text:
Is it unethical for nursing school assignments to require students private medical information?
The curriculum for the nursing program at my university regularly requires the student to write a detailed account of their HIPAA-protected medical information.
The assignments usually require posting the information on a discussion board that is open to 55 students and all nursing school professors from five campuses across Texas. We are then required to reply to and discuss two other students' HIPAA-protected information. Some assignments require us to reveal private information of family members, including mental health issues and conflicts within the family.
I spoke with my professor about the first assignment, which involved a three-generation genogram. She told me that I should feel better about it because that particular assignment would only be shared with multiple professors and a small group of students. The rubrics for these assignments include loss of points for using example information instead of the student's personal information.
I am appalled that these highly educated and experienced professors would trample all over the students' HIPAA rights while teaching us the importance of strict adherence to HIPAA. The practice seems to be common and entrenched in Texas nursing schools. The information we are revealing is not given voluntarily, it is a requirement.
I can't afford to be the crusader who takes this problem to the top. I want to graduate. Is there an organization that addresses this type of problem?

Do they give any justification for this? This has the feel of a research project with subjects "forced" to participate.

Buffy, this is based on the premise that the best way to learn is by personally relating to the concept being studied. I agree with that reasoning. The problem is that we are required to share that information with all teachers and fellow students. We are intelligent people. We can apply that concept without being forced to reveal private personal details in a discussion that is posted online for all eternity.

Do you mean the assignment is along the lines of "Write about a health problem that has affected you?"  I assume this is is easily regulated to something you are comfortable with. Such as, one time I had a cold and I missed class.

Even if one is only revealing small bits of information, I think revealing private information of family members is not to be done.

Couldn't you make up all the information (in a believable fashion)? What means do they have to check it? Perhaps cover this in your question?

Just a tip: if that is your real name, do start using a pseudonym.

The ADA is probably more applicable than HIPAA.

An example for context: a few years ago I was involved in a study where nursing school students were recorded simulating a medical interaction (it was a script, no real medical data). In Europe the students' voices are considered personal information and therefore strongly protected: data must be encrypted, stored securely, etc. Thus we had to be very careful with this data just because it contained personal information (the voices), and this is not even close to the level of protection which would be required for sensitive information (health data).

In your case, HIPAA does not apply. You are not divulging patient information, but you are made to divulge information about yourself and others. Since the university is not a medical provider, HIPAA does not apply, and they make you divulge. But it is certainly an intrusive practice that raises privacy issues.
I can see that using yourselves as sample cases is useful for your education. Therefore, I would not expect help from professors and your dean.
The university administration might see things differently, especially since they have access to lawyers who would warn against engaging in dubious practices. This would be my first attempt. Approaching it as a group and asking to keep your names secret would be a prudent measure. Your strongest point is being asked to report incidents of venereal diseases and mental diseases in your family. While it just happens that none of your family is suffering from this, you should not be asked to share this information with  other students.
If it is a public university, you can threaten with talking to your representative or with the trustees ex oficio. If it is a private university, you can threaten to bring it to the attention of trustees.

A reference to back this up: HIPAA only applies to covered entities - health care providers, insurers, etc. Your nursing program isn't a covered entity. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered-entities/index.html

While the setting may not be in scope for HIPAA, the fact that the information would be covered is highly indicative that there's a problem

For whatever it is worth, in the EU and UK this is "Special category data" under GDPR and processing of such data is only allowed if you match one of nine conditions (article 9). None of those apply to the scenario where the educational institution processes the data of family members. From an EU perspective it's completely unbelievable that someone could freely store and collect such data as long as they aren't a "health company".

IANAL, but I find it very unlikely that HIPAA doesn't apply. The list you linked to is indicative, not comprehensive (note the "including" and not "restricted to"). For instance, the kind of entity I work for—a company that provides genetic analyses as a service to hospitals—isn't mentioned, but I can assure you we are most certainly required to abide by HIPAA rules. More importantly, if the university is requiring such data, then they become an entity holding such data, storing (and therefore "processing") such data, and so are almost certainly a "covered entity".

The question was actually about ethics, not the law.

This is concerning indeed. The issue is far from my area of expertise, but some ideas that come to mind are:

Are you part of a student union? Ask them for help.

I think your focus on whether the practice is unethical may be misguided, since it may well be illegal (which would make it much easier for you to argue against it). Consult a lawyer about this.

Ask about legality on law.stackexchange.

Contact national or regional associations of nurses to ask for advice/help with this issue.

Good luck!

The law SE site is indeed a good place to ask something like this. They'll be able to explain things like (for example) the requirements around the secure storage and access control for personal medical information that might not be followed here.

If the OP wants to post on Law.se, though, they should make sure that it's a "general" educational question and not a request for individualized legal advice.

YES it is unethical, regardless of whether it is legal. This is not only a violation of privacy, but also a threat of long-term harm (lowering your grades and thereby affecting your future) should you not comply. For your own protection, do not provide real personal data about yourself. As suggested by a commenter, make up any sensitive information that you feel should not be shared. They have absolutely no moral right to force you to reveal real information to other people who do not have legal access to it in the first place. Secondly, as suggested by another answer, seek help from others, including course-mates who are uncomfortable with this demand, and from the university excluding the faculty, such as the board of directors and the whistleblowing department if any. (But if you do not trust even these people to keep your complaint confidential, then do not even take this second step. Your own safety has the highest priority.)

My best guess is that this is under the jurisdiction your office of equal opportunity.  A lot of medical information relates to mental illness, gender and reproductive health.  Student organizations?  Dean of students?

By the way, I read the posting as indicating that each student was required to divulge essentially all their medical history.  If they are able to pick and choose that might be unintrusive.  Or less intrusive.  Dean of students might still care.

This is clear nonsense, perpetrated by people who might be the best-qualified in their own fields but still, have little understanding of and prolly less interest in privacy.
Nursing school assignments require real data but equally obviously, there could never be a reason for that data to come from students; much less from today's or any other particular cohort… unless not the data itself, but learning the methods of gathering the data was what mattered.
If there was, that would be to say that information about today's student cohort was more relevant than the last… That might be true if science had moved on, and how could that movement be guaranteed in any collection of student data?
What details about however many students in today's group could be statistically significant?


text:
Editor's mail with no reviewer's comment
Recently I submitted second revision of my manuscript in a highly reputed mathematics journal. My first revision was a major revision while the second one was a minor (with some terms like paper is ready to be published). After submitting my second revision I got an email from the editorial board which asked for further revisions of my manuscript. But, what is troubling me is that there were not reviewer comments in the mail. Also there were no attached files with reviewers comments.
Edit: I took only three days to resubmit my second minor revision and after another five days I got this mail with  no reviewers comment.
Also, there is only one reviewer for this manuscript.
Edit: At the end of the mail that I received it is written that "Reviewer's comment"  but it is showing blank. Submission status is "submission needing revision" (Revise). But I am not able to find the reviewers comments.
I am worried. How come this is possible?

It looks like the editor forgot to attach the reviews. Ask for them.

Somebody has down voted with no suggestions. If the question is not suitable for the community I would be glad to delete this question.

Downvotes without explanations happen, sadly.  In any case, I don't believe you can delete your questions when there is an upvoted answer.

@srijan Any updates on what actually happened? I am curious as well.

What happened in the end? I have received the same mistake mail. Asking for a revision withouth reviewers' comments!

Instead of trying to second-guess what might have happened you should simply contact the editors and ask what revisions they wish to see you perform. The reasons for the lack of information could be any of the suggestions given but could also be a mistake, an attachment that was not passed on or a mail sent by one person who has not seen your recently provided update, the list of possibilities is long.
So, e-mail the editor or journal and briefly explain what you received and how the lack of information makes revisions impossible.

My interpretation: after the first revision, both referees wrote that the remaining changes were minor. So the editor did not send the paper back to them but took a quick glance himself/herself to make sure they had been fixed. While doing this, he/she noticed a few more small mistakes and asked you to make these final changes.

Thank you for the reply. I even didn't get editor's comment. At the end of the mail it is written that "Reviewer's comment" but it is blank. I will edit my question gain.

I still don't get the complete timeline, it would be good if you could explain in detail what happened. But if all you got is a mail saying "make these changes" and then no suggested changes, the simplest explanation is that someone forgot an attachment. :)

Thanks again.  Ya same thing happened. Editor's mail says  "Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision." But, i didnt receive any commments of reviewer.

@srijan Does the editor's message say something like "we cannot accept your manuscript as is."  In that case, it may be a poorly worded rejection.  Either way, a short email to the editor asking if there were additional reviewer comments should answer you question.

@Kimball It says nothing like that. I have mentioned that editors comment says that revise your manuscript.

@srijan In that case the "I would be pleased to reconsider my decision" phrase is rather perplexing.  Maybe you should let us know what the end result was.

@Kimball I will surely let you know :).

@Kimball That paper is accepted. Thanks for your concern. :)

For this like this you really should directly ask the people involved, instead of us.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Do Physics grad schools accept non-physics students with good Physics GRE score?
These two questions https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/110303/is-a-good-gre-score-enough-for-a-non-math-graduate-to-be-accepted-in-a-decent-pu?rq=1&fb_source=message and https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/110303/is-a-good-gre-score-enough-for-a-non-math-graduate-to-be-accepted-in-a-decent-pu?rq=1 inspire me to ask this question.
Unlike Math GRE in Physics GRE, almost everything taught in first 3 years of undergrad is examined with almost equal percentage of total questions (Classical Mechanics 20%, EM 18%, QM 12%, Optics 9%) while in math, 50% can be scored only with good calculus skill.

Can one expect to be accepted in good physics grad schools if he has good Physics GRE score?
Another question is, can one go to theoretical physics grad school only with good score in Physics GRE?

I hope this is appropriate place to ask these questions.

The "two questions" links both point to the same question.

Graduate admissions is based on lots of different factors.  I don't think any one thing will make you in-eligible for acceptance, at even the best institutions---including not being a physics major.  That being said, unless you have physics (or similar) experience, or are in a related field, it will hurt your application.  I know numerous people with math, computer science, engineering and chemistry backgrounds who have joined (and are doing well in) prestigious physics programs (e.g. stanford, chicago, columbia).
If you have experience in a not-too-distant field (e.g. chemistry), one way to make your application more appealing - would be if you are interested in subjects somewhere between physics and chemistry (for example).
If you can demonstrate that you have excelled in your own field, and have an aptitude for physics (e.g. good GRE scores), you shouldn't have a problem!

I am studying CSE. Before I graduate I'll be taking about 24 to 30 credit hour of computer hardware and electrical courses. So can CSE be considered as engineering?

Absolutely.  Day to day, doing physics is often a lot more like CSE---I think you can have a strong application.

but I can't take any electromagnetism course because my university rules are very rigid. do you think it can be a problem if I want to go for theoretical physics (may be QFT or String theory)?

As long as you do well on the GRE it won't be a problem.  It's standard to take E&M as a graduate course

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


text:
Is it possible to attend graduate school in pure math after undergrad in CSE?
I am a Bangladeshi student studying CSE in the best university of my country. At the beginning of my second year in my university, an interest towards pure math grew in my mind. But my university does not offer courses in Abstract algebra, Real Analysis, Topology, Complex Analysis, Algebraic geometry, etc. I have seen this related post, but the advice there doesn't help me because there is no computer scientist in my university whose research interests lie between CS and Pure Math.
I met a few of my professors to discuss about my situation. Some of them asked me to study math by myself and also to try to study a paper by mathematicians under whom I want to work, then to write a paper which demonstrates I understand all (at least most of) the things written in the paper, and later send it to them asking if they are interested in taking me as student. They also asked me to get prepared for Math GRE. But is it possible to switch to pure math if I do so? If not, how I can go to a pure math grad school?

It will be extremely tough.

As Dave mentioned, what you want to do will be very challenging.  One possibility would be to change to a different university that offers the math classes you mentioned.  However, I will assume that switching schools is not an option for you.  If you are very dedicated to this goal, here is one possible route.

finish your current studies in CSE
get a job in a town with a university that offers the math classes you desire
start taking one class each semester as a non-degree student.  I don't know about policies elsewhere, but many school in the United States have less strict admission requirements for non-degree students.  Your goals for these classes should be two-fold. (1) Learn the material as well as you can.  Your understanding of this material will be important for both getting into and succeeding in graduate school.  (2) Impress your professors with both your ability and your desire.  When you eventually apply to a masters program, you will ask some of these professors for letters of recommendation.
apply to a masters program in mathematics.  Ask for letters of recommendation from both your current professors in your CSE program and from those who know you from the math classes you take after you finish your BS.
as you near the finish of your masters (where you have worked hard to prove yourself) apply to PhD programs

I know this is a long-term plan, but with hard work and dedication you could make it work.  Here is another question Advice - MS in mathematics to increase competitiveness for PhD programs? that you may find to be helpful.


text:
How can I put the same research on progress presented in multiple conferences on a CV?
If someone is presenting their same “research on progress” in multiple meetings and conferences, how can I strategically plan for each presentation such that each presentation is looking unique on a CV?
Or is it even necessary to make it look unique on the CV? If making each presentation unique is not a good/ethical idea, what is the best way to list all presentations on the CV without giving the impression that presentations are listed to increase the length of the CV?

If it looks like "padding" the resume it will hurt you.

Researchers routinely present on the same material for multiple audiences. Reporting these talks is not padding your resume -- you are presumably reaching more people by giving more talks.

You are allowed to give the same talk more than once, at least in mathematics... :)

... especially, if you are invited to give the same (or similar) talk more than once, that's a positive, in mathematics. Apparently in other subjects, "giving a talk" is akin to a (status-enhancing) journal publication, so you can't get credit more than one time? Crazy.

Thank you for all your comments. I received divided opinions on this topic, I would like to hear more from other people as well.

In my field, it's usual to present work in progress. Depending on how long it takes, it might be presented at 1-3 meetings.
Now, some meetings in my field ask you to assert "I haven't presented this work elsewhere," and others don't. Nevertheless, the general expectation is that you aren't submitting identical abstracts to multiple places.
So, what would look odd/"padding" to me would be seeing identical titles in multiple conferences. Again, norms in your field might be different, but you would expect to see the work evolve over time.
At least if you were in my field I'm not saying just change the title, but what I am saying is a natural evolution of a few abstracts over time is fine.

To expand on my comment that obvious padding is hurtful and easily recognized, I suggest that you do the opposite. What you are describing as work in progress, which is, in itself, a valuable thing in a CV.
I suggest that you list the topic of the research once and under it (perhaps using indentation) list the conferences and meetings in which the progress has been reported. This is honest and also shows continued interest in what you are doing. The "progress" isn't separate completed works. I'd suggest that faking it won't help.

I would be surprised to see this organization on a CV (and also question its maintainability as an organizational strategy). I would expect to see a chronological list of venues at which you've spoken, with the titles under which you gave the talks.

You should not worry about reporting each talk you give, even if it is on the same topic (and with the same materials) as a talk you gave in a different venue. You are presumably speaking to a different audience, and each presentation thus expands the impact of your work.
If you are in a field where conference presentations opportunities are tied to conference-reviewed-and-accepted publications, you should have separate sections of the CV for the conference publications and for conference talks.

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


text:
How is a student’s research experience evaluated for a PhD application?
I’m an incoming master's degree student at a top 10 computer science (CS) program. I’m applying for PhD programs. I think that people doing ML/AI have an unfair advantage when it comes to the number of papers they can publish.
My research has been mostly in the area of theory and algorithms, where you either come up with a proof for your theorem/algorithm or you don’t. I think this is significantly harder than what most undergrads do in ML/AI. I have seen tens of students with publications in ML, but 0 students with publications in complexity theory, for instance. I know that at there are people who have published papers in theoretical CS, to but my point is it’s rare (and hard).
Do PhD admission committees at the top 20 CS schools take this into account when they look at a student’s previous research experience? More generally, how is a student’s research experience evaluated?

It depends on the person: some take this into account, others do not. In any case, it should not effect how you approach the application process.

Ah, so you've noticed that people in AI/ML publish a lot of junk papers in bulk? Yeah, university professors in CS have noticed that too.
But also, some of the people who publish those sorts of papers in bulk may also be evaluating your application, and maybe they think the coolest best researchers are the ones that just publish the most papers. And also some university systems especially in certain countries favor "quantitative" measures of research output that also value quantity over quality.
So, really there is no one answer to your question: anyone who evaluates your application will do so according to their own personal criteria of what is valuable. You'll apply with the research experience you have and in an ideal world you'll be admitted to a program where other people there also value the type of research experience you have, and it'll be a good fit for both.

“ But also, some of the people who publish those sorts of papers in bulk may also be evaluating your application” even at top 20 schools?

@StackExchanger Maybe even especially at those schools, I don't know. I think it's a mistake to assume "top" schools are somehow immune from bad academic trends.

@StackExchanger top schools have even a higher incentive for producing many publications, as the number of publications by faculty is one of the numbers that defines what a "top" school is.

In both Mathematics and CS, it is well known that people in certain areas publish more than in others. (I assume this is true.) There is no opprobrium attached to working (or not working) in one of these fields, but publication records are weighted by the subfield. Taking on a Ph.D. student is such a commitment that you can expect people to actually look at publications and not just count them. Not being in a "hot" field where people only publish after lots of work might be to your advantage, since potential Ph.D. advisors in that field are not swamped.


text:
Can a coauthor do the presentation at a conference?
I am the first author of a research paper I did under the supervision of my teacher (note that I am a BSc student of computer science). My paper got accepted at a conference. Now I have to present the paper, but I am feeling nervous and thinking I might say something wrong. Can my teacher, who is credited with coauthoring, present the paper at the conference?

Yes, of course. This is normal, and often happens.
There is no expectation that a particular author presents the paper at a conference. I suspect, however, that your teacher will also have a view on the matter. Do they want you to present or are they happy to present? Have you discussed the matter with them? They will know what is best.
Finally, I would say it would also be good to overcome your nervousness and think about presenting yourself. I was in the same position as an undergraduate and made a presentation of a paper at an international conference, and I am glad I did. It was a very formational experience.

Agreed. Especially with the last paragraph. You only get good at this by doing it. I'd add that you should be there if at all possible in any case. On the "stage" if possible, even if you aren't the presenter.

Fully agreed. Everyone at that conference is either there for the first time, or had their first time presenting sometime. They know how you feel. Most conferences are very welcoming, especially for young students. If your teacher is there, they will likely introduce you to people to help you get comfortable (it's part of the unwritten duties of academic mentors and advisors). So I would also encourage you to present yourself.

The nervousness comes from the fact that in the Q&A section, I won't be able to properly answer something. As a result, my paper won't be published. (Note: the conference i am going to is ICCIT.)

@rafraf If you get a question in the Q&A that you can't answer quickly, just say so. Ask the questioner to come up after the talk and give you their contact information and say you'll get back to them.

If its ICCIT you must go! What a fantastic experience and a privilege for an undergraduate. The publication is not normally related to how you answer in the Q&A for any conference I know! As already stated, you do not have  to know every answer on the spot. You can always say "we can discuss this later". I made so many fluffs when I first did it - as said earlier the delegates will be so supportive and welcoming to you.

@rafraf Nothing terrible is going to happen if you do "say something wrong". Your paper will not get rejected, people will not think ill of you, etc. If I were to guess, I think you are mentally applying a model that you have been used to throughout your 10+ years of school experience, namely professors eager to spot mistakes in your work and deduct points for them, to a context where it's completely not how people operate. No will be waiting for you to make a mistake so they can pounce on you.

Go for it! But get a practice run or two in first, with an audience.  It makes a massive difference in your early talks; that difference might reduce over time but never goes away completely.  Encourage comments as well as questions - other people are far better at spotting what flows well and what needs a little more explanation.  Your professor should be able to help you set this up - generally I push for getting a large fraction of the research group involved

Sharing my own experience, I spent 13 minutes out of 15 minute just talking about introduction of my research in my first presentation. Eventually you will get better. So try on your own. Use flash cards if necessary to overcome nervousness. Using flash cards are common. After all, everyone grow with their experience in their own way. Practice a few times in front of mirror. It looks weird in the beginning but you will get used to.

My first conference presentation was on the morning of September 11, 2001. It was (to put it mildly) not a great experience, but at least I've been able to go into every subsequent presentation thinking "this one won't be as bad".

I am pretty sure that every conference I've ever been to has had several papers presented by someone other than the first author.  I recall some where the presenter wasn't even an author at all.  This can happen for a number of reasons-- travel visa issues, limited travel budgets, schedule conflicts, illness, etc.
However (and this is the main reason for my separate answer) I want to encourage you in the strongest possible terms to go and present if circumstances permit.  In particular, you should be really clear on how the funding for this trip is handled:  Air fare, lodgings, and conference fees are your main concerns.
Your ability to communicate both in writing and in presentations is absolutely vital to your career, full stop.  It's not just vital to your future as an academic-- it is vital in any professional position you might hold.  People usually remember who told them about an idea, even if they know they're getting it secondhand.  That's just how people's minds work.
Also, after the presentation, people might want to come and talk to you about it-- this is another great benefit of conferences.  You get to meet people, and even though they may be asking you about your talk, you get to ask them what they thought!  This is also incredibly valuable.  You may spark an idea in a listener that you'll never hear unless you're there to present and then talk to people about.
The experience of giving a talk is very valuable no matter how scary it is-- and I say this as someone who used to physically shiver in adrenaline and fear while giving talks.
I'll even give you the secret to giving a first talk:  Practice!
If you can arrange to give a talk in front of a class, do it.  But even aside from that, practice, practice, practice.  Practice like you're trying to get to Carnegie Hall.  Practice until you're bored sick of it.  Practice until you could give that talk with your entire cortex removed, by muscle memory alone.  Practice so you know how long the talk takes.  Practice so you work out your verbal stumbles.  Practice, so you can fix whatever needs to be fixed, and then practice that.
Seriously, practice:  I'm (now) a decent public speaker, and the week before a new 15 minute talk, I'll probably deliver it in full about three times each day.  More, the night before the talk.  No matter how nervous I am, I want all that repetition to kick in.
You can do this!
And you should, if circumstances permit.

Yes, as in other answers/comments, anyone authorized by the authors can present.
Nevertheless, if you (as a beginner) have the opportunity to be the presenter, you should absolutely do it.
With my own students, I do lots of "rehearsals" for any sort of oral exam or presentation... with lots of critique-ing, revising, and doing-it-over. Yes, for such a process to be ok with everyone, there does have to be trust and understanding.


text:
How can I pass a statistics exam that overly relies on memorizing formulas?
Long story short, I struggle with a statistics exam at the university. Although I know how to solve all types of exercises and the rationale behind each of them, I still can't pass this exam, because we are supposed to know ninety formulas by heart. I am not complaining about the volume of work that has to be put in, because I did all that had to be done. Still, when practicing, I was looking every time on a sheet where I had all formulas needed.
During the exam, though, we were not allowed to use any help. I find it extremely hard to memorize ninety formulas by heart. I literally don't know how to memorize them; it would take me years to learn them by heart. How can I do this?
(Assume for the sake of this question that it’s too late to change the exam mode to one which does not require so much memorizing.)

Welcome to Academia SE. I took the liberty to edit your question to focus it on preparing to the exam as it is. Otherwise we might get two completely different types of answers: One that focuses on how to beat the exam you get and one that focuses on changing the exam. That being said, if you want to convince your professor to change the exam mode, you might ask a separate question about this. You might also find convincing material here and in this paper.

@DanielHatton: Sadly, I don’t find this surprising at all and have observed many exams that are similar, though not quite this extreme. The reasons for this are usually: 1) The professor thinks that memorizing formulas is relevant and a good proxy for understanding (after all, they have memorised all of them). 2) Exams that can just quiz you on this are easier to create. 3) In certain disciplines, most students are happy if they can pass an exam by rote memorisation instead of actually understanding the subject. E.g., I would expect this if this is Statistics for Pharmacists.

My guess is that the professor doesn't expect the students to know 90 formulas by hearth, but know the concepts and derive the formulas from a basic set of formulas, but some students have tried to simplify the work by using a 90 formulas sheet. For example, you don't need the formula for mean and median if you know what mean and median are.

Related question here.

@Pete: This was my thought also. For example, in extremely elementary treatments of electricity, Ohm's law V = IR is sometimes stated in 3 different ways (the other two being I = V/R and R = V/I), and to present the topic without assuming students know any algebra, students are sometimes told (or very weak students in other situations take it upon themselves) to become familiar with all 3 versions.

There is also a milder version of @pete's comment: for a Calculus class, it is a good idea to memorize the formula of the derivative of $\sec$ and, at the same time, have the skills to be able to derive the formula when the formula is forgotten.

In addition to @Buffy suggestions: A lot of formulas in statistics are variations on the same theme. If you understand the relationship between the formulas you can learn for each "block of formulas" the main formula and the relationship with the others in that block.
It does not help you, but for the statistics exam I make I allow a list of formulas. If the student needs or wants to use statistics later, I would prefer that he/she/they look the required formulas up rather than rely on a memory from a course they took years ago. If that is the way I want them to use statistics, then the exam should reflect that.

+1 I'm even wondering what 90 different formulas can be included on a basic statistics course. To get to 90 formulas I would need to put a lot of variations of the same formulas.

@Pere: Here's the formula card that comes packaged with the Weiss Introductory Statistics text: http://www.math1312.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/2/0/2120132/is9_formula-table_card.pdf

... on which there just happens to be exactly 100 bullet-point formulas (ignoring the statistical tables at the back). Of those, I think maybe about a dozen may be duplicates, algebraic rewrites, or analogs of other formulas.

@DanielR.Collins And as predicted in the answer, these are variations of significantly less than 100 formulas. But even if you distill this down to somewhere between 10 and 20 meaningfully distinct formulas, teaching statistics as 'memorize all of them and then apply the correct one' is a terrible way to teach statistics almost guaranteed to produce garbage when applied in real world setting.

@quarague: That's not remotely a correct accounting, as noted in my prior comment.

@DanielR.Collins I must admit that I had in mind a shorter Introductory Statistics course that the one covered by that formula card. Furthermore, there are a handful of formulas that I wouldn't put in a formula card (nor learn by hearth) because they are just a way to write down a concept that should be understood, like probability of equally likely outcomes.

One way to memorize a lot of things is to write each one on a separate index card and carry them about with you at all times. Perhaps write a name on one side and the formula on the other.
Never leave home without your card deck.
Then, frequently during the day, whenever you have a stray moment, pull  out the deck and refresh your memory with a few cards. Perhaps put a check mark on each card when you review it.
If you master a formula, you can leave its card behind - or not.
Another help is to write the formulae down when you review it. The coordination between hand and brain helps memory.

Yes, good suggestions.

Or you can use a flashcard app on your phone, for example Anki, which algorithmically determines when to show you each card based on how well you remembered it the last time you saw that card.

@kaya3, electronic "solutions", however, are less engaging than writing things out on cards. Reading something doesn't have the same effect on learning as writing. That is also why reading solutions to exercises doesn't have the same learning effect as doing them.

I'm not sure why you would expect writing flashcards on a keyboard and then reading them on a screen, to be less effective than writing them on paper and then reading them on paper. What the electronic version adds is spaced repetition, which is one of the most effective learning techniques for domains in which it's applicable (and it's definitely applicable for memorising formulae).

Your claim about reading vs. doing also contradicts research such as this which found that attempting practice problems to learn algebraic techniques was actually less effective for learning than reading worked example solutions to those problems. It depends what the learning goal is, of course ─ this was for memorisation, not learning generalisable skills ─ but the issue here is about memorisation.

@kaya3, I question the relevance of the cited work. The goal of the memorization here wasn't to reproduce the formulae, or to produce similar ones, but to apply them. An anecdote. When I was a kid, starting in kindergarten, teachers used flashcards to teach addition facts. Later, we were taught multiplication. I actually had a doctorate in math before I finally learned the multiplication tables up to 12x12. Seeing and doing are quite different things for learning.

@kaya3, another anecdote. The valedictorian in my undergraduate class used the notecard technique to remember things. He always carried a few cards and he frequently perused them and (I assume) annotated them. Don't write too much on any one card initially. He attributed his uniform academic success (undergrad) to those cards. I picked it up only later. I have several such cards on my desk as I write. I used them for lecturing, etc.

It's strange that from this experience, you conclude that the learning effect was attributable to the cards being physically made of paper. It is much more reasonable to suppose that your valedictorian's success was a result of what he did with those cards. Digital flashcards are used exactly the same way, but with the added benefit that the application keeps track of which cards you need to review and when.

I only bring up the worked example effect because you said "reading solutions to exercises doesn't have the same learning effect as doing them" ─ the research on this topic shows that indeed reading worked example solutions doesn't have the same learning effect, it has a greater learning effect; better retention and fewer mistakes when the student applies the learned material. I realise this is counterintuitive; "doing is better than reading" is one of those common sense things that is easily over-applied.

@kaya3, no, it was the fact that he wrote them on paper himself. It was his physical act of writing that engaged the brain. Typing has much less of an effect in my experience. It isn't the paper, it is the writing. And the key words (to me) in the paper you cited earlier is "for similar problems".

I think that's an interesting hypothesis but I wonder if there is any evidence for it. Regardless, the point of flashcards is not really the writing them in the first place (though writing your own flashcards is better than using someone else's, because you can build a deck that is specifically relevant for what you need to learn), rather it's that you periodically review them.

@kaya3: I notice that the word "reading" doesn't show up a single time in the Wikipedia article you linked to. (And it's not about rote memorizing of content; it's about explaining steps of a process.) It seems like you're running pretty far with a particular interpretation.

@DanielR.Collins Really, that's your objection? The verb "read" is commonly used in the context of worked examples; so what if Wikipedia uses the word "study" instead? The paper I linked to says "read" (and also "study"). And if you want to play that game, flashcards are also "studied" when you read one side and try to recall what's on the other. If this is the only issue you have with my comments then please mentally substitute the word "read" with "study" everywhere it appears. Also note that "read" is not synonymous with "passively read".

1. Understand the basic intuition.
My best method of memorizing formulas is to simply understand the rationale (or rather "intuition") behind them.
Let me explain it on the basis of the Gaussian: Perhaps you remember how the "Bell Curve" looks like:

It is curved upwards at the center similar to the f(x)=-x^2 (parabola)
It has two asymptotes y=0 at lim x->infinity and lim x->-infinity.
The function is even (have an axis of symmetry)

That 2 facts make me suppose that it has something to do with f(x)=-x^2 and f(x)=e^-x functions. Let combine them into: f(x)=e^-x^2.
Of course what we got is some kind of ideal "Unit Gaussian Function". The last thing we need to do is to shape it with some custom parameters in order to place it in a proper place:

Standard derivation (small sigma) to determine its "width". This is our 1/2sigma.
Shift it along X axis to place its mean value/center at a proper place. This is our (x-mi) term.
Multiply it by some factor in order to give it a desired max value or the most often case: to normalize it so the probability of x taking any value from X is equal 1. This is our: 1/sqrt(2pi)sigma term.

2. Learn how to derive
Other thing I usually do is to try to learn how the formula was derived from more fundamental theorems or formulas. When I sometimes forget the exact formula, I usually try to take some time to make a very quick "proof" for the formula.
For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_related_to_chi-squared_distribution
Unfortunately it does not work well for formulas derived using very complex integrals or differential equations. Fortunately there is not so many of them. They usually result in functions that are not elementary anyway and must be published only in a form of tables or value sheets.

Write
I didn't have to memorize a set block of formulas, but I had to memorize a lot of raw material for my qualifying exams.  (I assume everyone does.)
Writing is widely reputed to aid in memorization and in my anecdotal case it certainly did:  My studying consisted of the creation of dozens of pages of handwritten notes.  Then condensing it into a second set of notes maybe 30% shorter.  And then a third set, 30% shorter again.  (Alongside more traditional attempts at study, understanding and memorization, of course.)
The reduction in length was partly an indication of how much I felt I'd already memorized, but the sensation of actually writing those notes by hand, multiple times, helped.  By the time of the exams, I was able to call up key information by imagining all those times I had already written it.
In your case, if discrete formulas are your downfall, I would make flashcards out of them, and as the act of study I would start by writing new cards down from memory.
Practice
If these formulas are simple enough that you can also work problems by hand, then definitely do that, too.  And when I say work them by hand, I mean it literally.  Start with the problem, write down the applicable formula(s), and work the problem with nothing more than a hand calculator to handle the mechanics of the arithmetic.
(Again, I am assuming the formulas and problems would be simple enough that this is viable.)

Categorize them as much as possible, perhaps by topic.
Then order them in some reasonable way within each category, perhaps by similarity. Try to remember the similarities/small differences between them and why they exist.
Then write them down in some organized way on a sheet, and color code them by category.
The idea is you want to break this gigantic pile down into easily digestible little chunks.
Finally it's just a matter of revisiting and reviewing this colorful result regularly: when you wake up, before you go to sleep, waiting in a queue somewhere, when you're on a train ...

For memorising a set of formulae (or words in a language, names of people, or other simple facts), a good choice is spaced repetition. This is implemented by applications such as Anki, which you can use on a desktop computer or a smartphone; you write the facts you want to memorise on "cards", typically with two "sides" (formula name on one side, formula on the other). You review those cards periodically (e.g. see one side and try to remember the other), and after reviewing a card you can tell the app whether it was easy or difficult for you to recall. That feeds back into how frequently the app asks you to review that card.
This is very similar to Buffy's answer, but I've written it as a separate answer because Buffy specifically promotes the use of physical paper flashcards over digital ones. The upside of using an app is the spaced repetition: it keeps track of how well you have learned each card so far, and then gets you to review those cards at (in theory) the optimal times for increasing your memory retention.

I don't have any scientific proof for that but some people believe that having a physical piece of written paper helps our brain better remember its content. as an "anegdotical proof" I noticed that it works for me as well.

I once took a quantum mechanics course where the professor thought it was really important that we memorize all the relevant formulas.  The only way I managed to get through it was to, right before the test, sit and copy the formulas over and over again on a piece of paper for 15-30 minutes.  Then as soon as I was given the test, I would write them down on my scratch paper.  Good luck.

This is the technique I used.  It is much easier to remember them all in one go at the start of the exam, perhaps before the timer starts, than one at a time during the exam as you need them.

This is an ideal example of a problem that can be solved by using a mind palace: https://www.coursera.org/articles/memory-palace
The answer by @csstudent1418 How to pass a statistics exam that overly relies on memorizing formulas? is basically a "memory palace lite".
I don't know how much time you have. But I would recommend you learn how to use memory palaces, and then apply them to this exam and any similar memorization problems in the future

In stats, we talk about cookbooks (lots of how-to procedures to remember, without background theory) and spookbooks (lots of fundamental theory that tends to frighten rather than enlighten the students).
Actually, I find the cookbooks rather spooky, with all their mysterious "you must never" and "you must always" and I find I can cook just fine working from spookbooks.
Now to the advice: if you study a good maths prob book such as Bain and Engelhardt, you might be able to work out the logic behind the formulas, which makes them easier to memorise.

The standard way is to keep your sheet by your side while you do the exercise. When you need to look at it, don't. Instead make an active recall effort. Try writing down the formula by heart. When you fail, look up the sheet, transcribe the formula and finish the exercise. Do enough exercises and eventually you will know the formula.
Additionally, a key thing is how you do your sheet. Write it by hand, make it neat and organized by topics or type of formula or whatever sounds like a good categorisation to you. Key thing is you need to struggle to organise the sheet, for me that acts as sorting things in what feels logical to me and massively help recall.


text:
Formal letter to an academic person holding Master's degree
Usually it is simple: "Dear Prof. Berret...", Dear Dr. Jones...". But this time I have to write a formal letter to a person with a Masters Degree (MSc). I never met the person, can not be sure about their gender (Tracy Smith could be both man/woman). The person is active in academia, publishing frequently and their job title is "Director". What are my options?
Dear Director of... (with no name)?
Dear Principal Investigator ...?
Dear Mr Smith?
Dear Mrs Smith?
Anyone?

Where is this person located in the world? Why do you need to write them a formal letter?

Why can't you write "Dear Tracy Smith,..."?

OP here: location is North America, purpose: job application.

Obligatory The Big Bang Theory reference.

Did you see if they have a LinkedIn profile or university profile that by any chance has a picture? (But I agree with @astronat, use "Dear Firstname Lastname").

@Jeroen Actually Dear First Name last name can be considered rude. If you read it in the 'right' intonation, it can sound like scolding/talking down. Some people read it like this, so dont be surprised if the reply might be different than expected.

Can you telephone the department and ask whomever answers, "I want to write a letter to Tracy Smith.  What is the appropriate title?"

Don't overthink it. Try to find out the gender and then use "Mr." or "Mrs."
Even many professors don't insist on titles most the time and a person with a master degree is usually just a (former) student, who is one step further than other students. In a second E-Mail you can then use how they call themself in their signature.
"Dear Director" may be appropriate, when the job position is relevant to your E-Mail.
(It may depend on the country how much people want to be addressed using their academic full title)

A director of something probably isn't a student

I added "(former)". But it may still depend on the country, how much people insist on their academic titles.

If you are not sure of the proper title to use because information is missing (in this case gender), then the best way is to use a general salutation, leaning towards a more formal form.
'Dear Sir/Madam,' (capitals depending on locality) or even just 'L.S.' (lectori salutem). I also see no problem with 'Dear director Smith,', but know not everyone might appreciate that. For job applications 'Dear hiring manager,' is also commonly used and acceptable.
P.S. I've never heard of Tracy as a male name. Is it just an example or is there really a place where it's common for men to be called that?

Regarding Tracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_(name) .
Quite some notable men (although many more women) and mostly US based.

At least far as I am aware, truly "formal letters" for job application purposes in the US/Canada are pretty much obsolete (I can't say as much about other areas of North America, you haven't been very specific). Maybe in some particular fields where I don't have much exposure that isn't true (law? certain areas of business? politics?). There may be formal communication of contracts and such, but not as much between peers or people who will be in a direct reporting relationship.
There's polite address, sure, but politely referring to someone by name is usually sufficient when they don't have a more official title. "Dear Firstname Lastname" is fine for someone without a doctorate, professor role, or government role. Even the "Dear" is a bit quaint these days.

""formal letters" for job application purposes in the US/Canada are pretty much obsolete"  No, they are required for all academic jobs I have seen in US/Canada.

In these cases, I either sidestep the issue and say "Greetings" or refer to them by their first name, e.g., "Dear Tracy."

...this is not appropriate in the whole world. Is this answer about the US by any chance?

It is and great! What's appropriate in your context? (Also looks like the OP is in North America - not sure if what I would do is applicable to the whole region)

"Mr. Director" or finding out all the titles (if anyhow possible) would be appropriate in my region. (Maybe you could add to your answer where this answer applies to?)


text:
How to avoid plagiarism when reciting a list of technical terms word-for-word from another article?
I'm working on a term paper that will directly lead into my Master's thesis, so I'm concerned about whether I'm committing plagiarism here. There are two issues: (1) Reproducing a list of technical terms, and (2) reproducing an equation with explanations of the different terms.
(1) I want to include a list of technical terms that were already enumerated in a research article. Here is how that article is written:

However, at the very beginning of the manure life
cycle, the fresh animal waste can be characterized with
its primary components, the feces and urine. Fecal
material contains a wide spectrum of organic compounds such as undigested litter, living microorganisms, carbohydrates, proteins, fatty acids, celluloses,
hemicelluloses and lignin (Clark et al. 2005; ASAE
American Society of Agricultural Engineers 2003).

Source: Li, C., Salas, W., Zhang, R., Krauter, C., Rotz, A., & Mitloehner, F. (2012). Manure-DNDC: A biogeochemical process model for quantifying greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from livestock manure systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 93(2), 163–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-012-9507-z

To what extent do I need to paraphrase this list in order to include it in my thesis? Would changing the order of the list items be enough to constitute a paraphrase?
(2) I want to include an equation from another source, which also explained each of the terms in that equation. Here is how that article is written:

dC/dt = CNR * μ * (S * kl + (1-S) * kr) * [C]        [Eq. 3]

Where [C] is organic C content (kg C/ha), t is time (day), S is labile fraction of organic
C compounds in the pool, (1-S) is resistant fraction of organic C compounds, kl is
specific decomposition rate (SDR) of labile fraction (1/day), kr is SDR of the resistant
fraction (1/day), μ is temperature and moisture factor, CNR is C/N ratio reduction
factor, SDR is 0.074, 0.074, 0.02, 0.33, 0.04, 0.16 and 0.006 (1/day) for very labile
litter, labile litter, resistant litter, labile microbes, resistant microbes, labile humads,
and resistant humads, respectively.

Source: Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space. (2017). DNDC Scientific Basis and Processes (Version 9.5). University of New Hampshire.

How should I go about paraphrasing the equation and "Where..." statements?
The reason I am confused about this is because MIT's anti-plagiarism resource does not seem to cover these topics:
MIT Academic Integrity Handbook: Paraphrasing

The first box can be easily rewritten. For the equation I think doing what you have done here is perfect. Alternatively see Anonymous Physicist's answer.

Paraphrasing doesn't help you avoid plagiarism. Only citation does.

My understanding is that insufficient paraphrasing or quotation (i.e. copying someone's exact wording without enclosing it in quotation marks) would constitute plagiarism with or without citation

If you enclose the text in quotation marks and cite the original source, it is not plagiarism.  If it is a list, a quotation makes more sense than paraphrasing.


text:
APA Citation Followed by in-text reference to figure
I want to provide a parenthetical citation along with a reference to a figure in my text. What is the proper way to format this?
Blah blah blah (Li et al., 1994, 1997) (Figure 1).
Blah blah blah (Li et al., 1994, 1997; Figure 1).
Blah blah blah (Figure 1) (Li et al., 1994, 1997).

Is the Figure part of your own paper, or part of the paper you are citing?

A part of a paper I'm citing.

Assuming the figure is not directly related to the citation, I would be looking to rewrite the sentence to separate the citation and the figure reference. It seems unusual that you would be introducing what is typically your own work (i.e., a figure) and citing a reference at exactly the same point. For example, you could write something like :

Figure 1 presents the results of ... based on data from Li et al (1994, 1997)

Of course, the way to do this will depend on the details of your content, but I'd generally seek to separate the two elements.
Alternatively, if the the figure is from the citation and you are reproducing it, you could do something like this:

(see Figure 1 taken from Li et al, 1994, 1997)

Or a variant:

(see Figure 1 based on data from Li et al, 1994, 1997)


text:
To avoid legal battle, in bussiness world reference letters are written extremely terse. How do academics get away with this?
It seems to be accepted wisdom in the business world that reference letters for former employees should be extremely terse. They should confirm that the employee worked there, and essentially nothing else:

To whom it may concern: Ellen Ripley was employed by the Weyland-Yutani Corporation from June 2137 to September 2139.  Signed, C. Burke, manager."

The standard reasoning is that if the letter contains something unfavorable and the employee is turned down for a future job, they might sue their former company for libel, claiming the unfavorable statement was a lie which damaged their career.  In order to avoid the possibility of such a legal battle (which, the reasoning goes, could be very expensive, even if the company wins), the company tells its managers to write letters with no content, so that there's no chance of them containing something actionable.
This question on Workplace Stack Exchange, Is there any evidence that giving references for former employees is inherently risky?, attests to this practice, and the answers provide some suggestion that the company's fears are justified.
On the other hand, in academia, detailed and informative recommendation letters are the norm.  They often run to multiple pages, and contain specific information about the candidate's history and activities at the institution, as well as the writer's (supposedly honest) subjective assessment of the candidate's strengths, weaknesses, and potential.  This is not only common but effectively mandatory; a minimal recommendation letter of the kind described above would immediately consign the candidate's application to the nearest wastebasket.
This would seem to be just the sort of thing that fills corporate counsel with horror, yet we do it every day.  No academic employer of mine has ever told me not to do so; for that matter, I can't say that I've ever received any official guidance, one way or the other, on writing recommendations.  Nobody in academia seems to be concerned that writing a letter that could be construed as less than favorable could result in legal consequences.  So how are we getting away with it?
Are universities treated differently under the law, making them less vulnerable to such threats?  Or do they willingly accept the legal risks in order to make the world a better place by providing actual information about their former students/employees?  Or is everyone ignorant of the risk of trouble?  Or is there something I have not thought of?
To forestall a couple of objections: I know that academics usually try to write only positive letters, and decline to write if they have nothing good to say, but that's evidently not enough in the corporate world.  Anyway, candidates often end up damned by faint praise.  Also, I know that we send letters in confidence, with the understanding that they won't be shown to the candidate, and sometimes this is backed by having the candidate sign a waiver, but I have to believe that a sufficiently determined and litigious candidate could get access anyway.
(I know this question may sound rhetorical, but I ask it in seriousness, and hope to learn something from the answers.  My context is the US, but if things are substantially different in other places, that would be interesting to know as well.)

... and then the lawyers awoke to a golden, new opportunity.

@MadJack: No they don't, because students generally waive rights to accessing the letters, and therefore have no right to sue over their contents.

@MadJack: <valjean>What have I done?  Sweet Jesus, what have I done?</valjean>

I'm surprised that this is the case in business. The practice you describe seems to have no function besides confirming that the candidate did, in fact, work there (which is already confirmed by calling them anyway). Perhaps academia is a smaller world, and the cost to one's reputation from such shenanigans is too high? Or perhaps graduate students are so downtrodden and destitute that they wouldn't dream of going up against big institutions with competent legal teams?

Point of information: does the university apply the usual business rules to its non-academic staff? If so then that pretty much rules out legal ignorance as an explanation.

You might want to add a country-specific tag. In Germany, for example, employees have a legal right to a "qualified reference letter" that includes information about quality of and behavior at work.

@arne.b: “that includes information about quality“ – unfortunately in a perpetually changing code that may be used differently by the author and reader of the letter (e.g., the German equivalent of “The employee has met our expectations on the whole.” usually means that the employee was a total failure), which makes it only a question of time until these letters become totally useless.

@SteveJessop: Excellent question.  I have no idea.

@Wrzlprmft Actually, in Germany these wordings are more or less standardized, and have been for some time. This means that there is less of an "inflation" over time.

@shane: I had in mind the former.  But it's my impression that a business manager, if asked to give an expert opinion on the quality of a former employee's work, will refuse to do so, so I want to understand why academics are willing.  Some of the answers suggest my impression may be wrong, though.

FWIW, the concern in the banking industry is equally that giving a favourable reference to a candidate that later under-performs in their new job may leave the referee and their company liable to the new employer.  Any claim might be supported by evidence they dig up of under-performance or other issues at the previous company that weren't disclosed, or inflated claims in the reference.

My impression is that the difference is largely cultural.  The academic community in the U.S. has developed a culture of relying on written letters of recommendation, and this practice has a lot of inherent stability.  Someone considering suing knows that a questionable lawsuit would permanently ruin their career, in a way that wouldn't necessarily happen in the business world.  (For one thing, academia is a much smaller, more tightly knit, and more philosophically coherent group.)  If a student or job applicant did sue frivolously, then it would probably be cheaper to settle, but the university would not do so: proving a point would be a higher priority than saving money.  (By contrast, for-profit businesses are less likely to make unnecessary expenditures to try to defend their principles.)  University attorneys know that if they advised faculty not to write or require letters, everyone would ignore them and it would just hurt the university's reputation.  The culture takes on a life of its own, regardless of the legal context.
However, I believe U.S. legal precedents are actually pretty favorable for academic letters of recommendation.  The key phrase is "academic deference," which as I understand it is the theory that academic judgments are not subject to legal review because the courts aren't even capable of evaluating these judgments.  (Of course I'm not a lawyer and so I'm probably at least overlooking subtleties.)  You can sue for reasons like discrimination, but you can't successfully sue someone who made a good faith effort to judge your academic performance or potential on the grounds that you think they judged it wrong.
The academic deference doctrine is based on a number of precedents, but it's somewhat controversial.  For example, people argue that it makes it too easy to get away with discrimination (since it makes courts reluctant to examine evidence), and that lots of non-academic judgments are equally difficult to evaluate but don't have a special doctrine protecting them from review by the courts.  See this article by Moss for a review of the precedents and an argument against academic deference.
Depending on the circumstances, there may also be other legal issues.  For example, it's much harder to sue someone for libel based on their evaluation of your published scholarly work.  In particular, you have to prove actual malice since publishing the work makes you a public figure for this purpose.  In other words, it's not enough to prove that the evaluation was wrong; instead, you have to prove that they knew it was wrong or at least had reckless disregard for the truth. (See, for example, Posner's wonderful opinion on whether calling someone a crank is defamatory.)  I believe this is much more clear cut and better established than academic deference is, but it is not relevant for unpublished work or other recommendation letter content.
Returning to the cultural theme, it's also worth thinking about psychological factors.  If I run a business, then my ex-employees could be applying for jobs at competitors, partners, or companies that are irrelevant to my interests.  Among these possibilities, partner companies I'm actively working with are only a small fraction.  The generic case is that I won't care about the new employer or will actively harbor ill will towards them.  If a lawyer advises me that it's best not to say anything, I may seize on that excuse even aside from the lawsuit potential.  By contrast, academia is a world in which we're all partners, and that feels very different.  Universities do compete against each other in some ways, of course, but there's a much greater feeling of good will and cooperation than you see between most for-profit companies.  It's no surprise that very different norms and practices have developed in a far less competitive environment.

"Someone considering suing knows that a questionable lawsuit would permanently ruin their career" Wouldn't a court be likely to interpret that as an aggravating factor? "Not only did you libel my client, preventing him obtaining a job at the University of Awesome but, also, you and all your buddies attempted to punish him for defending himself through this lawsuit. It sounds almost like the mafia, doesn't it?"

@DavidRicherby: Yes, an organized attempt to retaliate would be bad, but I think the consequences would unfold on their own (assuming there was no good reason for the lawsuit).  Suppose Alice writes a letter for Bob's postdoc applications that is supportive but not as glowing as Bob had hoped for, and Bob obtains the letter and sues for libel.  The lawsuit would attract lots of attention, and nobody would trust any letter written for him after he sued.  That would be a huge barrier to employment, and furthermore who wants a tenure-track colleague who is prone to filing frivolous lawsuits?

@AnonymousMathematician libel - a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.  Would not Bob have to prove that some element of Alice's supportive letter is false?  Alice wrote that Bob could walk and chew gum at the same time.  Bob's attorneys will prove otherwise.  Is this really what Bob wants?

@emory: Suppose Alice wrote something like "Bob is an exceptionally promising researcher; he is even stronger than Carl and comparable with Dave, although not quite as accomplished as Eve was at Bob's career stage", while Bob thought the letter should have ranked him far ahead of all these people.  He might try to prove his case by counting papers or citations.  Of course this wouldn't really prove anything, and it would be a foolish decision to take this approach, but it's conceivable that someone might try.

More to the point, someone might be correct that the letter was defamatory. This is the scenario business is especially keen to avoid. In academia the plaintiff's career would nevertheless be damaged even if they won the lawsuit. That's the point at which it starts to look like a racket, but it's hard to prove if the career is harmed only in the form of future prospective employers thinking, "oh, that's the stroppy so-and-so that wouldn't accept their reference letter was true and somehow got good enough lawyers to persuade a court to agree".

As for how a positive statement could be defamatory: you can damn with faint praise. "Tom Brady is a thoroughly adequate quarterback, certainly in the top 75% of NFL starters, and is kind to animals" is positive. Jamarcus Russell would bite your hand off for it. But for Brady it could perhaps be considered either straight false (he's better than adequate) or to give an intentionally or negligently false implication even where it's factually correct (there's a clear implication that he's not in the top 25%).

At this point its a powder keg. If you have an independently wealthy academic that can afford to sue, despite the reputational damage, there is a real risk they could win. To address @AnonymousMathematician's comment "..and nobody would trust any letter written for him..." it is also true that this happens to Alice who had written the letter originally and now has been made a public spectacle of writing a bad letter. And other academics seeing this will know, you're better off not writing a letter at all unless it is a glowing review. Which is where things are almost at right now...

That almost begs the question then: has this already happened before?

Link rot, posner: https://web.archive.org/web/20140826142649/http://www.projectposner.org/case/1996/75F3d307

I believe there is a very reasonable misunderstanding here - there is a difference in a "verification of employment", being used as a "reference", and a "recommendation letter". These all have their common uses, but they are handled very, very differently.
Verification of Employment (present or past)

To whom it may concern: Ellen Ripley was employed by the
  Weyland-Yutani Corporation from June 2137 to September 2139. Signed,
  C. Burke, manager."

This is a perfect example of the proper, commonly accepted response to a request for a verification of employment. This sort of letter is useful in a wide-variety of circumstances, including:

Proving your work/career history to an employer
Verifying your job to a government agency or company (think insurance, banks, State benefits, etc)
Qualifying for corporate discount/membership arrangements (cell phones, computers, credit unions, etc)

This is not at all to be construed as a letter of recommendation - it isn't one!
There are cases where more information is requested, such as:

Is the employee eligible to be re-hired at the company
How did the employment end - were they fired, quit, laid off?
Salary verification (this is not the most common, but it is not unheard of and more commonly requested by banks and government agencies)

Serving as a Reference
A employer or manager may be asked to serve as a reference, where a prospective employer might wish to call and speak with them personally and ask them various questions. What questions get asked, and any potential for legal action, depends upon what is said, documentation, and consequences. Most of the legal actions revolve around claims of libel or defamation. Note that in the US you are allowed to cherry pick your own reference to provide to a future/prospective employer.
Sometimes this is requested by email or fax, in which case it is common to just treat it as little more than a verification of employment request. However, sometimes this is much more important than a mere verification - it depends upon the position, industry, recruiter, etc.
Letter of Recommendation
In industry a real letter of recommendation functions much more closely to how it is treated in academia. A person in a position to closely evaluate an employee is asked - almost exclusively by the employee - to provide such a letter. This is almost always requested from an immediate supervisor, manager, directory, or executive with a close working relationship with the employee.
All the same rules apply. These are less common in industry, perhaps at least partly because they are rare and unexpected and because unsolicited opinions tend to be discounted and distrusted much more commonly than in academia. However, they can still come in handy.
Fear of torts really isn't that big of a factor as far as I've seen, because a letter of recommendation is expected solely to be positive. I'm not aware of any case of a company suing another company because "you said this guy was great and it turns out he was useless!" It just isn't done.
And an employee couldn't very successfully sue an employer for saying something nice about them; the USA may have a reputation for being litigious, but that's just ridiculous (not that it hasn't ever happened I'm sure, but it's obviously frivolous and very rare).

To forestall a couple of objections: I know that academics usually try
  to write only positive letters, and decline to write if they have
  nothing good to say, but that's evidently not enough in the corporate
  world. Anyway, candidates often end up damned by faint praise.

Actually, in the corporate world this is almost exactly what happens. If an employer doesn't want to provide a real recommendation, they just provide a verification of employment.
I've had recruiters contact previous/current bosses of mine (who I talked with in advance to ensure they would provide a useful reference rather than a mere verification of employment), and been told by the recruiter when such contacts were very positive. "They really gave you a glowing review!"
Most good corporate bosses will be more than happy to say good things if they have a good opinion of you, and will accept any request of yours to share their opinion. If they get asked for a reference and they don't know you well or don't have a great opinion of you, they'll probably just not say very much - unless they hate you, in which case you really shouldn't have offered them as a reference!
How Does Academia Do It?
It's really much like the corporate world does it: they recognize that libel and defamation are in fact illegal, and so avoid even a potential appearance by avoiding saying negative things. They also realize that speaking poorly of others tends to reflect badly on you, too - so "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all".
And yes, you can be damned by faint praise. If you are looking for more than an entry-level job at a company and talk about what great work you did at your last place and how valuable you were, and then they talk to the reference you provided (probably your boss or a colleague) and all they'll say is you worked there, and maybe you were a nice person who was usually punctual? Yeah, that's not going to go well in any sector.

It is underplayed here, but I agree that the content of an academic letter is safe. People as recommendation letters from professors who can say nice things about them, and the recommendation letter is more of the collection of nice moments and the details of the relationship. If the employer is looking for proof of a given skip or experience, those letters help. if it is not in the letter, it may be a sign, too. Even so, no one can accuse a professor on the basis he left out some touchier topics.

There's a piece by UK humorist Miles Kington which jokes about the possibility of suing for a positive statement. The fictitious version of the author sues for defamation over someone saying he's not funny, wins, gets an apology stating (among other things) that he's "effortlessly hilarious at all times". His employer then accuses him of not working hard enough since it's effortless and cuts his pay, so he sues again for the second defamation in the apology for the first defamation ;-)

@E.P. Hah, just re-found this and fixed that failed train of thought!

In general, yes, there is a major difference in how employees' and students' letters are handled. Applicants to US undergraduate and graduate programs are routinely asked to waive the right to see their letters of recommendation, and therefore the letter writers are free to speak in a much more candid manner and offer a frank appraisal of a candidate's positives and negatives.
It's worth noting that this is often not the case outside the US, where students are often directly given letters of recommendation that are exactly of the bland and generic format you described above. These letters, as you can imagine, are essentially useless in describing a student's real qualifications, and consequently we give those letters very little weight in our deliberations.

As I mentioned, I'm a bit skeptical that such waivers really prevent determined students from ever seeing the letters or finding out what they say.  Also, I've seen similarly frank letters written for applicants to postdoc and professorial jobs, so it can't be something specific to student applications.  And if the waiver scheme really worked, wouldn't business employers use it too?

Moreover, I've never received a memo from university counsel saying "don't write letters unless you know a waiver was signed".  If the waiver was so essential, you'd think I would have.

I wonder how much it's viewed as an "obvious" thing that you shouldn't write such a letter.

It is my impression that, for example here in MN, those waivers are understood to be a-priori invalid, insofar as there are various rights which cannot be "signed away".

Just a small note from somebody not from the US: I have been directly given 3 or 4 recommendation letters so far, and none of them were bland and generic in the least. Although I have heard cases in Europe where the letter was sent directly to whomever was handling the application process. (All of the above only for academia)

This may very well depend on your local culture. In Germany, for instance, the standard letter of recommendation tends to be very fact-based (so-and-so worked on such-and-such project, etc.) with little "evaluation." (I'm also external these days.)

Do postdoc applicants in the US sign similar waivers? If not, then this is at best a very partial explanation, I'm afraid.

@episanty No. Neither do applicants for faculty positions or for tenure/promotion.

I'm also pretty sure that the recommendation letters are not entirely protected by the waivers that students sign. When I write letters for positions at any University of California school, I have to click through some legal language explaining exactly this: despite the waiver the student may be entitled by law to see the letter.

In Japan, the recommendation letter is a 推薦状 [suisenjyou] and it will in all but the most Westernized schools be given to the student such that they can read it and stamped with the seal of the professor and possibly an official seal from the school.
The purpose of this is slightly different than an American recommendation letter -- which is more of an appraisal of the student's abilities. By and large, the Japanese recommendation letter serves as an introduction / expression that the professor or teacher vouches for the student as someone trustworthy for the new job or school. It contains little information and not much detail on why the student would be recommended.
It was quite the pain getting letters of this format from some of the Americans less aware of the existence of what to us is such a bizarre practice.

I believe but cannot vouch that the practices are similar in Korea and China.

I'd guess part of the answer is that academics deal with the risk because they can't afford not to, because a reference serves a different purpose.
In business, my understanding is that people are largely selected for jobs on things that can be measured and compared apart from references (such as formal qualifications, performance in aptitude tests, years of experience), and on things that the hiring committee is able to assess (such as answers at interview).
While some of these play a part in academia, a large factor of hiring decisions is the applicant's research potential/demonstrated performance. This is sufficiently specialized and difficult to compare that the hiring committee cannot do that task entirely alone. They need additional experts to help make the judgements. Part of that can be done by sending papers to experts chosen by the panel, but part of it is done by receiving detailed references from people who are already familiar with the applicant's work (and so hopefully won't need to spend as much time to make a judgement).

I always show a student (or colleague) the letter I've been asked to write - noting that although s/he has (almost always) waived the right to see the letter, I have not waived the right to show it. S/he can suggest edits, or even ask me not to send it (that's never happened).

The University of Chicago does not only require signing the waiver,  but as an applicant you also have to sign that you did not see the letter nor were involved in any form in its writing.

In academia, publicly grading a student's performance is par for the course. After all, you get a GPA which is a very public (if often somewhat subjective) "evaluation" of your academic strength... Writing a few words that describe, in essence, where that grade came from, is a logical extension. From there, a full letter of recommendation is not much further.
By contrast, employee evaluations are considered highly confidential; so from the outset, there are different approaches to the way a person's performance is evaluated and publicized. That difference seems to carry forward into the culture of recommendations.
I have been a manager of people "in industry" for years, and ran into this problem from time to time. On a handful of occasions I have agreed to be a reference for people who used to work for me. Typically I have done this only for people who had already left my organization, with whom I had remained in touch, and who I would not be afraid to give a good recommendation. Typically those things tend to go hand in hand... and I know that for at least one of them, my recommendation made the difference for him getting his "dream job" (I know this, because 10 minutes after hanging up the phone to the HR department of his future employer, he called me to say he had just received a verbal offer, and that they mentioned that my reference had tipped the scale). For me, doing the right thing on occasions like that is more important than following recommendations of corporate lawyers... call me reckless.
Update (quoting from http://www.aaup.org/issues/academic-freedom/professors-and-institutions):

The professional standard of academic freedom is defined by the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which was developed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges and Universities. It is the fundamental statement on academic freedom for faculty in higher education. It has been endorsed by over 180 scholarly and professional organizations, and is incorporated into hundreds of college and university faculty handbooks. The 1940 Statement provides:

College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.
    AAUP, Policy Documents & Reports 3-4 (9th ed. 2001) (hereafter "Redbook").

Further down this same (rather long) article, there are numerous instances of case law. I am quoting just one that seems to indicate that academic freedom and "selection of faculty" are intertwined - this would seem to give academics the freedom to write proper detailed references (protected by "academic freedom") since such references are used "for the selection of faculty":
State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535 (1980), appeal dismissed sub. nom., Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 (1982)

Any direct governmental infringement of the freedom of teaching, learning, and investigation, is an assault upon the autonomy of institutions dedicated to academic freedom. In addition, universities perform functions, such as the selection of faculty, that are inexorably intertwined with the exercise of academic freedom.

I think that last sentence is the reason "we are getting away with it".

But academics don't just write letters for students: also for postdocs and other academic employees who are moving on. And my understanding is that the latter are just as detailed.

@NateEldredge - see updated answer.


text:
Is it ethical to express thanks and gratitude to a reviewer in the reply to the review text?
I want to know whether is it ethical to express thanks and gratitude to a reviewer
in the reply to review text. I feel we should express thanks to reviewers who spent valuable time to review our work.

IMHO it is more common to thank the reviewer in the Acknowledgments of your article, but of course you can also thank her/him in your response.

Once i wanted to add the anonymous reviewer as a coauthor

@just-learning: That is probably quite field-dependent. Fields that usually have very tight restrictions on paper length try to reduce everything to the absolute minimum (which, in case of the Acknowledgments, usually means that they contain a note about the grant number and little to nothing else) may rather tend to not do that.

@O.R.Mapper: That's interesting. I wonder which fields have that tight article length restrictions.

@just-learning: CS conference papers are often restricted to either 8, 10, or 12 pages. Which invariably means that the last few days of writing a paper are not so much about adding text, but about "fighting" for single lines (line breaks that will result in one page less) by removing content without losing any crucial information. When possibly useful, but essentially redundant information such as the full addresses of authors' affiliations, or DOIs in the bibliography, is among the first things to be removed, there is no space left for polite, but essentially uninformative statements.

It is not a question of ethics, it is a question about being courteous. Reviewers spend time to read and comment on your manuscript. Regardless of the type of comments you receive there will be significant voluntary work involved. It is only fair to show some gratitude. One way to think about this is that it is no different from any other type of professional correspondence.

And you should still thank them even when you wish you could yell at them instead...

Yes, how could it possibly be unethical to thank someone? This is very common.

It's very common and standard courtesy. Correctly reviewing a manuscript takes quite a lot of time and is no small effort. And in most cases, a thorough review will help make your manuscript better, so it's not strange to thank someone for helping you improve your work.


text:
Dismissed by my committee
I attended a doctoral program and was completing it in 3 to 4 years. I got a life-threatening sickness that set me back several years. When nearing my dissertation I was dismissed. I was told that I was let go because I had cancer. I never wanted to return to that school again, but not having completed my work has caused me great heartache and I am not able to pursue the career I desired. Is it at all possible to complete the degree elsewhere?

Had you published any of the results? This may be enough to convince an admissions committee that you are worth taking a risk on.

From the limited details you provide, it seems like you'll need some far more personalized advice than we can offer you here. I'll leave the question open anyway, just in case, but I strongly suggest you seek guidance from someone qualified to answer who is more intimately aware of your situation.

Another thing in your favour, if you had done sufficiently well and had been working for 3 or 4 years,  is that you probably have developed good research skills, which would make finishing a PhD the second time around much easier. (Are you in the US? If so, there's coursework to consider as well. Maybe you can get an exception, maybe not.)

This seems to border on a legal issue.

Some universities have a rule that you  MUST complete your phd within X years of starting, and this is inflexible. Is it possible that such a rule has caught you out?

In general, I think graduate schools want students to pursue their entire PhD candidacy at a given institution. Moreover, schools may be reluctant to count work done a long time ago as part of the requirements for obtaining a degree, as it likely sets a bad precedent.
Moreover, there's the question of financing. If you're in a program where students are financed through TA's, it's a lot easier to convince a school to take a chance, rather than in the sciences. The reason for this is that funding in the sciences is often tied to specific projects—which means that you will most likely need to change topics if you pursue a PhD in such a department. This would of course set your time to degree back considerably.
That said, you may find a sympathetic department that's willing to take a chance. My best advice is try to talk to the graduate admissions officers of some of the departments you're thinking of applying to. They'll help you to figure out what are the requirements and possibilities.

Finding a willing advisor seems to be sufficient to secure a position. The OP would essentially advisors, I am not sure the way has to be through the usual channels.

@Raphael: Finding a willing advisor isn't sufficient if the admissions committee has a policy against "transfers" or "restarts."

This situation surprises me: in the U.S., one could likely file (and win) a lawsuit alleging discrimination, in such a situation.
Dismissal from a college or university on grounds that one is ill is not legal, I think. Accommodation must be made, so that perhaps things are delayed, but not simply cancelled.
Outright dismissal from a job (such as research assistant or teaching assistant) on medical grounds I think is not allowed, either. One may be required to take a leave of absence if one absolutely cannot do one's job even with accommodation, but there is substantial legal (and moral) push to accommodate and reach a compromise.
I think discrimination on admissions, on medical grounds, would also be essentially illegal.
Edit: you should talk to a laywer conversant with such things, who might be willing to talk to you without a huge fee if you describe your situation to their screening personnel. The situation is rife with lawyerism, indeed. Be careful.

While this may be the case, we do not have enough details to allege anything. To the OP reading this post, I strongly suggest you exercise caution before throwing around terms such as "illegal" and "lawsuit". You have your entire professional life ahead of you still; don't ruin it now.

Yes, indeed, caution in legal matters is surely wise... but/and there is something strange here. An informal consultation with student-legal-advisor or such might be useful to help the questioner see/understand the boundaries/parameters/whatever in his/her situation. And/but I will reiterate: in the U.S., dismissal for medical condition is... not ok. If that's what happened... one should investigate what legal recourse there might be. But do_not rush into things, making too-aggressive claims, no. But don't be too passive, either... (The usual...)

It's also quite likely that the formal reasons for the dismissal were something other than just getting sick. However, the OP should definitely speak to somebody who can speak to legal matters in the country where he or she lives, just to understand what the appropriate options are.

I think you should try to fight it diplomatically but legally with the school. It doesn't seem fair or legal. It would be nearly impossible to continue in another institution unless you have relationships and also the reputation of the former school is considerably higher, which you wouldn't want to do anyway.
Depends if really the time you were away was strictly due to sickness. If you took several years more afterwards it is unlikely for you to win. Doctoral programs routinely turn away people who started, left, went to the real world, didn't like it, and want to return. They believe that somewhat freshness of knowledge and being current in the topics is important. Also they have some strange ideas about academic virginity that you want to take into account.