important enough to mention in the literature review.

On the other hand, it could show the grader that you have a broader understanding and critical assesment.

I think as a rule of thumb: you have to consider what those errors mean.
If they are minor errors (maybe a wrong year for the death of a person or some spelling errors) then let it be. If there are errors that point to something else (especially in your field: History), you have to point to the cause. Are they really errors or is it a movement / conspiracy / something else that causes those errors? It often happens that new political regimes in a country rewrite the history (sometimes by deleting things, sometimes by adding errors or rumors so that the interpretation of various historical events is not clear enough - so that those events will be simply not important enough to be considered for future history books, and so and so forth...).
Or perhaps the historians who wrote those books you want to point to were simply not good enough at doing their job and just copy pasted things here and there, thus helping the wrong information to spread.


text:
Are professors paid during sabbatical?
Are professors paid during sabbatical? I'm mainly concerned about schools in the US. Answers about other countries are also welcome.

The short answer is: yes.
Sabbatical is not a vacation but is rather a leave of teaching to focus on research and publication. At many schools it is not automatic but must be applied for and is granted at the provost's discretion.
Some schools will only provide six months of funding, but will release a full year of teaching, making the faculty member responsible for getting grants for the remainder, or effectively working at half salary.

What are the options for the remainder half? From the host institution?

External grants. Spouses.

At my university, one of the requirements when applying for sabbatical is to apply for external funding.  (However, getting the sabbatical is not contingent on getting the funding.)

@Mark must you be entirely (100%) on external grants or is it 50:50?

The university pays 50% of the regular annual salary, no more and no less, regardless.  We don't need to apply for as much as 50% from other sources; all that's required is to apply for something.  I suspect that the rationale for the requirement is to demonstrate that you're serious about using the sabbatical for research, as opposed to trying to get half your salary for no work.

Yes. When you're not paid, it's normally called a "leave of absence."

In a perfect world, yes.
I work in a 400 year old pontifical university in the Philippines. I was tenured in 2012 which is supposed to entitle me certain leave privileges (LOA without pay, sabbatical leave, study leave etc.) I was not only denied any of these entitlement, but was also fired when I applied.

Good to know, if this is true I would never consider a professorship in the Phillippines...

In most  universities in Australia, you are paid a full salary when you go on sabbatical. You will also typically receive an allowance that hopefully covers most costs associated with travel and accommodation. You may also get an additional allowance if you are travelling with family. That said, such allowances often do not cover the full cost of travel. In such cases it helps  if you have additional sources of academic funds (e.g., grants, consulting funds, etc.).
From what I hear, academics in Australia tend to be eligible to apply for sabbatical more frequently than in other countries (often every three years). That said, obtaining sabbatical is not automatic. You would typically need head of department support presumably based on a strong rationale for the visit in combination with strong research or teaching performance in the preceding years.
Here's a few examples of policies:

University of Melbourne Special Studies Program (Long)
Deakin University Academic Study Program

authors: Николић Ђорђе


text:
Switch to Physics from CS Career
I've been considering a career change for awhile and recently discovered the Two-Slit Experiment, which, to put it frankly, blew my mind. I then started some hefty reading and investigation into all things Quantum (Bell, entanglement, QIT), which has led me here.
I have 20 years experience in IT working as a programmer, having graduated with a Bachelor in Computer Science back in the early 90s. As mentioned, I have been considering a career change for some time (having become quite burned out in this industry), and have found something that has piqued my interest more than anything else. I am not yet sure which area of "Quantum" I will be most drawn to, possibly Quantum Information Theory/Science.
I am aware that there is a significant amount of Maths and Physics pre-requisites involved. It seems likely, given that I have not done any Maths or Physics study probably since I was doing my CS undergrad, that I will need to start over with an undergrad in Science/Physics in order to get the fundamentals.
So my questions are:

What is the ideal path of education to get to QIT/QIS or QM?
Is the path to QIT/QIS also via the Physics route? Can I leverage my CS background?
Resources (books, online courses, etc) that would help with the transition from CS-type thinking to Physics/Maths-type thinking.
I'm considering Astrophysics as a minor (due to interest), but wondering whether it would be useful and complementary to Quantum Theory.

Apologies if this encompasses elements too broad or off-topic, I'm trying to get a better understanding on what is to come following this path. Thanks in advance.

This is a very interesting question; I'm looking forward to the answers as I feel part of the advice you will get may be applicable to other mid-career field changes.

I would point out that most people are switching out of physics to fields like CS these days, simply due to the lack of jobs available doing physics research. And young people who have been dedicated to physics their entire lives probably have a distinct advantage in getting those jobs. So I would advise against pinning your hopes on physics as a career. If you just want to learn physics at least up to the level of quantum mechanics, that's another matter. So which is it: are you looking to move into a career in physics, or just to learn about it?

@DavidZ True, but QIT is arguably just as much computer science as it is physics.

When I graduated from CS way back when I didn't have a particular job in mind, I was open to whatever came my way.  While I have an interest in QIT, again I am open.  It is likely I will go ahead and study it and see what happens thereafter.

@mbyrr just curious, as you posed this question 5 years ago, what happened? How far have you taken the switch to (Astro)physics ? It would be great if you can kindly share your experience?

Yes you can leverage.  At my university, these people work in the EECS department.  You could just apply to be a graduate student.
Study vector calculus and linear algebra.
Not really.  However, "big data" is quite popular in astro/astrophysics currently, so maybe you could get hired as a programmer.

Thanks.  From my understanding (and the folks over in physics.se) I would need to know QM and that is built on classic mechanics, and since I currently have neither it is not likely I could do directly into a graduate program in this area.  Investigations into said programs seems to support this, pre-req-wise.

On point 3: http://www.software.ac.uk/blog/2013-08-23-ten-reasons-be-research-software-engineer

I first posted this as a comment but feel it deserves to be an answer.
If you want to contribute to science, and still love coding but want to develop software for scientific purposes, check out this blog: http://www.software.ac.uk/blog/2013-08-23-ten-reasons-be-research-software-engineer
All I could add would be needless repeating of what you can read in the blog :)

If you can prove you are sufficiently 'self-taught' you maybe able to go direct into a graduate program. If not you will need an undergraduate degree in Physics. The first year often follows a single text book, so could be quite easily self taught, latter years tend to diverge a bit but generally follow fairly closely to the Feynman lectures (freely available online) - these would be great recommended reading if you wanted to start 'thinking' like a physicist, but other text books would be required for content.
Addressing point 4: I spent half my undergraduate degree doing Astrophysics and then went on to a PhD centred around quantum mechanics. Astrophysics wasn't of great use to me following the degree but it was really interesting! If I was to do another PhD it would be in astro-(planetary) physics.
As someone else mentioned: I left physics (as the vast majority of people do) for a job not in 'physics'. Most of the jobs which will be open to you with a physics degree you could probably walk straight into as an experienced programmer...

Comment: If you are interested in reading the Feynman lectures I would recommend getting a copy from your local library / buying the set. Not the easiest thing to read online, despite being free.


text:
How long does it typically take for editor's final decision after reviews are completed?
According to the reviewers, the paper I have submitted is now ready for publication.
How long I should wait to know the final decision of the editor-in-chief?

What do you mean "according to the reviewers"? That is not their call. Who sent you the reviews? Did that not include a decision?

Did they actually say "ready for publication?" If that is exactly what they said, it sounds a bit like weak praise, short of "suitable for this journal."

Since this is resurrected, it strikes me as unclear of what stage of the review process the article actually was in.  You can get referee reports and an initial decision by the editor based on them, but if the initial decision is positive then after revisions etc. are submitted there may be additional reviews done and the article can go before the full editorial board for a final decision.

Just to mention as an experience that may be useful for others. One of my papers is awaiting for Editor-in-Chief decision more than time it took for receiving reviewers' comments! At this point, I really do not know what I should to do. :) It's a ridiculous situation!

So in some journals EiC make the final decision, and in others it is the board that makes them?

Reviewers can only recommend a verdict so what they say is not necessarily the outcome, the editor has final say. Of course if two reviews agree then it is very likely the outcome will be what they suggest. In a normal review situation involving an editor, the reviewers provide their reviews to the editor who in turn will make a judgement and pass on comments and possible suggestions for improvements to you. If your manuscript is in an open review system (such as the discussion format of Copernicus Open Access journals), you  may see the reviews before final decisions are taken and in such a case, I would not trust reviewers opinions on the verdict until you also hear so from the editor.
As is pointed out in a comment, it is a bit intriguing that you seem to have the reviewers comments but not that from the editor. The time between completion of reviews and to a decision by an editor will vary depending on many factors. The editor has to read the reviews in light of the manuscript and then value the comments and provide a synthesis of the outcome for you. Obviously the editor will have other manuscripts to handle in parallel which influences the time a decision may take. To state a time that can be applied to any situation or journal is therefore pointless. I am, however, certain that any serious editor is not keen to hold on to a decision for any extended period. With the journals I have published and the one where I am Editor-in-Chief times from receipt of reviews to decision can vary from maybe days up to a month in rare cases. This seems reasonable for the field in which I work but I am sure that such times vary between both field and journals within a field.

Your second paragraph raises a key point: if the referee reports do not ask for revisions, why pass along the referee reports but not the editorial decision?  The only possible significance of this is to allow the author to see how long the editorial board is taking to reach its decision.  I don't understand why an editor would do this.

I am late to the discussion, but these issues are timeless, so I hope its okay.  The reviewer comments, if positive, certainly influence an editorial decision positively, but you can't rely on them.  Wait for the editor to respond.  Different journals have different policies.  Here is an anecdote from a BMC journal.
My paper was in review at this journal for close to 4 months, during which we went through two revisions.  At the end of it, two of the three reviewers took cheap shots at our product and shot the paper down.  The editor, as it turned out, a person with a Master's degree opined "based on reviewer reports, we are rejecting this manuscript".  We complained because there was no editorial opinion and were asked to resubmit the manuscript.  During second review, they invited two additional reviewers and we finally were able to provide satisfactory revisions and both reviewers recommended acceptance. Again no editorial comment was provided.  Our editor during the second submission is a fresh PhD graduate.  We have been awaiting a final decision for 10 days.  Upon inquiring we were told that now a senior editorial board member is assessing the manuscript before a final decision could be rendered.
I certainly do not think this is the norm, but keep in mind that there are journals out there who do a sloppy job and employ unqualified people in editor's position.

Sounds like a low-ranking journal with questionable reputation.  You must be in a different field than me, as in mine I've never known an editor to provide his own opinion on the work, nor anyone to expect it, beyond desk rejects.  It's always a "The reviewers have recommended acceptance, so we need you to make the requested revisions..." or "The reviewers have recommended rejection, so we will not be accepting..." type of response.  Presumably there's a third option involving a major revision that may then be subjected to further review, but I've not personally encountered this situation.

I will declare the name of the journal once we get a final decision.  In the meantime, in my field it used to be the norm that the editor will compile reviewer's reports, then write his own opinion before making a decision.  But this process appears be going away. More or more editors are in name only.  They have turned into paper pushers.  I recently retracted my review in two journals because the editor declined to provide any comment.  If you want your name on a manuscript, you better do some real work.  That's my opinion.  Otherwise anyone could be an editor.