text:
How to prevent a coauthor from stealing the article?
Please go through the following incidents to understand the problem.
Mr. A is a Ph.D. student of some institute who was working with Prof. B of another institute on a very interesting mathematical problem since last three years. Recently, they came across a significant solution to it. They wrote a research article to publish in a very good mathematics journal that accepts the online submission.
Prof. B wanted to submit it to the journal by himself. Mr. A agreed.
A few days ago, Mr. A wanted to know about the submission of their article via telephone. Prof. B informed that the article is submitted. But, Mr. A received any confirmation e-mail neither from the journal nor Prof. B forwarded the submission mail to him. Prof. B did not upload it in arXiv, which is a free preprint repository.
Mathematics journals used to take a long duration to review and publish an article. Prof. B told that submitting this article to arXiv will immediately attract community attention. Many researchers will start working in the new direction. As a result, Mr. A and Prof. B may lose their opportunity to work on that problems. Also, the article may be stolen.
Mr. A did not ask Prof. B to forward the submission confirmation mail to him. Prof. might think that Mr. A is suspecting him. It may affect the relationship. Also, Prof. is a very powerful person in the administration, who may prevent an opportunity for Mr. A to gain a job. Again from some of his friends, Mr. A came to know that Prof. had distributed related research problems to his collaborators.
As a consequence, Mr. A is thinking that Prof. has submitted this work in his own name and he has lost his credit as the first author of this article.
Now the question is: How Mr. A may save his credit and his work without hampering his relationship with Prof B?

So the paper is already on arxiv under both their names? And it is in submission to a journal? What exactly is the problem then?

I read it as: Prof. B did not  post the article on arXiv, even though Mr. A apparently expected him to do so.  Whether they had actually discussed, in advance, whether to post on arXiv is unclear.  Anyway, it seems to me absurd to take these incidents and jump to the conclusion that A submitted the paper without B's  name.

I don't really see anything here that suggests that Prof B is trying to steal the work. Nor do I understand what he would gain from being a sole author vs. a co-author. Can you elaborate why Mr. A is suspicious?

Another point - if this is in math, then authors are nearly always listed in alphabetical order, and "first author" has no meaning.

Mr. A came to know that Prof. had distributed related research problems to his collaborators. This is not suspicious either - it's the whole point of having collaborators.  Just because you collaborate with someone on one thing, that doesn't give you the exclusive right to collaborate on every other possible project that arises from it.

@NateEldredge Given that OP writes "did not UPDATE it in arXiv" I assumed that it must already be on axiv. But maybe they meant upload. However the connection with the paper being stolen from arxiv seems bizarre.

Also "Mr. A did not ask Prof. B to forward the submission confirmation mail to him.", why not? While it may have been nice of them to so on their own, maybe they just forgot. So why not just ask for the mail?

Proper word should be "UPLOAD".

For me it sounds mr A is a paranoid collaborator, who has difficulties clearly communicating with his/her partners.

An article might be "stolen" if it is published on arXiv? I don't get that.

OP: what makes you believe that your name was omitted from the manuscript? Did you ask for a copy of the submitted manuscript (useful, because sometimes there are minor changes) to be sent to you?

In this age, it seems highly unlikely that there is absolutely no permanent record of their communication and collaboration: how did they collaborate in writing the paper? Did they exchange drafts via e-mail, for instance?
So, if this happens, you simply show the evidence to the editors and to the direct superiors of prof. B. End of story.

And, additionally, which author names were included in the draft? Unless it is a double-blind submission, of course.


text:
Comparison between benefits of publishing a paper at a conference and a journal
My friends submit their papers at different conferences. They visit to another university or institute in India or abroad to present their work at a gathering of researchers which is formally called conference. To celebrate it they share snapshots in Facebook, discuss their experience of a foreign trip, grand dinners, gossiping with new friends, so on and so forth.
To continue a good piece of research work, one face a lot of hardness and difficulties. Hence, one may expect maximum benefit from it. My question is how beneficial submitting a paper at highly reputed journal rather than a highly reputed conference academically? Which one is better?
Please compare between the benefit of a journal and a conference publication from different perspective. Note that, I am at the very beginning of my research career in Mathematics.

The answer of your question depends on your field. In some fields, publishing at conferences is norm, What's your field?

There's a strong correlation between a venue's reputation and its citation frequency. You can find citation frequency rankings for many research areas at  Google Scholar.

@scaaahu It is Mathematics, I have edited the question accordingly.

Could you be a bit more specific than just mathematics. In theoretical math, people do not publish in conferences at all, while it is my understanding that applied math works a bit more like CS in that regard.

@Tobias: I think applied math is more or less like math. You can definitely publish in some conferences (you can in math, as well), but journal publications are what really counts.

@PeterShor could you give an example of such a conference? I have never heard of such in pure math (not counting the typical type of conference proceedings in math which is something rather different).

@Tobias: Take a look at these books.

@PeterShor Yes, those are the type of conference proceedings I mentioned. They are very different from what people mean when they speak of publishing in a conference since the papers are generally written after the conference and only loosely based on talks at the conference. Also, the majority of material in such papers is usually expository rather than new results.

This depends on your field. In computer science, publishing at the best conferences is worth more on your CV than publishing in journals. In most other fields, journal publications (even in mediocre journals as long as they are properly peer-reviewed) are worth much more on your CV than conference papers at even the best peer-reviewed conferences.
Assuming that you are not in computer science or a field that shares its unusual norms, a good journal paper will be:

A more meaningful line on your CV;
More likely to be widely cited (or cited at all);
More likely to be thoroughly peer-reviewed, which may help to improve the paper (peer-review at many conferences is cursory or non-existent);
More likely to be indexed by Web of Science and Scopus so that it can be easily found and so that your citations can be counted;
More likely to be assigned a permanent DOI and permanent "home" on the web and in library collections.

Publishing via conferences does have advantages, though:

The publication process is usually faster, which can be particularly
important in fast-moving fields;
Conference papers are (in many if not most fields) much easier to get accepted for publication than papers in good journals;
Conference papers can be a good way to get early feedback on - or publicity for - work in progress;
Some conferences are closely associated with scholarly societies and their journals, and conference papers are sometimes considered
drafts of potential journal papers (authors of the best conference
papers may be invited to submit extended versions to a journal, for
instance);
Some treat conference papers (or at least, conference seminars) as a way to get publicity for already-published journal papers;
Attending conferences is a great way to build connections within your field, learn about the latest work of other groups, and meet
people who may be interested in your results or in working with you
in future. They can also be great fun.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Returning to research/academia
I'm a 28 year old Ph.D. student in CS (databases), in my first year of study - I have completed a research-based Master's program and published a couple of papers as well.
I love research, and my current school + supervisor. However, I'm under severe financial pressures, and the stipend isn't cutting it (I'm unable to take up part-time work, since I'm on a visa). I have standing offers from great companies. The logical step is for me to take up a job at one of these places, since my plan was to work in industry after a Ph.D. anyway.
However, I wish to return to academia (as a professor) at some point, perhaps in my 40s. My choices are:

Continue in my current program (very stressful personally)
Re-apply (after I'm financially settled) to a Ph.D. program, in my mid-late thirties.
Try and publish from industry (collaborate with my current advisor) and apply for a position in academia later on (as a researcher/tenure-track professor).

Questions for you guys:

General advice on any other options I don't know about?
Is (2) worthwhile, will I get into a good program (mainly concerned by the age factor)
Is (3) even possible? If so, how rare is it that academic positions are offered to non-Ph.D.'s? My field is closely tied to industry, so there will be chances for me to work and publish research, but I'm not sure how pedantic academia is as far as requiring the terminal Ph.D. degree.

How many person-years of research have you completed? (That is, number of years into PhD less number of years of classes if any.)

please see updated info

(2) is definitely possible, commonly done, and age is not a problem at all. At the last conference I visited, one of the papers was presented by a PhD student in his early seventies who had gone back to get the degree because his retirement was boring.

@nengel : That's encouraging. Was this in CS? Which area of research is he working on?

Computer Engineering, the student in question had a long career as a hardware engineer and is now working on some accelerators for near data computing.

In deciding between Options 1 and 2, be sure to think about what your personal situation might be like ten years from now.  In particular, do you want to get married?  Do you want to have children?  If you have a supportive spouse who makes a large income and no children at that time, quitting your job and restarting your Ph.D. will probably be relatively easy.  If you're the sole breadwinner for a household of five, and your spouse's income prospects are limited, it may be nearly impossible for you to do this;  you're probably better off toughing it out now.

Concerning Option 3:  as a general rule, one has to be truly exceptional to get hired as a full-time professor without a Ph.D. in the USA.  This is because of two factors:

Universities are judged on what fraction of their faculty have "terminal degrees".  This is one of the metrics used in the U.S. News & World Report rankings, for example.
In almost every field, the number of Ph.D.s granted each year is far greater than the number of full-time academic jobs that become available.  This means that every academic job vacancy in the US could be filled several times over and still leave many Ph.D.s without employment in academia.

All of this means that if you apply for such a job without a Ph.D., and all other things being equal, it is unlikely that a hiring committee will seriously consider your application over the dozens/hundreds of candidates with a doctorate.  The situation may not be as bad in CS as it is in other fields, since CS Ph.D.s can (presumably) more easily find employment outside of academia;  but it's still a factor that's working against you. Neither of these factors is likely to lessen over the next decade or so;  if anything, universities have been steadily moving away from employing full-time professors and towards employing adjunct professors, so the latter point is likely to get worse.
This is not to say that you can't teach at the college/university level without a Ph.D.  However, your options will probably be limited to two types of jobs.  One is two-year colleges, where it is expected that teaching will take up all of your time and so the research experience & credentials conferred by a Ph.D. are of minimal importance.  However, you mention that you want to be a "researcher" at a university, so this is probably not the sort of job you want.
The other is adjunct professorships:  piecemeal employment which is not full-time.  If teaching one course per semester at the local college/university as a "side hustle" while holding down a full-time job in industry appeals to you, then this might be a viable option; the above-mentioned growth of adjunct faculty positions could even work in your favor here.  Some people try to cobble together multiple adjunct positions into full-time employment, but honestly, this is a recipe for stress and heartbreak and I cannot recommend it as a career plan.

Bullet #2 seems to make bullet #1 irrelevant. If there are more PhDs than positions it should be trivial to fill all positions with PhDs, so it ends up just being a measure of how many total faculty members individual institutions have.

it should be trivial to fill all positions with PhDs — Only if PhDs apply.
Many faculty at community colleges don't have doctorates.

(2) is totally possible, in particular when you are in CS. System skills and industrial experience are highly valuable. Many research labs want to develop industrial-strength tools. I know plenty of examples.
(3) is also very common. Search for positions such as "Research Engineer" in industrial research labs. You can still publish papers, even as lead author. Check some websites of research groups at NASA Ames, you will find many people without a PhD.

Another option is to do PhD part-time and work in industry at the same time. In Switzerland (and perhaps Germany), it is called external Phd students. You do PhD part-time, the company pays for your tuition fee, but often requires you to work for them for a number of year after PhD. Note that there is no difference between part-time PhD and full-time PhD in the degree.
NASA Ames has this policy. Many universities have campus inside Ames, e.g. CMU, UCSC,... and many of their employees are doing part-time PhD in these campus. In particular, I know a Moroccan guy who is working at Ames, and doing PhD remotely in France. The reason is that his supervisor is a collaborator in a project at Ames.

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


text:
Obtaining feedback from supervisors
I'm a PhD student in the process of writing a manuscript. I have more than one supervisor and other collaborators for the project I'm writing up presently. I've also received very useful feedback from all supervisors. However, there's one problem. I often find that the feedback from one supervisor sometimes contradicts feedback from another. I try not to take sides but I'm not entirely sure how other researchers have dealt with this in the past.
So in summary, what do you do when you get conflicting feedback from your supervisors?
Note: my supervisors are my advisors and the manuscript is a part of my PhD-not the entire thesis.

After answering your question, I glanced at your SE profile and I saw a discrepancy between your titles there and in question (unless in UK "postgraduate student" has a different meaning from one in US). Obviously, if you're a postgraduate student in US terminology (that is, a Ph.D. graduate), then my answer is not applicable.

In Re: your Note. There still should be a person, who is managing (formally or informally) the group of your advisors. If my assumption is correct, then IMHO that person should resolve such situations.

@AleksandrBlekh, I think postgraduate education in the uk is the equivalent of graduate education in the US.

Thank you for the clarification - I wasn't aware of that terminology difference. By the way, good luck with your dissertation (thesis)!

Do you have one main supervisor?  If so, you probably want to follow there advice over your other supervisors.  However, be sure their opinions are really contradictory.  Sometimes you can address seemingly contradictory suggestions simultaneously.
In any case, you should understand why they made the suggestions they did, which may involve asking them.  At this point you can mention that Supervisor B made a different suggestion X and ask "What do you think about that?"  It may be that one of them agrees with the other, either because there was no real contradiction of opinion, or one changes their mind.  (I often waffle back and forth about how to write a paper.)  In any case, based on their reactions to other supervisors' suggestions, you should (hopefully) be able to discern which ones are safest to ignore, and which are most important.

Thanks for your answer. I have a primary supervisor but my research is very interdisciplinary requiring inputs from all supervisors. I'll certainly try your suggestion.

If by "supervisors" you mean your dissertation committee, then, as far as I know, the standard approach is to allow the committee chair (advisor) to resolve various conflicts of that kind between her/him and committee members.
At many universities (well, at least, at some, mine included), a Ph.D. student is actually prohibited from direct communication with committee members — in particular, on dissertation (manuscript) revisions' feedback — so, this burden is a part of the advisor's responsibilities. Perhaps, such arrangement is not common across universities within a country and across different countries.

"Supervisor" in the UK is what Americans call "Advisor": the professor under who you do your research. It is also common to have two co-supervisors with who you have close interaction with.

@Davidmh: Got it - thank you for clarification.

Your research is, ultimately, your responsibility. You don't have to follow anyone's advise; it just so happens to usually be a good idea.
When you get feedback, you have to ask yourself if you understand why you are being told so, if you think your supervisor understands the issue (not nearly a given!), and if you understand what he is up to. Then, make a call and decide if your way was the best, you should follow your supervisor's comments, or come up with a third path. Don't hesitate to come back to him, presenting your arguments and listening to his, until you are sure you understand.
The same applies to conflicting information.  Consider who knows more of the specific situation, and if the issue is relevant, you should talk or send a common email to both of them to clarify any possible doubt.
If the issue is mostly a cosmetic detail, like they like different definitions of the Fourier Transform, I am sorry, you are in a situation  that can only be solved in duel.


text:
Portal for sharing a research manuscript with supervisors/advisors
I was wondering if there was a website or portal for confidentially sharing research manuscript with supervisors/collaborators whilst its being drafted. I tend to just e-mail the manuscript to my supervisors after an update which practically means multiple e-mails. I'm aware that drop box is nice for sharing files, etc and I'm also aware of mendeley. Is anybody else aware of a better way of doing this? It'll be nice to have a portal where I could just update my manuscript and supervisors/advisors could just log in and see the updated version and maybe add their comments, etc.

GIT, or setting up a collaboration platform like Redmine.

@Alexandros, thanks, never heard of this, I'll definitely check it out.

I tend to have a shared dropbox folder with students who work on a project, like you suggest.

What do you mean by "better". What are the shortcomings of e-mail that you want to fix?

@BorisBukh, I think e-mail is ok if you have one or two supervisors/feedback to review. It can become very unmanageable when you have to review feedback from about 5 academics (or even more) for example. However, if you have any suggestions as to how this can be efficiently managed using e-mail, I would be very happy to hear from you.

@John You're very lucky to have "5 academics (or even more)" to look over your drafts!

@Earthliŋ, Thanks. My project spans several disciplines hence the number of supervisors.

A more serious difficulty than where to put things, might be the too-many-cooks problem.  Unless your volunteer readers are all communicating well among themselves, functioning as a real group, you might be better off asking for feedback sequentially.  Go through several iterations with one person, then let that person take a break, and go through some iterations with another person, and so on.

If your use case is really only about sharing a document, then it does not get much easier than Dropbox. If you are actually collaborating (more than one person is writing stuff at the same time), I would not recommend Dropbox, as it is much to easy to overwrite changes of other people. For such collaborations, I would recommend a collaborative writing platform (Overleaf if you use Latex, Windows Live if you use Microsoft Word), or a private version control repository such as Github if you feel confident using Git.

Thanks for your answer. I do have many collaborators so perhaps a collaborative writing platform would be better idea.

Just to complement the other answers, sync is not backup...
Dropbox only keeps old files for a limited amount of time (Thanks @Christian Clason)... owncloud on the other hand does keep older versions, using some rules. It usually works. Downside is to have to manage your own server, upside is complete control over the content and who access it...
Google drive doesn't have a client for linux yet btw...
Personally, I use a combination of these. My 'current' stuff, that I'm working on privately, I keep on my owncloud (using an old laptop). Collaborative stuff on an svn at the university. Old stuff (cold storage) at google drive...

Dropbox does keep older versions (even if you delete the file), but not indefinitely (for 30 days if you don't pay for extended storage). You can access them from the website, or reasonably new versions of the client (how depends on the operating system).

owncloud's backup is way more comprehensive then:
https://doc.owncloud.org/server/7.0/user_manual/files/versioncontrol.html

I used to use owncloud which works basically like DropBox but you (or your administrator) have to set up the server by yourself. A pro is, that the server is under your control which may be desirable or not. A similar service is PowerFolder and I only mention this since my university offers a free cloudstorage with PowerFolder for staff and students. You may check if your university has something similar.
Anyway, you need to find something that fits the workflow of the team (i.e. you and your advisor). I suggest a version control system like git or mercurial (like other also do) but not everybody like to work like this…

Two thoughts:

github.  It is also visible to the world, but is the hub for reproducible research.
Evernote. It is commercial, but private, and integrates with lots of useful technolgoies.


text:
No response from journal editors
I'm not so sure what to do in this situation. I'm a final year PhD student who submitted a manuscript for publication in a clinical journal (paediatrics) about 5 months ago. I've been tracking the online status of the manuscript and as of February 2016 it indicated "all reviews complete". Its been over 1 month now and I've tried calling, sending e-mails, no reply whatsoever. The phone keeps ringing and I've also left messages (Its based in the US-I'm in the UK). There's only one e-mail address provided on their website and I've struggled to get contact details of any of the other academics on the editorial board.
I'm just getting a little concerned by the lack of feedback or update regarding the manuscript-has anyone experienced this before? What would you do apart from keep waiting?
Edit: Just to let you all know that I heard from them a day after this post!

Writework on  another paper?

@MikeyMike, Thanks-I'm actually writing my thesis at the moment.

@MikeyMike While I suspect you intended to put a / in your comment somewhere, "writework" is my new favorite academic verb.

Over a month seems normal to me. The editor will need time to consolidate the reviewers' comments and decide on whether to accept, reject, or return the paper to you for revision. It might take longer if the recommendations from the reviewers are conflicting. Bear in mind that the editor has other responsibilities and might handle a number of papers at the same time.
Usually in the online submission system there will be an option to send a message to the editor handling the paper. You can try it if there is one. I would not suggest contacting other editors in the editorial board as they may not be involved with the review of your paper.

Thanks for your comment-in that case, I shall continue waiting to hear from them-hopefully before I finish the PhD.

Even if it is not published by the time you are applying for your next position, just list it as "submitted" or something.  This is quite common.

Do you know when their next issue is due to be released? (Is it a monthly or quarterly publication?)
If the new issue is due out soon they may be very busy, and not replying to your emails because your questions will soon be answered when the journal is published.
Secondly, have you mentioned this to your PhD supervisor? They may be familiar with the journal or general practices in your field and be able to advise you how long the process normally takes. Also, they may have more contacts and be able to get in touch with someone to find out if there is an issue.
If the problem persists or you think there is an issue with the journal, I have known people in my field (astrophysics) to withdraw papers and resubmit to a different journal, but I'm not sure how much that happens in other disciplines.

Thanks for your comments. It appears they've just released an issue this month so perhaps they've been quite busy. I've discussed this with my supervisors and they advised contacting the journal editors.


text:
When writing a synopsis "review", may I contact the authors with questions?
Please read the following background paragraph carefully to understand the meaning of "review" in this question - it may not be what you think.  In particular, this is not a duplicate of Is it acceptable as referee to contact an author on a paper you review?, and the peer-review and review-articles tags are not really applicable here.
In mathematics, we have two well-known "review databases": MathSciNet / Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH (aka zbMATH).  These services aim to create a comprehensive database of papers that have already been published in peer-reviewed journals.  For each recently published paper, they invite an independent expert in the subject (not one of the authors) to write what is (perhaps confusingly) called a "review", which is really just a synopsis of the paper's content - a sort of third-party extended abstract, perhaps 1-4 paragraphs long.  The review is generally not expected to make a judgment of the paper's quality or novelty, though it may cite other papers for context.  When the review is finished, it is posted in the database along with bibliographic information for the paper, including the reviewer's name (so these reviews are not anonymous).  The databases are available by subscription, and are the field's primary tool for literature searches.

I have been invited to review a paper for zbMATH.  In reading the paper, I got confused by some notation that seems to be unclear; it could be an error or omission in the original paper, or maybe just something I have overlooked.   I would like to contact the authors to ask for clarification.  Is it appropriate for me to contact them directly?  If so, should I identify myself as a zbMATH reviewer, or just a reader with a question?
I can't think of any concrete reason not to do so.  My review will eventually be printed with my name, so I don't have anonymity to protect, and it won't say anything controversial.  But I do have some vague sense that my review is supposed to be "independent", so I am hesitating.
I suppose I can ask the zbMATH editors / administrators, but I would also be interested in opinions from the community.
(Note that the database editors are not generally in contact with the authors of the paper - they just grab the published papers and send them out to reviewers.  So it isn't as though I would use the editors as an intermediary.)

For reference, the invitation from zbMATH reads as follows:

[W]e would like you to contribute a review of the attached item for
  zbMATH. We hope that you will find the publication to be of interest to
  you. We would appreciate if your review would give an independent
  description. If you cite parts of the original text please label
  extensive verbatim quotations as such.

More information about what is expected in a review can be found at https://zbmath.org/reviewer-service/, but the issue at hand is not addressed.

I am fairly sure that the "independent" in "independent description" means textually independent, i.e., not copying from the source and reasonably selfcontained. (I would contact the author without hesitation. Then again I am not a ZB/MathSciNet reviewer.)

I contacted the zbMATH editors with this question, and received the following reply from staff member David Biesenack:

It is totally okay, if
  you contact the author for clarification.

I have written almost 100 Zentralblatt reviews and contacted authors numerous times for clarifications. In one case, the author forgot to include part of a proof, which I put into the review for him. Usually it's just some notation I don't understand. I think there is no problem contacting the author and in fact the author may appreciate it.

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


text:
How much should I adapt a paper to fit another conference than where I originally submitted?
Me and my research buddies have written this paper, summarizing and drawing conclusions from a proof-of-concept we've coded and tested. This paper regards several fields or subjects in (applied) Computer Science, and fits relatively well the call-for-papers of a few highly-rated conferences. On the other hand, former papers on the same subject have been published mostly in a single conference, and only a few in one or two others.
We're a bit overdue on submission; and the most-relevant conferences' next submission deadline is in about half a year or never (one may have been discontinued, it was more of a workshop). So, we want to submit to a well-regarded conference, with a matching CFP.
Now, while the CFP covers our work, the conference's 'angle' is somewhat different. This while other papers on our subject build a sort of internal discourse amongst themselves, i.e. essentially pick up the discussion where other papers left off. More or less. This is obviously made more acceptable, or maybe made possible, by the fact that most of them are published in the same conference.
So my questions are:

Is it a good idea or not to try for the upcoming conference, even though we'll be the first paper on our subject to be published there? i.e. do we stand a reasonable chance?
How much should we try to adapt the paper, to sound less of a continuation of the 'internal discourse' of our subject and more likes something appealing to the 'crowd' of the upcoming conference?

PS - The results are sound. They're not the end-all of exploring the subject, but there's plenty of meat in there. So it's not a borderline-accept paper (if I can say so myself).

It's very hard to judge how well a paper will be received by a particular set of reviewers (which is the real question for paper acceptance).  It is certain, however, that the more that you adapt the paper to speak to the community that you are sending it to, the more likely it is to be well received.
I think that in making your decision, you would be well advised to think less about time and more about audience. Six months isn't very long to wait for a publication, so unless you've got a reason to really hurry, I wouldn't take that as a primary factor.  Instead, consider whether the work you are doing is an incremental step that would be best reserved for discussion in the focused community or whether you think it's broad and interesting enough that the larger community should hear it.
If the former, then finish the paper now and set a reminder in your calendar for a few weeks before the deadline of the focused conference. If the latter, then go for the earlier conference and put in as much work as necessary to speak to the broader audience.  Don't just send a narrow paper to a broad conference, though: even if you get accepted, you will have less impact than if you adapt the work for the audience to which you are intending to present it.

The thing is, this paper should have been published more than 6 months ago, and a poster about it has appeared this year. So waiting a full year for a conference article is a stretch.

@einpoklum I don't think it's as long a stretch as you think.  I think that you should be thinking more about the period of the next five years in which people will be citing your paper (or not, if you publish in the badly fitted venue).  If you're worried about being scooped, put out a preprint on arXiv or as an institutional tech report.

authors: อุปกรณ์เบเกอรี่


text:
Will the admission committee actually read a student's paper mentioned in resume?
(This question is set up under the EECS context, but any generic answer is much welcomed)
It is said that publications during one's undergraduate time will be an advantage in his/her PhD application. Usually, an undergraduate only starts publishing papers in his/her junior (3rd) year, and the application deadline usually comes at the end of his/her junior year. Hence, it is very likely that although the paper has been accepted by or even already presented in a certain conference, yet it has not been included into IEEE Xplore.
If the student has not uploaded the paper to some preprint database, such as arXiv or ResearchGate, then the admission committee will have no access to the paper. Of course, they may still be able to find some information about the paper, e.g., a tittle and an abstract appearing in the conference schedule, but after all they cannot go deeper into the paper content.
Questions

Does the admission committee even bother to go through the paper to assess the work quality? (Sometimes, you can have a rough quality assessment by looking at which journal/conference the paper is accepted by)
If the answer is positive, is it a good idea for the applicant to upload the papers to arXiv and provide the committee with the links so that the committee can read the papers as they wish?

Short answers: Yes, they do, and yes, it is.

While it's a single N experience from my graduate school application process:

Does the admission committee even bother to go through the paper to
  assess the work quality? (Sometimes, you can have a rough quality
  assessment by looking at which journal/conference the paper is
  accepted by)

Yes. Several interviews I had mentioned content within the paper, at at least one of them had a good 10 or 15 minute discussion about the research that didn't start with the phrase "So, tell me what your paper was about..."

If the answer is positive, is it a good idea for the applicant to
  upload the papers to arXiv and provide the committee with the links so
  that the committee can read the papers as they wish?

Yes. If your field is arXiv friendly, put it there. If your field isn't particularly arXiv friendly (like mine) and your paper is in press, consider providing the PDF as a supplement to your admissions packet.

For admissions in the US, this is almost certainly true. I'm not so sure about European admissions, where individual groups make the hiring decisions. They may not have time to read every publication.

Committee members will absolutely want to see it.  The best way to ensure that they can easily do so is to submit a copy of the paper with the application (either on hard copy if the application is hard copy, or more commonly electronically).  My own experience has been that most schools require submission of a writing sample as part of the application (although I'm not in engineering).  Even if you've already published something, it's not enough to just give the reference; they want you to provide the actual paper.


text:
Correct Academic Title, Necessity of Adding All Emails, Necessity of Adding Authors Photo in IEEE Transaction Journal?
I should provide a concise biography of myself for IEEE transactions journal. We received the paper proof and this biography goes at the end of our accepted paper. At one point in my biography I should add my current position. So, I’ve written the following sentence. “He is currently a lecturer in ABC University”
ABC University is a small university that I am teaching some academic courses there. I am working there with my Master degree and teach the student who are purchasing Bachelor degree in Electrical engineering. I am not an associated, assistant or full professor. I am a part time instructor that is qualified to teach these students. Also, I don't have any constant commitment to the university as well. I fill out a contract form for each semester and get paid based on the hours that I teach at the university. So I would like to ask:

what is my exact ranking title? A lecturer, instructor, adjunct
lecturer, adjunct instructor or what?
How much is it important to be precise for academic title in this
biography?

My professor which is the corresponding author of this paper didn't add my email at the foot note of paper and only added his own email there. He was concern about exceeding 8 page limit of IEEE transactions papers in first submission of the manuscript. In the other stages where we received the revision of the paper he said we will add it after the acceptance stage.... so, right now we received the IEEE proof PDF of the paper and we are only asked to prepare a  Biography.So I would like to ask:

Is it important to include all authors email in the paper? (I am the
first name on the paper and he is the second, but he is the
corresponding author)
considering the fact that, we only received the PDF of the paper, How
can we correct the foot note at this stage?

The IEEE editorial board didn't ask us about providing a photo beside our biography. Why is that? All publications of this kid of transactions have a photo beside authors biography. Also, in the 'authors guide' it is mentioned that a photo and biography is needed. on the other hand, my professor told me we only send them our short biography, because after their pedantic revision our paper became 13 pages and we should pay about 550$ fine. So, I would like to ask:

Is it important to add our photo beside biography?
Considering the fact that we didn't exceed 8 page limit of IEEE in the first
submission of our manuscript, and the other 5 pages has been added to
the paper based on the reviewers revision and editing of the editorial
board, Do we still need to pay that fine? Also, My professor and I are
Senior member and Student of IEEE organization, does that help us to
get rid of paying the fine?

Your help is much appreciated in advance.

what is my exact ranking title? A lecturer, instructor, adjunct
  lecturer, adjunct instructor or what?
How much is it important to be precise for academic title in this
  biography?

If you are uncertain about your official title, talk to folks in your departmental office and/or the human resources (HR) people (or folks in the equivalent HR office at your institution). So long as you are making a good effort to state truthfully what your current title is, I wouldn't expect there to be any problems.

Is it important to include all authors email in the paper? (I am the
  first name on the paper and he is the second, but he is the
  corresponding author)
considering the fact that, we only received the PDF of the paper, How
  can we correct the foot note at this stage?

I have seen folks list email addresses for all authors, just the email address of the corresponding author, or somewhere in between. It's up to you: you have every right to have your email address shown on the first-page footnote if you want it there. To make any additions to the footnote (or your biography, or anything else as I mentioned in this answer), contact the senior editor assigned to your manuscript. If you don't know who the senior editor is, the corresponding author of your paper does: contact your corresponding author and ask them to supply you with this information.

Is it important to add our photo beside biography? Considering the
  fact that we didn't exceed 8 page limit of IEEE in the first
  submission of our manuscript, and the other 5 pages has been added to
  the paper based on the reviewers revision and editing of the editorial
  board, Do we still need to pay that fine? Also, My professor and I are
  Senior member and Student of IEEE organization, does that help us to
  get rid of paying the fine?

Again, it's up to you: some authors have bios with pictures, some do not (some people choose not to even include a bio!). To me, the IEEE Transactions have very clear policies on the charges authors pay for going over a certain page limit: everyone pays these regardless of whether they are members of the IEEE or not.
Finally, don't let your corresponding author "bully" you into omitting your bio/photo just to save on publishing costs. As a corresponding author, even though I don't care if my bio has to be shortened to fit some page-count restriction, I always make sure to save room for co-author bios/photos and find other ways to trim the paper down without sacrificing the overall quality of the paper. The way I see it, if a co-author wants to include a bio/photo to, for example, advertise themselves to the journal's target audience, then they should be given the opportunity to do so.

For the last paragraph: perhaps the issue is that including longer bios with photos would add another page to the paper, resulting in a higher charge?

@NateEldredge Thanks, I have clarified a bit in the last paragraph.


text:
Whether to italicise the name of government program in APA style?
I am writing a paper in APA about a government funded program. Do I italicize the name of the program?

APA requires the use of italics for:

Titles of books, journals and periodicals, films, and videos
Introduction of new key technical term or label
Anchors of scale
Words, phrases, or letters presented as linguistic examples
General/scientific names, species, and varieties
Letters in statistical symbols or algebraic variables
When a reader might not see the intended emphasis or misinterpret the use of a word in a sentence.

The name of a government funded program does not belong into any of these categories. So the answer to your question is no.
For sake of completenes, here is when APA forbids the use of italics:

Emphasis
Foreign phrases common in English
Greek letters
Nonstatistical subscripts to statistical symbols
Chemical terms

By the way, I found this information simply by googling for "APA italics".

APA allows authors some flexibility in using italics for emphasis. I certainly support that and have used it, based on my judgement and context at hand. +1


text:
How to export the reference list for a given paper using Google Scholar?
Google Scholar allows you to do forward search via cited by - that is, you can get a list of references that cite a given reference. Is there any way to do backward search, i.e. get a list of references cited BY a given reference?
I realize that you can always click the reference, go to the journal page, and likely get the reference list there, but I am wondering if there is any way to do it within the context of Google Scholar.

Weirdly, I don't think that Google Scholar provides that feature, even though they clearly parse and store this information internally. This does indeed sound like a nice feature to have access to.

They have this information, but it may not be fast or easy to retrieve it, depending on the specific format that they use.

Unfortunately, Google Scholar only provides the list of publications that cite a given reference.
However, if you have access to Web of Science, to look up a list of references cited in a given publication, you can use the "Cited References" tool.
Note that some journals are not indexed by Web of Science. In that case, you will need to look up the bibliography in the full text of the publication.


text:
How does a petty marijuana possession charge affect graduate admissions in math?
I was charged with possession of marijuana earlier this year. In my state, it's not a crime, just a violation with a fine. Technically, it's not even a conviction because there's a diversion program that results in the charge being dropped after a year. The problem is that it won't be dismissed and expunged until after I apply for graduate school. So right now the charge is listed as pending.

Do applications for a PhD in math ask about petty charges like this? I know some ask about felonies and convictions, but that doesn't apply here. I know if I were applying for law school or medical school, my situation would be very different.
How badly will this affect my application should this show up in a preliminary background check? Do math graduate programs even do background checks?

Question 3: what if you are applying in a state (or country) where marijuana use and possession is either legal or openly tolerated?

It's worth noting that some US universities, but not all,  do  background checks on faculty hire candidates. I agree that this probably won't come up at the graduate level, but keep in mind that if you stay in academia, you may have a similar question in a few years.

I changed the questing to focus on math exclusivley. Minor offenses for STEM fields likely developmental psychology with at risk youths will be different.

Yes, we're assuming you're in a field where being a Mandatory Reporter is not the norm.

Related: Advice wanted concerning students who have had run ins with the law.

There might be a concern with a background check if you wind up involved in research that requires a security clearance, but I'm guessing that doesn't come up very often in a mathematics graduate program.

I was once told by a top geometer to start using pot to enhance my geometric intuition, so that I can make it geometry grad school. This makes me feel like it will not be an issue. (Disclosure: I don't smoke and still made it through geometry grad school.)

Petty or petit?

Do applications for a PhD in math ask about petty charges like this? I know some ask about felonies and convictions, but that doesn't apply here. I know if I were applying for law school or medical school, my situation would be very different.

No. The part of the application that faculty look at has nothing remotely like this.  If you apply to a public university there may be a portion of the application which is run through the university itself, so there is some chance that you might be asked about felonies. But as you say, you have not even been charged with a crime.  You would have to be asked something extremely specific in order to have divulge this: e.g. "Do you have any pending fines for possession of drugs?" I've never heard of such a question asked in any context.

How badly will this affect my application should this show up in a preliminary background check? Do math graduate programs even do background checks?

No, math (and other "arts and sciences") graduate programs do not do background checks, so far as I know [I was involved with graduate admissions at my program for several years].  Assuming that this information were disclosed to the faculty: well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but to me this sounds roughly comparable to a moving violation in terms of its legal and moral seriousness.  In fact, some kinds of moving violations present a potential or actual danger to others; possessing marijuana really doesn't.  I would put it squarely into the "Don't worry about it" category.

We don't ask about misdemeanors and generally there's no reason to volunteer such information.
Some faculty on admissions committees do google prospective candidates and if that is the case, you may want to engage in some SEO to make sure your positive attributes are at the top and your drunken and doped debauchery information and mugs shots are located further down in the rankings.
Furthermore, if you engaged in petty larceny or animal abuse, some people on the admissions committee might care just from a moral perspective, but many faculty have themselves had experiences where they "inhaled" (quoting Bill Clinton) so they are the least likely to throw stones in that regard.
Disclaimer: I'm in the humanistic social sciences

I assume you mean "don't volunteer". If the university specifically asks (about charges), then there is a reason to tell.

Generally, universities and search committees don't ask, so there's no reason to tell. I'm using the parallel construction of the DOD's former DADT policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

The analogy to DADT is quite strong. If you tell us about a misdemeanor drug charge (when we haven't asked you), then we have to act on this information.

@RoboKaren We do? What exactly would we do to act on this information?

I'd feel compelled to at least let the graduate school know. They'd likely tell us to ignore petty misdemeanors such as this, but I don't want the department to be accused later of hiding material information on a candidate. Moral: don't put us in that position.

@RoboKaren Thanks. I guess it wouldn't have occurred to me to do so, even as grad program director, given that at my institution the applications come through the graduate school in the first place. If they want to screen for misdemeanor drug offenses, they can read the files themselves. Now if I we were interested in a candidate convicted of something serious that might be a threat to others on campus, I'd certainly seek advice from the grad school and/or risk management.

"make sure your positive attributes are at the top and your drunken and doped debauchery information and mugs shots are located further down in the rankings" looool +1

While you needn't worry, you should reveal facts that you are required to reveal. Graduate school application forms are not easy to obtain (most institutions require online application via an application-handling company), but I could determine something about a few institutions.
If you were applying to the universities of Arkansas, South Carolina State, Hawaii, Alaska, or Tennessee State, there is no applicable question on their graduate application form. Missouri State asks about charges pending, Virginia Tech asks if you are "you currently on court-ordered supervised or unsupervised probation or under the terms of a finding under advisement". North Georgia asks about criminal charges currently pending, and Florida asks about being charged with a violation which if pending could result in probation, community service, a jail sentence, or revocation or suspension of driver's license (explicitly noting that if your record has been expunged, you do not have to answer 'yes'). Indiana is very confusing: it asks "Have you been convicted of a felony or have you engaged in behavior that resulted in injury to person(s) or personal property", but this is immediately followed by their "Felony Statement" that "We require applicants who have been charged with or convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, or who have engaged in behavior that resulted in mental or physical injury to person(s) or personal property, to disclose this information".
You should start from the premise that nobody actually cares if you get busted for pot, and if they ask any such questions, just say yes and explain (tell only if actually asked). Otherwise, you should discuss the legal arcana with your attorney, to see if you were charged with a felony (probably not), a misdemeanor (maybe not), or some other kind of violation / offense. I think in California, it is a "civil infraction" with no possible jail time. That might be a "violation" or a "charge", so talk to the attorney (or, simply say "yes"). It's vastly easier to just say "yes" and explain. The worst thing you could do is tell an untruth.

Wow, so the moving violation is not just an analogy but actually something that one university asks about?  I am very surprised by that.

Also, "mental or physical injury to person(s) or personal property" is one of the loopiest phrases I've heard in a long time.  Apparently the legal definition of injury can extend to property but...mental injury to property??

Didn't you ever watch Uri Geller? That was some severe mental injury to spoons.


text:
What university affiliation should a retired member of staff use?
University retired researchers often get privileges to use Libraries etc. When a retired member uses the university library for research are they obliged to mention the university affiliation in subsequent publications?

Is this person an "emeritus"?

Related question: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/1294/43873

One can be affiliated as an independent researcher and acknowledge the usage of university library.

TL;DR. A retired member of staff should use any affiliation assigned by their previous employer. If no affiliation has been assigned, then they should ask their previous employer.

University retired researchers often get privileges to use Libraries etc.

Such privileges are presumably associated with a title: Universities generally control access to resources (such as libraries), hence, some form of access token is required and that token must be associated with an owner. The owner is typically affiliated with the university in some way, which merits a title.  Some titles aren't sufficiently formal (e.g., graduand) to merit affiliation, others are.

When a retired member uses the university library for research are
  they obliged to mention the university affiliation in subsequent
  publications?

If the university has assigned the retired member a (sufficiently formal) title, then that title should be used. Otherwise, it is unclear whether the university considers the retired member to be affiliated with the university, hence, claiming affiliation would be misleading. I'd recommend asking the university in this case.

At my alma mater being a graduate is sufficient to have access to the library, but doesn't constitute an affiliation in the sense of the question, and I'm not sure that "B.A." is a title in the sense in which you're using the word.

@PeterTaylor Ultimately, if the library has an access control system, then its users most likely have titles. That's just how the technology is implemented. That title mightn't be public, indeed, it might only be known to some members of the IT team, but it most likely exists. In your case, it might simply be graduand, which clearly isn't the type of affiliation I was referring too. (Also, an alma mater is rather different from a previous employer, which what is under discussion.)

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


text:
Should graduate applicants follow instructions by department NOT to contact potential advisors?
I am applying for doctoral programs in biostatistics and have read multiple places to attempt to set up contact with a potential advisor before applying.
What if the department website specifically says to not contact potential advisors? There is a research lab I am very interested in joining (my top pick), but I still should not contact this professor, right?
Here's the exact wording of the website:

"Should I contact faculty about RA opportunities?
  No. All applications are reviewed by our admission committee and students do not need to (nor can they) try to find their own mentors prior to admissions. Having an interested faculty member in no way influences the admission process, which is based on an evaluation of your application only."

It says "about RA opportunities". You can contact them about other things though. For example you can ask them what they are currently working on without breaking this rule. Although I might err on the side of caution and avoid doing this as it might be misconstrued.

I feel like I'm channeling JeffE: "Should graduate applicants follow instructions by department--?" Yes.

The first communication I received from a potential graduate student got deleted unread.  The second one got forwarded to the admissions office.

There are multiple practical reasons for not asking you not to contact advisors prior to admission:

Advisors may not know how many RA positions they will have available until later in the year, and departments do not want that to discourage people from applying.
They may have an established procedure for allocating students to research groups; "jumping the gun" would therefore be discouraged.
They don't want undue influence from various faculty members lobbying the admissions committee in support of "their" candidates.

Note that this is also because at many schools—particularly in Europe—individual faculty members are responsible for advertising their open positions. This is not the normal procedure in the US, thereby leading many schools to explicitly state that students should not directly petition individual faculty members.

If thats what the department says, then don't do it.
I was very interested in a couple of research groups in my university but I never contacted them before admission. After I was admitted, I had an opportunity to speak to all these faculty and then made the best choice for myself.

Admissions are tough, and if you break the rules you make the committee's life easier (one less applicant to judge). So: don't break the rules, especially when you not in a position of power.

Who said graduate school applicants are not in a position of power.  I thought grad schools wanted to recruit bright, hardworking students.

@emory: Of course they do; but there are typically lots of those applying.  And what they don't want to recruit is students who will be a pain in the neck. If someone tries to weasel their way in when they've been specifically told not to, that's a pretty good indication they'd be a pain to deal with as a student.

If dealing with an applicant's legitimate queries is painful then it is best for all concerned to not proceed.  If an applicant wastes people's time with unimportant communications, then it is best for all concerned to not proceed.  If an applicant's legitimate queries are not painful to deal with and help the applicant and admissions committee make better decisions, then it is a positive.  I don't see any downsides to it.

This position may be a little stern, but once you are on the other side of the admissions table, you get bombarded with "Dear Professor, I am highly interested in working with you, do you have any positions available?" emails every week. A lot of these emails suffer from poor grammar, and most in fact miss the point of what I do, researchwise. As F'x said, if you decide to take the liberty of sending such an email, it (a) may be lost among dozens such emails, (b) may get you blacklisted by the department. (This is a very good school, and they will have no shortage of highly qualified applicants, and you hardly will be in a position of power in negotiating with them.)
Ideally, you would've established a contact with a faculty much earlier with something like "I believe there is a typo in the Appendix of your recent Biometrika paper" or "What R package did you use? I can't get lmer to work on a similar problem" or "I thought that M=5 imputations is always enough" or some other question relevant to both your studies/interest and their expertise. I've established a couple of the most long-lasting and satisfying professional relations by asking these curiosity-driven questions, even though I never worked with these specific researchers, in the end. Don't try to make this up, though, and make sure to produce something that will really pique enough of the professor's interest to reply.
As a faculty, I have been receiving meaningful emails, too, saying "You've published on this and that; I am working on the intersection of this-that right now as an analyst in Iranian government, but I realized that I don't know enough, and want to learn more..." -- to which I would have to say that the contacts between Iran and US are kept low profile. The fraction of such emails is low double digits, most are obvious academic spam.
Finally, the department may have similar language in the faculty bylaws discouraging faculty member from discussing financial matters and/or open positions with potential applicants. Basically, this would be done to avoid a mutually unpleasant situation in which a professor may promise an applicant the RA support, but either the applicant would not make it based, say, on their GRE scores, or the professor would not get that grant that they were expecting. The department cannot commit acceptance based on such side negotiations, so they want to minimize the risk of that happening. Likewise, a professor may not be able to promise to take you as an advisee if they expect to have five more students, currently in their second year, joining their lab to support the work on a new multi-million R01 grant. You will be taking the fundamental required courses for a year or two, and talking right now about what is going to happen three years down the road is basically waving a big question mark in the air.
So my bottom line is, if you want to talk about research, there is little to stop you; if you are told not to discuss the admissions process and the existing positions with anybody outside the admissions committee, don't.

Thank you, this helps a lot. I've heard from multiple sources that by not contacting potential labs, you're highly unlikely to be accepted.  Your answer puts the situation in perspective.

@jlajla, to echo/amplify on what StasK said: those sources are very likely to be wrong.  I hear from many students that they get that advice (to contact multiple labs in advance), but in my experience it is bad advice.

As other have said you should follow their instructions.  I just wanted to point out that you will have opportunities after admission but before deciding where to go to get answers to your questions.  In my experience in math, this post-admission pre-decision time is the appropriate window to talk to potential advisors.


text:
How to search google scholar for singular and plural words?
I want to look up also the plural of my words on Google Scholar.
Here is a part of my search: "entrepreneur OR entrepreneurs".
Is there a more efficient way, for example using regex-like "entrepreneurs?"?
What about woman/women?

If the alternative terms are part of a phrase, then you could use parentheses () and a vertical bar |, like "the (woman|women)".
The same applies to, for instance: "the (entrepreneur|entrepreneurs) told". I tested it and it works.

(EDIT: I originally wrote that the wildcard entrepreneur* should work, but my test was not so convincing. Thanks to lighthouse keeper's comment.)

sad that the wildcard doesn't work


text:
What does the path to professorship in maths and computer science look like?
I have a BS in math and a BS in computer science.  I attempted to get into a math PhD program right out of undergrad, but I was not prepared for the GRE subject test, so my applications did not go well.  I had to find a job while I thought up a new plan, and I have now been accepted to computer science PhD programs.
My ultimate goal is to be a professor and spend my life researching math topics in computer science, or just math.  I have a couple questions about getting to that point.  Should I get a PhD in math after getting one in computer science?  I read that math PhDs find faculty positions much more easily than any other kind of PhD.  Should I pursue a postdoc position at some point?  I don't want to be a "permadoc," as I've heard them called.  I also read that computer science PhDs often go to the private sector, but I don't think I'm interested in that.  What advice do you have to help me get where I want to be?

I wonder where you've read that "math PhD's find faculty positions much more easily than any other kind of PhD."  I'm not aware of any evidence that supports this statement.

I read a few articles on the topic.  This one had the most evidence I could find: http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2013/07/want-be-professor-choose-math

I read the article you cited in your comment and it uses statistical data out of context. The availability (by percentage) of postdocs, of non-faculty career options, etc. is vastly different for the fields that were considered.

The article misses quite a few important differences between faculty roles in mathematics and other science and engineering disciplines.  For example, many new PhD's in mathematics spend several years in temporary positions (e.g. "Visiting Assistant Professor") that are not called postdocs but are very similar in effect.

Another important point is that in the US, the majority of faculty positions are teaching oriented positions with little time for research.   The typical faculty member is teaching 3-4 sections a semester of precalculus to calculus at a community college or regional comprehensive university rather than teaching a 1+2 load and doing lots of research at a flagship state university.

So given that information and my interest in focusing on research, what career goals would you recommend?  I know I like teaching (I have some experience) and I want to do high quality research, but I'm not sure what position I need to aim for.

My ultimate goal is to be a professor and spend my life researching math topics in computer science, or just math.

Not really. That is, it seems you are not seriously committed to any kind of research, you just like the idea of you being a professor. That is not good enough of a motivation. Don't presume to become a professional life-long researcher before you've done some significant research first. And you won't get such research done before you find a particular research subject (or a few subjects) which fascinates you, which is important to you enough emotionally that you want to spend a large chunk of your life exploring it.
When you tell us that you "want to research X. Or maybe Y"." - what I hear is: "I'm not particularly attached to any research problems."
So - your question is premature right now.

There are several points to consider:

There are far more PhDs who want to be professors than actual open positions, so most people won't make it. Just take it as a fact of life, and don't be frustrated when being rejected somwhere. It also means that there is no universal career guideline that is guaranteed to work.
While a PhD is a compulsory badge for you, earning another PhD in most cases won't add add much to your CV, so if you have enough flexibility in choosing a research topic in your current program, stick to it.
During your PhD studies do you best to build up your own research profile. Find a problem you like, achieve progress, publish in the best journal/conference that is ready to accept your work.
It is almost equally important to build up your network. When you have a chance to meet colleagues from your domain, do it, and keep connections. If you can collaborate with someone outside your university, take this chance.

People will judge your CV on the basis of its objective merits (whether your research results are good enough according to some reasonable criteria) and your "fitness" for the particular institution/group. Thus I don't think you should focus or general presumptions that there are higher chances to be hired in a field A rather than field B: it all depends on your personal achievements and your target institution profile.
Personal connections do matter, employing someone you know is a safer bet, of course. In general, be ready to more across countries, and accept postdoc positions — no matter how you look at them, it's better to be a postdoc than to have no job or go to industry (if you wish to stay in academia).
As you spend more time inside this system (as a PhD student / paper writer / conference attendee), you'll gain more understanding of your personal goals, I believe. It's quite natural that your current picture of the future is vague, but it will clear up as you go.


text:
Which institution's logo to add to research poster when research was done at institution different to main affiliation as student?
I am a student at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, but did research over the summer at Duke with a mentor from Duke, as part of a program run by NCSSM. I am currently creating a poster to present my work, and I do not know which institution's logo it would be appropriate to include. When I am adding a logo to my poster, what am I acknowledging that the owner of the logo has provided? It seems to me that both institutions have provided me with support, so I do not know which one I should acknowledge. I suppose that I could add both, but I would rather save that space for content. What is the protocol for situations such as this one where two institutions have provided support to a project?

Unless the institutions have formal requirement to include their logos (which, I believe, is rather rare) you can also acknowledge support with plain text, if space is a concern.

As a side important note - Logos are important. But equally important  make sure to keep the co-authors/collaborators nformed and send all of them draft versions for comment. (They would have opinions about logos and such). It sounds from OP description that even if the poster is 'single author' there the faculty mentor at Duke shouldn't be forgotten and would be the person even if it is only for practicing professional courtesy.

If both institutions have supported your project, you should acknowledge both in your poster.
To save space, you have a variety of options:

Make the logos smaller by scaling them.
If available, use a small, square version of the logo rather than a larger rectangular version.
Put the logos in a part of the poster that is underutilized. (For example, left-align the title and authors, and put the logos over to the right side next to the author list.)

With the catch that if I don't have enough space to add a logo, probably I already have things to many in my poster.

“Make the logos smaller by scaling them.” — Most institutes (’s corporate design/outreach departments) hate that, and quite a few (all?) have explicit rules about the minimal size of their logos. But to be honest everybody happily ignores these rules anyway.

There is no formal protocol. The general protocol is to ask your supervisor or colleagues. This is usually a question that depends on the particular group or institution, and where usually the "group's habits" is the precedence that you want to follow.
The general protocol that probably suit you well is the one ff524 answered, namely, acknowledge both.

Just one question: Who paid?
If they

paid you to do the work
paid for you to present the work
bought the equipment or the consumables
paid the mentor who guided you through the work

they you should be recognizing them.
And there is nothing wrong with having multiple logos, but no pressing need to have any at all. (In my business—particle physics—it is common to have everyone from the group display a logo on their slides/posters as part of establishing a brand, but those were always small because everyone was concerned about space.)
If someone asks you can tell them how it happened that you got support from multiple sources.


text:
H-1B Visa Sponsorship by Universities
The statements of

"Applicants who are invited to campus for interviews must be able to show proof that they will be eligible and qualified to work in the United States by the time of hire."

is almost associated with every open academic positions in US and I am wondering what does this statement clearly mean?
As far as I know, academic positions in US are opened to the scientifically eligible candidates worldwide, but receiving US work permit requires a sponsor (employer) inside US who should initiate visa application.
My 1st question: Does this sentence show unwillingness of the employer (university in this case) to support applicants' visa application? Does this position only open to those residing in US? or work permit holders?
From the immigration website, I learnt that there are some costs for the employer who is offering job to an outsider. But, universities are exempted from paying the biggest chunk ($1500).
My 2nd question: Considering low visa petition cost, what else is the problem that US-based universities are hesitant to hire such candidates.
My 3rd question: Is faculty selection in US-based universities based on candidate's merit or there are other parameters when selecting them.
Edit: I think the email received from UW can be of help to get better idea of the situation.

Dear XYZ,
When completing your application for employment at the University of Washington you were asked to complete the US Work Authorization Assessment. The second question asked was:
To legally work in the United States, will you require University of Washington sponsorship for an H1-B, other UW sponsored visa, or UW sponsored green card now or in the future?
You responded yes, that you would need sponsorship, either now or in the future. As a result you are not eligible for employment in staff positions at the University.

I emailed to HR of UW for clarification with this note:

Does UW consider only those foreigners for staff position who are currently having work permit in US? Those who are willing to obtain work permit based on the UW job offer are ineligible to work in UW?

UW Reply (Though I think the reply is by a robot):

Unfortunately, the UW does not provide sponsorship for Green Cards( or HB-1 visas, or any other type of work authorization requiring sponsorship.) for staff positions.

EDIT 2: Though my question is about academic staff position, about university of washington, I applied for research scientist. Here is the link to the job opening.

Your third question is independent of the first two and should be asked separately.  But of course there are many considerations apart from "merit", which is a subjective criterion to begin with.

Very good question, though I'd remove the "thanks in advance". Two comments: First, does that statement just mean "don't be a criminal who overstayed their visa etc.", that is to say, are they simply asking people who obviously won't get the H-1B to not apply? Or is there more to it? Also, are there any laws concerning discrimination against non-residents? Apparently foreigners are not a protected group.

My department has just recently helped a new hire to get a H1B, and has offered to do the same for a couple of candidates we interviewed this year.

@Superbest: No thanks then :). It mentioned "eligible and qualified to WORK, not to get visa". These two are different. Many people worldwide are not criminal and may be qualified to get US work visa, but they are not qualified to work in US. Qualification and eligibility to work, might refer to whether you have visa or not. I had the an experience with University of Washington, they refused my application because I mentioned "I need UW sponsorship." They wrote to me that you are not eligible to work with us because of your status. Lets see other answers to get better idea.

A related question Is it easier to obtain H1B / green card as academics in the US?

@Espanta Well, what's the difference? If we are talking about non-residents, you cannot work without an H1B, and you cannot get an H1B unless you are "almost hired", so to speak. As I said, "criminal" is deliberate hyperbole - are they telling people who will have trouble getting an H1B to not apply, or are they saying that if you need an H1B at all (ie. not a resident) you should not apply? Also, odd about UW - I heard for universities, the sponsorship is much easier.

@Superbest, kindly look at the text I added to the question, It might clarify.

It's odd that they emphasize staff positions. In US universities "staff" is the opposite of "faculty" and usually refers only to non-academic jobs. You're sure it was an assistant professorship you applied for?

@NateEldredge Well, I guess in a colloquial sense the professors are also "staff" in the sense that they work there. But indeed it is very confusing. Are they trying to say that foreigners are allowed, but only as professors and not as secretaries, IT, etc.? (What about post-docs then?) Or are they saying they will not hire any foreigners at all? Is the position "soft money" (doubt it for ass. prof. but still...)?

@Espanta Thanks, that clears up everything. In fact, I think you answered your own question #1 - they don't want you to apply (and as I said, they are legally allowed to do this). Now the question is why they would possibly make this decision (and perhaps how widespread this is).

Aha, the UW letter was in response to an application for a position as Research Scientist, which normally would not be a faculty position.  It's plausible that their policy is to sponsor visas for faculty (professors, maybe some postdocs) but not for other staff, on the theory that faculty candidates may have unique skills that can't be duplicated by a domestic candidate, but for other staff that is less often the case.  I think your question is kind of mixing up several issues and might benefit from a cleanup.

But I think, the Research Scientist also need to have bunch of skills that might not be available locally. I don't see much difference b/w this job and faculty. Anyhow, it can be true. So, you mean if I were a faculty applicant, they would not reject my application due to sponseoship, right?

It is (unfortunately) common for universities not to be as willing to support H-1B visas for research scientists/postdocs as they are for permanent faculty. I imagine one reason is cost: they want some return on the effort and cost of processing an application, and research scientists are temporary by definition.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned J-1 visas.  My understanding of the situation was that universities were only likely to do H-1B or similar visas for permanent staff, but that a J-1 for a postdoc was standard and not much trouble.  All the math departments I've been in have happily hired people from abroad as postdocs, but always on J visas, not H (as far as I know).

Thats cool. Let me check and read something about it first.

My suspicion is that this phrase is primarily to cover the university legally in case the person hired in fact does not have the eligibility to work in the US. In such a case, without this clause, the person could make the argument that the university is in breach of contract for not hiring them and doing whatever is necessary in order to make them eligible. But IANAL !
In general I'd imagine only very small universities or places with limited resources would have trouble sponsoring a candidate for an H1-B. Certainly not a university like UW. Most universities are quite willing and able to sponsor new applicants for H1Bs and green cards.
The correct interpretation here is I think as is mentioned in the comments: the candidate should be eligible to work in that they can get an H1B visa.

Also, notice that it says "by the time of hire". I believe that mean by the time the start date of the position, not the date the offer letter is signed. (Like Suresh: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.)

@Suresh and JeffE, thanks. please read the text I added to the question in Edit part. It might be of help.

What position were you applying for ? your edit refers to a "staff position". My answer refers to tenure-track faculty positions which are not usually considered 'staff' positions.

Preamble: What they are trying to do here is protect themselves from a lawsuit later on. In the application for an H1B, the employer must prove that there was no American citizen who was qualified for the position that is being sponsored (c.f. http://www.immihelp.com/gc/employment/labor/).

Perhaps. Most employers will sponsor the H1B at the very least -- and the larger universities and colleges will even pay for the legal and application fees if they want you. But they have to advertise the positions for Americans (and legal residents first) and if the search results in only one person (YOU!) who is able to fill the position, then (gee shucks) they will sponsor you for the H1B.
The law. See preamble. The cost including the lawyer can go up to around $10,000. If it's just a short-term position why spend the money and do the paperwork (an H1B filing can easily be hundreds of pages of filings)? Also H1Bs are tricky. If you apply late when the pool runs out, you may not get one regardless of how qualified the candidate is. H1B applications have been known to get held up for all sorts of reasons by the State Department or the DoL.  So it's often safer to go with a legal candidate.
Depends on the location. While it would be nice to think that merit is the only factor, we all know (or at least suspect) that there are other factors including the all amorphous "collegiality".  If there are two candidates of equal worth but one candidate will require literally 3 inches of paperwork filed to the Department of Labor and there's uncertainty as to whether he/she can start work in August if the process gets delayed, then what would be the rational choice?

Edit: H1Bs are not subject to caps (http://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/h-1b_faqs#10). I'm not sure if this is a new thing as I can vaguely remember caps in the distant past... but at least there aren't any now.

Thanks @RoboKaren, I don't think the UW response is any kind of lawsuit protection, rather it would be something like lawsuit dismissal because the HR even did not let academician look at the application and simply rejected based on sponsorship.

about number 3, I think it is fare and rational to select the US resident if there are two EQUAL applicant, one local and one offshore. But, the question is that how could they find out such equality? After all, should I keep applying for job in US while I have no permit or forget US?

Caps are for industrial positions. Universities are cap-exempt. So your recollection is correct.

@Espanta - The lawsuit I'm envisioning would be either the Department of Labor suing the institution for violations of its H1B rules (by not properly ascertaining the lack of a suitable US Citizen to take the spot), or by a US Citizen who felt that they were unfairly passed over for the non-citizen who was given the H1B and a job.

Note that state schools are considerably more concerned about following federal hiring laws, so it's not surprising that this case involves UW.

@Espanta - I think jobs at state schools are going to be hard since they have so little flexibility. If you want to be a staff member (such as a research scientist) I would try private institutions or private companies. There, if they want to hire you, they'll put in the extra work. State schools are just too bureaucratic to do this.

@RoboKaren Thanks a lot for nice advice. I will take it

Based on what you've written so far, here is my interpretation of the situation:

at some point, the university sets a blanket ban on sponsoring visas for "staff positions" (this is standard terminology for "not faculty positions").  This is not so unreasonable; you can understand why it would seem like a waste of money to sponsor a secretary or a janitor for a visa.
at some later point, the position you're applying for is created.  There are a lot of complicated negotiations that go into creating such a position. This particular one involves 3 universities and 2 private foundations, so I'm sure it was very tricky to set them up.  For some reason, the position is classified as "staff."   The line between "staff" and "faculty" is not 100% clean-cut (for example, librarians can be on one side or another, depending on the institution). I can only guess at what advantage this had (it seems likely there was one, though you should never completely count out the possibility of a straight-up mistake).

And, voilà!  I would bet a reasonable sum of money that the people "on the ground" running this program are unhappy with the situation, and would like nothing more than to make decisions without considering immigration status, but these things can be pretty complicated.  Universities are big institutions, and it can often be very hard to change these sorts of things.  The money they would spend on lawyers for visas has to come from somewhere, and it's possible it's just not there.

Thanks Ben. I thought things in US are more routine and clear compared to asian countries where people like me leave and keep complaining about complexities and bureaucracies. Anyway, cross the finger for good.


text:
How should a Phd student deal with rude professors or faculty?
I am a phd student in IIT Bombay. I have found sometimes that professors or faculty behaving rudely especially with phd students. The situation being the student demanding better guidance on his research or while reporting complaints on unavailability of research facilites(infrastructure). Partly it seems the reason for the professors behaving so is because of their own frustration with their job which they pass it on to the students when they raise questions for which they don't have answers. And partly some professors think behaving rudely is the right way to scare students away so that they don't come back and trouble them. Also often the faculty feel they are being embarassed by being compared to their peers elsewhere and are being looked down upon, so have a bellicose attitude and start fighting at the slightest provocation. This is extremely frustrating for graduate students and they ask themselves why they made this grave mistake of joining for graduate studies here. But since few years already pass off by the time they realize this, they just try to finish a half hearted unhappy phd and try to run away from this place quickly with a wounded heart. Many of my seniors have experienced this who are now doing postdocs in US. How does one not let one's heart wounded in such a situation and how does one deal with such unpleasant rudeness on part of faculty?

Go somewhere else, and tell the department chair why.

@JeffE: That's easier said than done; going anywhere else in India would likely be considered a major step down for most of the students, and could jeopardize their later careers.

Really?  There are really no alternatives but to accept (and most likely perpetuate) a culture of endemic abuse?  Does every physicist (or whatever) in India come from IIT Bombay?  Any student strong enough to be at the best department in India is strong enough to get admission and funding in a good department elsewhere.

@JeffE: I agree with you dear sir that a capable student will likely find another place to do research. But would that mean an erring student can always be corrected by a professor, but erring professors can never be corrected?

This might be an appropriate question for the Etiquette proposal if it makes it into beta. I suggest anyone interested in that proposal follows it, recommends to friends and helps contribute when it gets to beta stage.

If you don't need anything from the person, you could just stop talking to him/her.


text:
What are the benefits and drawbacks of fitting one's problem within an advisor's research?
I am passionate about working on a particular problem and domain, and have an opportunity to complete a PhD that does not require department/university subsidy. However, the problem I am interested in is outside of the domain of the research faculty. I have been encouraged to find a small part of my problem space that fits with the research of available advisors. However, I feel like conducting my research at another institution, where the research faculty are actively working in the same domain as myself, may be a better choice.
What are the benefits and drawbacks may be to work with advisors directly related to one's own area of research, rather than trying to just fit one's research into the scope of available advisors' research interests?
There is some discussion of this regarding the master's thesis, but I feel that the doctoral level is a little different, in that the advisor/advisee relationship is perhaps more important.

Is there some reason you cannot work with faculty external to your department. I've heard of cases where people have two faculty advisers, one in their institution, one outside. Also what does "does not require department/university subsidy" mean? I assume that is a good thing, but I'm unclear what it means. Can you elaborate?

Because I'm employed by the university, my tuition is covered as an employee benefit rather than by an advisor's research funding.

With regard to choosing to do your PhD research with a group working in your field of interest:-
Benefits:
In-depth subject specific knowledge, meaning that:
You will get started faster.
Your early mistakes and false leads identified and corrected earlier.
You will get a faster entree into the best collaborative networks.
You will get noticed by the community faster.
You will be associated with experts in the field.
Disadvantages:
Depending on the supervisor, you might get rail-roaded into doing the science his/her "way", leaving less opportunity for you to strike out on your own path.
You are dealing with a new advisor, and that relationship takes time to cultivate.
For your situation, it seems that you will have to get a source of funding.


text:
Papers about raising awareness within a domain about open source technologies
Part of my (computer science) research work involves a relatively new open source technology that I feel has been overlooked by the research community. It would seem valuable to raise the awareness of this technology to the research community in a few different subdomains of the field. Would a paper that describes the open source technology, explains how it works, and demonstrates its utility with some original, albeit simple, work be ethical? While I have contributed to the open source technology, I am by no means a primary creator, and would intend to include some of the main contributors and original creator as secondary authors.
The question Should I write a paper on open-source software I've built? is related, but this question is asking about open source software that I only contributed to, as one of hundreds of contributors.

Write a blog post.  Those get read more widely anyway. :-)

Just to get the ball rolling.
I do not see any major problem if you:

Significant contributed to the software;
Enables new research challenges to be addressed or address research challenges significantly better (e.g., faster, easier, simpler).


text:
How to prevent papers from being published in advance by others?
I have a new idea, and the experimental results are also good. But my mentor does not allow me to publish it yet. But I am worried that the idea will be robbed by others. So is there any way to not publish it now, but I will take advantage of this idea first？
I am a computer major, and I mainly publish conference papers. If I upload the paper to arxiv, will others not be able to use the same idea as me?
If I upload it to arxiv, many people will have seen this paper. When I submit this paper again after a year, will it be because it is a previous one, and everyone has seen it, so it won’t be accepted.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/107642/what-provisions-exist-to-handle-scooping-when-there-are-multiple-reviews-of-rese

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/93466/do-people-actually-scoop-others

If your adviser won’t allow you to publish the results, are you sure they’d be okay with you uploading them to arxiv?

If I upload the paper to arxiv, will others not be able to use the same idea as me?

They absolutely can, but because you have uploaded your paper, you have established precedence: you can claim you had the idea and did the work first. Others can still use your idea (and you should feel flattered they do!) but they would have to cite you.
There are many papers on the arXiv that have accumulated lots of citations but have never been published in journals, e.g. this one. If the authors of that paper ever submit it to a journal, there's a high chance it will be published quickly, simply because it is so impactful.

You can't prevent or control parallel research. If an area is "hot" at the moment or there is an outstanding problem that is blocking progress in an important area, then you can assume that there will be many people working on it in parallel. The crux of a solution may first be seen by someone, unknown to others. But if that first person doesn't get their work published (and I mean by a reviewed journal or conference) then anyone can be "first to print".
You can't "own" ideas.
You can claim priority, but it is in the publication that it gets recognized. It is even possible that parallel researchers "share" priority when publishing the same thing at about the same time. This gets questioned, of course, but it does happen. I know of one important case and knew the people involved.
To be honest, I've had a lot of ideas that I never followed up on. Later, I've seen one or two of them appear in print. Good for the authors. Maybe I should have done something. The honor is theirs. But one of the ways in which I discovered I was "smart enough" was that some of the ideas presented at conferences and workshops didn't surprise me.
Some people like to try to use arXiv (and related) to "protect" their ideas. But I don't think they really do that very well. Until a solution to some problem is, not only made public by its authors, but also vetted by the community it is subject to debate and correction. If you really want priority, finish the work and submit it to a journal or conference. ArXiv is intended for preprints of articles entering the review process, not for publishing unfinished ideas. Some things there seem to be very good, but it isn't a panacea.


text:
Does the teaser image need to be a picture in the paper?
I am submitting a paper to a journal.  The journal requires submission of a teaser image.

Please also identify a teaser image from your manuscript that may be
used in the abstract book as part of the OnlinePlus program and upload
this image file with your revision & summary of changes. Name the file
"Teaser" and select "Image" as the file designation on the File Upload
screen.

The pictures in my paper are mostly plots of experimental data. Therefore, does the teaser image I upload need to be selected from the paper? Can I draw a picture that is not in the new paper to describe my paper? The length limit of the paper prevents me from adding new pictures.
Really thanks!!!

You need to ask the editor. We can't make a ruling on what is allowed or not. But "from your manuscript" seems clear enough.

Also, look in the journal to see what previous authors have done.

The phrase "from your manuscript" seems pretty clear to me.


text:
Is there any difference between an extended version of a conference paper submitted to a journal and a brand new paper?
If I extend my paper accepted by the conference and submit it to a new journal.
This journal also agrees to accept extended versions of conference papers.
https://www.computer.org/digital-library/journals/tc/call-for-papers-general-submissions

Extended versions of published conference papers are welcome, but they
must have at least 40% new impacting technical/scientific material in
the submitted journal version, and there should be less than 30%
verbatim similarity as reported by a tool (such as CrossRef).
Additionally, the conference papers and the detailed summary of
differences must be included as part of the journal submission to TC.

Is there any difference between this paper and the brand new non-extended paper?

Is this extended paper a regular paper?
Can it be considered a new paper? Can I use it as a graduation?3
What is the format difference between an extended paper and a new non-extended version? For example, will the journal specifically mark extended papers? Or give a different issue number?
When I introduce this paper, do I need to emphasize that it is an extended version?

Thanks!!!

Whether something can be used for graduation is something that can only be answered by your institution

A journal paper extending a conference paper is a regular journal paper. I hve never seen a journal imposing any superficial distinctions on them like different format, numbering or special markings. There might a line in the frontmatter to designate the conference paper it is based on, but most of the time, referencing the conference paper is just handled by the authors as part of the introduction. How exactly to cite the conference paper has been asked and answered before:
How to cite a conference paper in an "extended" journal version?
An extended journal version supersedes the conference paper in many ways. For example, in most cases one would just cite the journal paper, not the conference paper anymore. I've often seen people listing the two versions as one publication on the CV (if using a single publication list), but I see nothing wrong with having a separate list for journal and conference papers. When compiling a "selected papers" or "10 top publications" or similar lists, including both a journal paper and the conference paper it extends would be very odd.
I would be very surprised if a university with a formal "3 papers for graduation"-rule would accept a conference paper and the extending journal paper as two of them. But the decision is ultimately made by whoever is in charge of enforcing that rule.