text:
A professor has only proofread my paper. Should I include him as author?
I am currently working on a paper. I am the sole author of the paper. Every aspect of the paper, the idea, the implementation, figures, plots, results are all solely based on my efforts. Since I wanted it to be accepted into a good conference/journal, I wanted it proofread. I approached a professor who is doing research somewhere close to the same field as my paper's. He made corrections to the paper based on semantics and visual aesthetics. Can I include him as a corresponding author? I want(ed) the project to have more than just me as the author because of being relatively inexperienced in my research explorations.

Going forward, you should really make it clear before accepting anyone's contributions, what they can expect in return (e.g.: "Would you mind reading my draft and offering some comments? I will of course mention your assistance in the Acknowledgements section.") That way there are no mismatched expectations.

Were you paid in some way?  Did you get any course credit?  Were you supervised during the experience?  Are you listing your university as your affiliation address in the paper?  Are you ENTITLED to do so?

Wait, "my professor" or "a professor"? If you are talking about "your professor", the answer might be different...

@Konerak Ohhhh. Now I see the point of your comment.

To follow up on my point, if you're just a student, and there is no faculty author on the paper, you might not even be entitled to list the school as an affiliation.

"My professor has only proofread my paper" "He made corrections to the paper based on semantics and visual aesthetics." Which is it?

"Hi, Professor ! I'm really grateful for your help with my paper, it really helped improve it. Is it OK if I give you an official acknowledgment?" [Assuming "Yes"] "How would you like me to write that in?"

I would not definately not include him as a secondary author without his permission/buy-in to do that, so if you're going that route you need to offer that to him.  I had someone put my name on a paper once (as secondary author) that I felt quite awkward about as it made things seem like I either did some of the work or was at least endorsing the work (which I wasn't).

@ff524 the same thing can be said about a professor: before doing anything for a student he should said: "I am going to proofread this paper but expect to be first author, all intellectual property transferred to me and be an author on all you future papers." Don't you think that being an author just because you proofread something is taking advantage of your superior position?

http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=562

I would thank him in the acknowledgments. Although there is no set standard for what is required to be an author, it is generally accepted that they must make a research contribution. Proofreading definitely doesn't meet that criterion (or any of the other criteria that I have seen).
I did this in one of my recent papers. I just said:

We would also like to thank Bob Bob for his helpful feedback on a draft of the paper.

As someone in academia, would he understand this decision? Would he take offense?

It is generally seen as a kind gesture to acknowledge someone. If you would feel more comfortable, you can casually let him know you plan on doing so in the paper.

@ʰᵈˑ Bob Roberts, maybe? :)

There is no universal standard for what is required to be an author; in many journals there certainly is a set standard.

@Wrzlprmft Fair enough, TIL. Though since "acknowledgement" certainly is also valid (and, an aside, more widespread, and spelt that way in the OP's realm :P) the rollback was inappropriate. :)

@ErikEidt I don't know what a secondary author is, but like I listed in my example, only credit him for what he did (proofread).

@BenVoigt medicine has a written standard for deciding authorship: the Vancouver Protocol, http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

you write "it is generally accepted that they must make a research contribution." - no, it isn't generally accepted. Not at all. It's very very field specific.

@EnergyNumbers How do I find out the practice specific to computer science? Are there any sources?

@HansKrupakar it varies by department too. So talk to people in your department.

The answer below assumes that the professor (P) is the advisor of the student (S), and that the internal guidelines of the institution forbid P to be a coauthor unless his/her contribution is sufficiently large. (Consider other answers for all other cases.)
This was the case for one of institutions I've been to. For such institutions, the unspoken, unwritten, but still present culture of deciding upon such an issue at my institution goes roughly along the following lines. It is similar for many other institutions (and it may or may not be like this in your case).

S: Here is the current paper draft to be sent to the conference XXX.  As of now, you are in the acknowledgements.  Would you like to be a second author?
P: No, thanks, please do not make me a coauthor.
S: Are you sure? You really contributed a lot of proofreading to it.
P: No, that's ok. The paper contains only your ideas.
S: But you are also my advisor, so I think you should be on it.
P: No, you did all the hard work. You should be the single author.
S: Ok, thank you. Then your name will be in the acknowledgements
  / in a footnote on the first page / etc.  But, still, you did proofreading. Is there anything I could do in return?
P: ...

If you tend to think that your institution has similar rules and culture, consider simply trying out this approach. Do not include your advisor iff he/she rejects at least, say, thrice. Otherwise, do inlcude him/her.

I don't know if my institution has that kind of a culture. I don't want it enforced on me because I asked him. If he wants me to include him as the second author and insists on it, I would be in a very tough spot.

As you already mentioned it, you have a really pratical option to handle your conflict. The acknowledgement section in which you can also wrap authors's contribution in most journals. In case you decide to offer him the co-authorship you can and should put all author's contribution as they have happened. Your own case is pretty clear here. AB contributed by developing and implementing the algorithm as well as writing the complete draft.
I would like to give you the following points you might have missed considering yet regarding other co-authors, especially your professor's one:
Is your professor the project leader? You could acknowledge his contribution by stating this, but also you could consider granting him co-authorship. Is this a collaborative project which you are provided with initially? Your professor most likely has spent a lot of years operating in his position within the science field to have the capability to do so. He can be protecting you from an overwehlming administrative amount of work (which is needed for the existense of positions like yours). Without him there would be no workstation, no access to a free cluster to perform heavy computations?
For me this are ethical reasons (or others like this examplary given exists behind the scenes) to grant a co-authorship if clarified with something like "Prof. XY's contribution gets acknowledged with leadership of project XZ funded under nummer 111 by YZ" All co-authors in addition contributed by an internal review. "All co-authors" needs to be addapted in your considered two-author case.
Take some weeks to consider these points in case you never done this before. Talk to your collagues about it. Also to some long term post-docs. Those can help you seeing stuff faster which now might still be hidden to you. I also would like to emphasize. You never put just someone as a co-author, you offer him co-authorship. It is a much more respectful way to describe this procedere because this forumlation still implies the possibility that your professor rejects because he consideres his time he is able to spent not worthy to accept.
Finally, I just gave you my point of view, but I cannot give you a direct answer. Consider such points and also the arguments from a contradictionary point of view which might show up in another answer.  It will still be your decision which you have to do by yourself.
There is authors guidelines in every journal which you should read carefully and follow. I have not done this in your field (the reading of the guidelines). I know though some papers of computer science and those have a (for my field) rather uncommon high frequency of really small teams or single authors. So the ethical common sense might be shifted a bit from my pov. My main point was that I see no ethical conflict if the pure secondary nature of contribution is stated clearly (but ofc in agreement with the journal).

Giving co-authorship to lab directors for the type of contributions you list violates the rules of many journals, which explicitly call out the type of contribution that merits authorship.

@BenVoigt There might be also journals who forbid this in there authors guidelines yes. I was also told that some journals forbid putting authors contribution, so the choice of the journal is of course also relevant to this question. At least in my field, but that is not the tc's one, it is really really common that the coordinator is placed in last position. So I guess there is also many journals who do not forbid.

Yeah I've heard co-authorship based on position, funding, granting lab access etc. are usually frowned upon regardless of what journal you apply to. Can you give me examples of some journals that require this?

Contrary to what some people are saying here, there are clear guidelines (see the Vancouver protocols on scholarly publishing) as to what constitutes authorship. Most reputable conferences and journals support them (and publishing in non-reputable venues is a bad idea anyway - it's not just a neutral, publishing in bad venues damages your reputation, as it leads people to suspect all your papers). In some countries, and I can specifically vouch for Australia, ignoring them can get you sacked. And under the Vancouver protocols, proofreading (or being the head of a lab or doing organisation or gaining the money for the research) clearly do not qualify. If you're in a country that does condone such 'honorary' authorship, do think about whether you might ever want to apply for a job in a country that does not accept it (one paper on your resume that smells of being 'honorary' is likely to lead to all your papers being tarred with the same brush). Even if you decide to give the professor authorship, you must give him/her the choice, as adding people's name without consultation may cause grave embarrassment (I've been there), and worst case, may lead to retraction of the paper.  You can see many examples in retractionwatch.

No. It's very very field specific. Please do read some other related question on this site to get an initial idea of just how much this varies.

Asking the professor if they wish to be listed as a co-author carries some potential benefits:

If the Professor has a good reputation then it may be a bit easier to get the paper accepted for publication.
Sharing this with the professor could be the start of future partnerships.  They may ask you to contribute to their next paper or include you on their next grant.

I have only limited experience with this, but I have generally found that strengthening connections between people outweighs the glamor of a one-person show.

The problem you have raised is quite tricky to address.
Generally speaking, there are some non-written rules about contributions and authorships, which i guess you know. On top of this, there are even more "internal" non-written rules: each institution and research group have different policies. I will suggest you to make sure you are following all of them.
Sometimes, the contribution that a supervisor/professor gives is more on the discussion phase where she/he assists you in the reasoning and in the definition of the research problem. In your case, you claim the professor made corrections related to the semantics and the aesthetics. From the way you write it seems that they are all minor corrections, but it might even be that the semantic and aesthetics issues were major issues for your work.
Sometimes, papers get rejected because they fail in delivering the message not because they are technically wrong.
All in all, i suggest you to adhere to your institution policies and to objectively asses the importance of those corrections for making a final decision.
For the future, as someone already said, make sure you discuss duties, authorships and expectations when involving other people and before start to write the paper.

Discuss with potential proof-readers before you even start writing? How is that even feasible? Also, the proof-reader in this case doesn't seem to be the student's advisor.

You do not have to discuss with potential proof-readers about reading your paper. Instead, you might want to discuss their involvement and their expectations. For instance, the student could have been clear on the fact that proof-reading won't have led to the authorship.

I find the last comment quite unreasonable. It is clear to anyone familiar with academic writing that proofreading will not lead to coauthorship.

Readability is one of the aspects rated in a peer-review process. From Wikipidea: "Proofreading is the reading of an electronic copy of a publication to detect and correct production errors of text". Given such a definition, semantic and visual aesthetic corrections are hard to categorise.  All in all, all major communication experts suggest to prefer being clear than leave things unclear or subject to interpretation. The student, apparently, was still not sure about this, so the advise for avoiding future misunderstandings and frustrations.

I think there is a common misunderstanding here about 'authorship' in the context of scientific papers.
Someone explained to me that a 'professor' at a university is not just someone who has a lot of experience and authority on a subject, but in fact someone that the university has appointed to have the authority of the university in their statements, to be someone who professes the university's knowledge or position. That means that when they teach, they are not just giving their own opinion, or teaching from their own understanding, but teaching the official line of the university. It is not a legal position, so I wouldn't take it too far, but it highlights the importance of the name of the institution in the role of the professor as a teacher or an author.
There is a tenet that any author named on a paper should be able to defend it. Whilst that is not always practically true, it indicates something of what the author list should be, along the lines of the title of Professor above. Author, here, is then more than just who wrote the paper, or indeed who did the work, but includes the concept of on whose authority the paper is presented. A professor, by inference from their position, holds the authority of the university.
In the modern research world, where authorship counts towards impact measures which count towards management requirements or performance-related pay, the water is somewhat muddied.
But I would take the central idea that adding someone as co-author is not a kind of 'thanks', or riding on coat-tails, and so on. If someone is added as co-author, then they are adding their reputation to the paper, being willing to defend it at a conference or during a visit to another institution. So the question of whether to add the professor who proof-read it is fairly simple; ask the professor whether he would want to be added to the list of authors or not. If he does, he is lending his authority and that of the university. You are still the first author (which is meaningful in most fields but not all), and no-one is likely to be under any false impressions about who did the work; professors in my experience rarely do the work themselves, acting as a focus of research ideas and development which is done by their Research Assistants, PhD students and so on.

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


text:
Research at Public University vs Private University: A perspective for a data science enthusiast!
I'm wondering about the difference between public and private universities in terms of the research explorations a professor doesn't mind their students working on. In my case, it turned out to mean that I cannot work on my interests alongside my professor's. I have industry experience and private university professors who know otherwise about my multi-tasking. This has to do with the differences between being a researcher in data science and being a data scientist. I was sure that academia would be a safe space to explore such differences, especially given that a professor showed interest in considering working with me knowing my background and research interests. The fact that I wasn't able to work on research into neural networks alongside its outcome-driven progress in another area of interest reminds me of what I've read about the 80's wrt artificial neural networks research. What are the criteria for being able to work on related problems at once if the fact that I worked for a public university was the only difference between whether or not I was able to work with this professor who didn't mind simultaneous mathematical explorations?

There are good groups turning out good students at either.

Both public and private universities range from the very best (e.g., Harvard and Berkeley) to the purely teaching oriented at the community-college level. There is nothing useful you will get if you ask about differences between such diverse groups.

Will be quite different state to state as well.

Would I be right in guessing that your experience is based on a very small sample size?

The sample size was intentionally restricted to the groups I have interacted with at Public universities. Most of the people at the lab in the public university work on their area(s) of interest more than me, the data scientist trying to help them with work on neural networks that relates to their area of interest as a great application area for me.

By "creating research directions for its students" I suppose you mean the success of faculty in suggesting and supporting research topics that turn out to be approachable and/or impactful.
I don't think there is any distinction between public and private universities that would significantly influence this one way or the other.  It would have much more to do with the particular faculty member involved.  The university as a whole has very little influence on how faculty work with students on a day-to-day basis; it is largely up to the individual professor's experience, advising style, skills, etc.
There could be university-level aspects that have some broader effect: available internal funding and research support, priority that faculty are expected to place on student research mentoring, emphasis on quantity versus quality of publications, and so on.  But private and public universities can both be all over the spectrum in any of these respects, and systematic differences in one category of the other are fairly minor in comparison to the individual variation.

I think it might be related to data scientists being able to interact with scientists from other disciplines based on the factors that were brought up here.

I have since modified the question a little bit. If you can spare the time, I'd like to hear about what you might have to say wrt the modified question.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I submit a paper years after finishing my graduate studies?
I completed my Masters of Science in September 2014 after over 2 years of work. My supervisor wasn't particularly helpful or supportive of the project since he seemed close to retiring and also most his money was dedicated to other fields of research. However, the field I studied in was my passion and I did it anyways.
Right after my graduate studies, I found a job in the private sector and at the same time I started working on a paper because I felt it needed to be done and I thought it would be important for my career. When I sent my draft to my supervisor, he would submit his feedback weeks to months later, and it was usually something like "It's too long". So I did the edits, sent it back, waited 2 months again for his comments, and so on. In Spring 2015, I abandonned because I could never finish it at this pace, even though most of it was done. His last comment was "Some more analysis could be necessary" even though it didn't seem necessary for the thesis.
Now, it's been 2 years, I haven't touched it since then, but I still feel I should submit the paper anyways. Here are my questions:

His is too late for me?
If I send the paper for review, do I need to put my supervisor as secondary author?
If my supervisor is secondary author, do I need to notify him? Could he refuse?
If reviewers demand that further analysis is required, is it game over for me? I did most of my work on a supercomputer and my account has expired.

Go for it, Johnny -- but you need a mentor. Look at related papers and pick a few people to reach out to. Also, could you do a little proofreading of your question, please? (Click on "edit" below the tags.)

Two years is a totally plausible length of time before submitting a paper.  You'll need to update your related work section, but if the work is still novel and interesting and hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed venue, it's entirely reasonable to do so.
You will need to deal with your supervisor, however, as they most likely should be a co-author on the strength of their contributions to shaping the research project.  In general, submitting a paper requires the consent of all of the co-authors, and your supervisor will need to either consent or take their name off of the paper.  Most likely, however, they are correct that it needs more work, and you'll need to figure out either how to get the feedback that you need, from them or from somebody else.
Finally, involvement of your supervisor could be a very good thing in case more work is needed, as they may be able to restore access to resources or bring in an extra author who can help, if your work simply cannot be done on commercial cloud resources.  If it can be done with cloud resources, of course, you may be able to do it yourself.

@LeonMeier I don't think that's a safe assumption.  One of my higher cited papers sat in a similar limbo for two years, despite having many co-authors who all wanted it published.  The problem was actually that the senior author, on whose desk it was languishing, cared too much and was always planning to set aside enough time to deal with the paper properly in a couple of weeks.

@LeonMeier Again, you are making very specific claims that are not currently written in the post.  Furthermore, if the OP's supervisor really cares so little, they'll likely be willing to take their name off the paper, thus following the other branch I describe.

No.
Yes, if he actively wrote something. If not, put him into acknowledgements.
If you are on bad terms with him and he doesn't answer your emails but in several months, there is no point in notification: he cares so much about you, your paper, your research, your time, and your thesis. Yes, if you do notify him, he could refuse being a part of it.
No. It is just a matter of money to get distributed computing services.

Please be aware that writing a full paper may be a full-time job in certain areas: you need a full day of concentration. If you do it properly, it can easily take you, e.g., 6 person-months including rejections and resubmissions, depending on the area. If it's a journal paper, these 6 months could be spread to several years. If you cannot do it properly in parallel to your job in the industry, better forget it. The world is full of bullshit papers; you don't need to turn your good MSc thesis into yet another one.

I was going to vote this up, but then I realized that there's a couple of simply incorrect statements: you do have to notify your co-authors, and writing papers does not need to be a full-time job.

I like your points 1-4.  I don't like the next paragraph so much.  Please don't project your own experience on the OP.  The OP needs encouragement right now.  Consider that the OP will take lessons at the same school of hard knocks that you did; let him have those experiences and draw his conclusions for himself.

@LeonMeier - Yes, I understood that.  But my question for you -- I'm not sure whether you had thought this through -- is: Is it your goal to discourage the OP from doing the necessary work to submit the paper?

@LeonMeier - If you decide to consider it in this way, I'll be interested to hear your thoughts.

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

authors: Михаил Шашин


text:
What does someone earn by writing a scientific book (apart from money)?
What does someone earn by writing a scientific book (apart from money)? When somebody uses his/her time to write a scientific book, and I am referring to the top publishers. What does the author earn? For instance somebody writes a book for partial differential equations, what does the author earn by publishing his/her book? He becomes famous? what?

"Books" cover a lot of things. Textbooks? "The Oxford Handbook of ...", pop sci books like Pinker churns out?

I explained which books I am referring to....

@just_learning Clearly, your explanation was insufficient. Stating that you did explain it (personally I’m having a hard time locating this explanation) isn’t going to help Azor understand your question. Of course it is in your best interest to have others understand your question because only people who understand it can answer it.

Note that a lot of books occur as side effects. I'm giving a course on PDEs, I need some lecture notes, over time I polish them & add exercises - now the resources exist why keep them just to myself?

The academic environment has metrics and promotions like everywhere else, and writing a book is effectively a longer version of writing a paper: it's something that can be cited when you're trying to advance your career.

You learn something about your field by writing a book, just because you have to think about it in a certain way. There is also some personal satisfaction.
But, most, probably the vast majority, of books won't make you famous. Most books have a short lifespan and publishers stop advertising them if sales are low. So, they disappear, but for the occasional sale at Amazon, say. There are exceptions. But the top publishers have a lot of churn. And, for textbooks, if successful, expect that the publisher will want new editions every couple of years.
Books by already famous people tend to do better, of course, but that doesn't make you famous.
People write books as a service to students and people in the field, though they may not recognize that as their motivation.
And even the money is poor for most books, since sales tend to be both small and short-lived. A few of my books have done pretty well over time, but some are very obscure.
There have been far more math books published than there have been famous mathematicians. And not all of those mathematicians got famous through books.

Bourbaki did not publish a lot of theorems but got quite famous through his books :p

@Plop, ah, good ol' Nick. I knew him as a youngster.

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


text:
Does a Master in Liberal Arts help in someone's CV if he/she targets in Academia?
Does a Master in Liberal Arts help in someone's CV if he/she targets in Academia? Has anything to offer to the CV? Also, what is the difference between "Master of Liberal Arts", "MSc", "Master's" and "Master of Engineering"? Which is better for a CV?
UPDATE: Is it better to get a Master on Liberal Arts from one of the top 10 Universities of the World, or a MSc from a local, not so famous University? Both Master's on the same field...

If you want to teach at the university level you need a doctorate in almost every field. A masters alone might be enough for a very temporary part time position, but not more. The nature of the masters done prior to a doctorate has little importance.
In a field like history or literature, a Masters in Liberal Arts might be entirely appropriate. For engineering, not so much without other qualifications.
A masters of some sort might do for a Junior (or Community) College in the US (or not), which is normally the first two years of a university program. But very few can go beyond that with a masters. And many faculty even there have doctorates.
The "difference" is due to different traditions in different universities and in different countries. Don't put too much emphasis on the designation as each of them can be applied to a fairly broad range of topics. Even "Engineering" is a pretty broad topic.
Moreover, in some places the same program can result in either an MA or a MS (like MSc). My math program had such a choice. But it was the fact that it was a MA in mathematics that enabled my progression to a doctorate in math. And, while my undergraduate math program was hosted by the engineering school, it might just as well have been within the Liberal Arts school. Just a historical artifact. That same choice wouldn't be true for History or for Physics, though.
A Masters might be essential or helpful for admission to a doctoral program. Very important in, say, Germany. Not very important (or especially common) in US.

WRT your update. Top universities worldwide are well regarded but both difficult to get in to and have very rigorous programs. That is a plus. But one can learn a lot at less prestigious places. It is more a question of what you do than where you go. A joke in the US is that "there is nothing more dangerous (nothing worse...) than a C student from Yale".
Moreover, most universities will want to see your transcripts which lists your courses and grades. The actual designation of the degree is less important, though the rigor of the program, if known, could be a factor. People are pretty good at making distinctions rather than being "wowed" by some titles.


text:
Can reviewers and authors of a submitted journal paper (for peer-review), be from the same country?
Does the nationality of the authors has to do with the chosen reviewers? What I mean is this: if two authors submit a journal paper, and their nationality is from country "A", can the reviewers be also from country "A" or the editor does not choose reviewers from country "A" and chooses reviewers from country "B"?

I ask also for nationality, which is not covered to the proposed questions...Can you reopen my question, please?

Also see Under what circumstances is there a conflict of interest for a researcher to be a reviewer of a submitted academic paper?. I've never heard any publication venue even suggest that merely being from the same country as (some of the) authors would constitute a conflict of interest, though researchers in countries like Luxembourg might be quite restricted.

@just_learning I think that's covered by the new duplicate that Anyon commented.

Woudn't be good to have various and more opinions? I mean what's the point of asking a question and having only one opinion?  A closed question prevents people from submitting their opinion....


text:
Do Continuing Education Masters offer something to somebody's CV for industry jobs?
Do Continuing Education Masters offer something to somebody's CV? I mean is it a "plus" for our CV in order to have more possibilities to be accepted in industry? Are they equivalent to University's Masters?

What is a "Continuing Education Masters"?

These are Masters degrees, on a field, where you can attend either in campus or online or blended, and are targeted in people who don't have a lot of time to attend, and the deadline to finish the Master degree is extended to 4-5 years. Rather than the usual 1.5 - 2 years that exist in mainstream  Masters degrees.

So, part time and maybe evening classes?

Yes, something like that...

A lot of non-research institutions offer these. But I think that Continuing Education is just an institutional framework under which they are offered. I doubt that such degrees are labeled specifically "Continuing Education Masters", but just as "Masters".
So, like most degrees the value depends on what is in them and the general reputation of the institution. In some fields there is little difference between a masters done full time during the day and one of these.
So, in a CV, if you got a masters in math from Jiminy Cricket State College, you just list it that way. It will be evaluated when necessary by those who need to do so. For industry it is probably fine.
In some fields, a university's backing might be needed, though probably to support labs and such.
Many masters degrees are just course based, even at research institutions.

Continuing Education Master's programs can  add value to your CV and increase your chances in the industry (even if they differ in "structure" or "format" from traditional university Master's programs). However, their value may vary based on the industry and the employer. Some industries may value practical skills and real-world experience more than the format of the degree.


text:
Do the peer-reviewers in a submitted (journal) paper see each other comments?
Do the peer-reviewers in a submitted (journal) paper see each others comments? I mean it is obvious that if there are many reviewers in a submitted paper and make the same comments to the authors, what's the point? So, is there any case that the reviewers know each other co-reviewers' comments provided to the authors?

I multiple reviewers make similar points independently (as I think is the norm), then that is a valuable piece of information. Often enough, reviews will have quite little intersection.

This will likely vary by journal.
I think it's quite common that reviewers see each others' comments, typically at the stage where authors submit a revision with an accompanying discussion of the reviews and how they responded to them in the revision. Sometimes, depending on the journal, you get to see the other reviews already when the editor sends out the initial reviews and decision.
Note that the original and subsequent reviews are usually sent out all at once, when the (associate) editor has received enough reviews to make a decision. If reviewer 1 wants more X, but reviewer 2 wants less X, then it's a good thing the editor gets to see both reviews before they tell the authors which way to go. Better in any case than sending out review 1, now the authors get to work on putting more X in, only to get review 2 a month later that requires the opposite.

I much prefer reviewing for journals where you see the other reviews, there is always scope for you to learn something and improve the quality of your reviewing.

This is decently common, but it's precisely because "what's the point if reviewers make the same comments to the authors" that reviewers don't usually see each other's reviews until after they submit their reviews. Sometimes the reviewer only see each other's reviews indirectly, based on what the author writes in their response to reviewers.
There are some explicit examples for one publisher here.


text:
Papers including non open-source code and not including non open-source code?
My question is very specific. I read papers/books that in order for the author to build the system, they need to program the hardware in IP protected code. Some papers or books publish the code. However the  majority of papers/books I read, do not include the IP protected code. My question is very simple, how can this happen? I am not talking about open-source programming languages. What is the rationale behind that? Who decides if the authors can publish their code or not? (There is no need to specify companies, that's why I put my question in a more general shape).

Are you asking "Why is some code IP-protected?" or "Why would a journal permit a paper to be published that didn't include code?" or something else?

It's unclear to me what you're asking. Are you asking about the copyright on software which the authors of a paper wrote themselves, or about the copyright status of programming languages?

About the copyright status of programming languages. There are programming languages which are not open-source.

I am asking the way an author can publish in their book code that they wrote, but are based on non open-source programming language. How can they do that?

@mike: Maybe something like ‘my code was deployed using AWS Lambda’ or ‘this custom system makes use of an Oracle backend.’

The title "Papers including X and papers not including X?" can be simplified to "Papers?".

A programming language (PL) is a tool. Things created with that tool are not owned by the creator of the language. Nor does Microsoft own everything written in Word. IP is owned by its creators (in a sense). That "ownership" might be limited by law, of course. So, if I write a program in a PL, I have copyright to that code and can publish it or not. The creator of that PL has no claim on my creative work, just as I have no claim on theirs.
There would be little purpose in creating a programming language and making it public if people couldn't use it to create things that might be monetized or published. A company could, of course, create a PL and keep it as a trade secret.
Imagine a world in which things published (PLs and papers) can't be used by others because they are automatically the IP of the creators of the tools used to create them.
A publisher of a PL can hold copyright to the compiler(s) they release for that language, which restricts some things, but not using it to create things. And, the ideas behind the code are not "owned" by anyone. Laws such as copyright and patent apply to "expressions" and "devices", not ideas. So the idea of a class (as in Java or C++) is free for anyone to use.
And so, it is the authors of the code who decide whether to publish it or not. There might be reasons for either decision.


text:
Does a scientific book offer something to the author's CV or is it better to write journals/papers?
Does a scientific book offers something to the author's CV or is it better to write journals/papers in order to improve his/her CV?
update (24/06/2023):
I am talking about the following:

Computer Science/Electrical Engineering/Electronic Engineering/Applied Mathematics
By saying scientific book I mean for instance: let's say someone wants to write a book for Algorithms targeting CS undergraduate/graduate university students
In order to improve the author's CV targeting let's say to a research position in the future, in a University

What is wrong with my question and is downvoted?

Could you clarify what you are going to do with your CV? Are you planning to seek a position in industry or in academia? If in academia, are you applying for a postdoc or a faculty position?

Your question is interesting, but very unclear. Please clarify: 1. what discipline you’re working in. 2. what do you mean by “scientific book”? 3. “better” for the purpose of achieving what goal? 4. any other contextual details that may be relevant, such as what career stage you are in.

This depends very much on the field. In general a scientific book usually contains sufficient material that would result in a number of journal articles.
After clarification:
Textbooks usually do not count towards research goals or for establishing research potential, but  are an asset for teaching goals / establishment of teaching potential. A monograph such as a Springer Lecture Note in Mathematics will take the place of several journal articles. For example, in Mathematics, your Ph. D. thesis should give you a number of papers, but if you are lucky and get the chance, a Springer Lecture Note would be a single publication out of your thesis. It is true that some people manage to get a book out of a number of articles, in which case the book would be seen as at least an additional article.
Since contents matter, and quality gets assessed, generic answers are not going to be very accurate.

I thought the other way round: that the papers result in a good book...

I am referring to Computer Science/Electrical Engineering/Electronics/Applied Mathematics fields....

It depends on whether the purpose of the book is as a monograph, or as a textbook.

Could you be more analytical??

By saying scientific book I mean for instance: let's say someone wants to write a book for Algorithms targeting CS undergraduate/graduate university students

To get an academic position you need to publish research, which means creating new knowledge. This type of knowledge is usually published in peer reviewed journals, not in books. On occasion, it may be published in book form, in what is usually referred to as a research monograph, which is distinct from the kind of book you are describing, usually referred to as a textbook.
Writing a textbook will have very limited value in helping you launch an academic career. It might be beneficial as something that complements a body of research published in peer reviewed journals, but on its own, it won’t count for much in the disciplines you listed. Moreover, writing a textbook is a very time-consuming task that has a high opportunity cost. If you spend the time it takes to write a textbook, you would be giving up a huge amount of time that would have been available for you to do and publish research. That would put you at a significant competitive disadvantage relative to other people at a similar career stage who are not writing textbooks.
All things considered, for early career researchers writing a textbook is not a good way to advance your academic career.

So, if someone succeed in be accepted in a PhD and when he finish, publishes his PhD as a book, it is better than publishing a book which not the output of a PhD?

@just_learning this person needs to publish his research in peer reviewed journals to advance his career. Neither publishing it in book form nor writing a separate textbook would make any positive difference to his prospects for securing an academic position at that point.


text:
Looking for advice when academic referees are scarce
I want to apply for a Research Masters but will have trouble finding two academic referees. I have worked in education, had research published, even won a best paper prize. However, things ended very badly with the HoD in a previous job to the point where I left, and had a breakdown. Attempts to re-connect with close colleagues have met with silence. I don't know what was said but enough to warrant people turning away. Unfortunately, it's a small field. I have a good research proposal ready and am committed to doing it to the best of my ability, and if being truthful, need to regain confidence and move on. I have a solid and provable work/ research record but fear not being able to raise two recent referees to match that work will look odd. A former colleague/teacher overseas of many years ago, and a researcher in another state who has been supportive in the past have offered to be job referees. I have not asked them to be academic referees yet. They are both wonderful people, and the latter knows of the bad job experience. Should I ask them? I don't want the prospective course to worry about anything but the quality of my proposal and what I can offer them. Any advice gratefully received.

Do you have any opportunity to visit the last-mentioned people in person?

Unfortunately, no. One lives overseas and is in remission from a serious illness; he is interested in reading my proposal. The second lives in another state and has had considerable loss these past two years (job, spouse, parents). He has retreated from the world a bit. I have kept in touch with both via email over the years. Thanks, Buffy.

No, I am not currently working. My last job was the one I left. I had performed very well there but it's an absolute no-go. I have done some freelance work since but not enough or of the kind for a casual employer to write a reference attesting to my academic ability. I'm living on my savings and not a financial burden to anyone. The two people I mentioned are prepared to be job referees but I had not asked for anything further at the time – I didn't know a research masters' application and proposal would require referees. Thanks for your interest, Reputable Misnomer.


text:
A tenured position with less pay and less responsibilities than a professorship
At the moment I am a (soon to be graduating) PhD student. The reason I went to graduate school is that I love doing research. In graduate school I discovered that I absolutely hate teaching but I had to do some of it to avoid starving to death (though I tried to do a reasonably good job since I recognize it is not the students' fault that I hate teaching).
I know there are some teaching-free postdocs at R1 institutions. They can be rather difficult to get but my discussions with some senior people seem to indicate that my publication record could get me such a postdoc. However, teaching-free permanent academic positions seem to be much less common (in my field, there are places like IAS, IHES and some smaller institutions, it seems almost exclusively in Europe).
The question is is it possible to "downgrade" a normal professorship at an R1 institution (in US) in the following way: I don't have to participate in any administrative or teaching activities, I have tenure and I get paid less (say, 65% less)? I think I still could survive on such a salary. I am afraid to ask senior people I know about this since this kind a question conceivably might worsen their opinion of me.

Hmm. For a distinguished researcher, it is right to assume that that person is one of the experts in the field. So basically, would you not agree that being the advisor for students (bachelor, master, PhD) and helping them with your expertise is teaching, too? Therefore, teaching and research cannot be completely separated. Which forms of teaching do you dislike?

Some French or German institutions may have such a position (in Germany, perhaps the Max Planck, I do not know the precise French equivalent). However, such positions are extremely difficult to get.

CSIC in Spain is research without teaching mostly. However, no, such a setup doesn't exist in US universities in the way you imagine it. Even at research intensive universities, passing the results of research on to students and training the next generation of scholars is considered integral to the purpose of the institution. If teaching isn't for you, a university isn't for you.

@CaptainEmacs I think you're thinking CNRS http://www.cnrs.fr/en/cnrs

I know of one independently wealthy scientist who negotiated a tenure-like position (although, if push ever came to shove, he technically did not have tenure) at half pay with no administrative responsibilities.  However, there would have been no way to get an effectively permanent faculty position like that without teaching duties.

Is there a reason you are looking at academia instead of some sort of commercial or government fellowship?

@GrotesqueSI I think Australia's CSIRO might be somewhat similar, as well, though I'm not sure if they do research in OP's field (which looks like mathematics/theoretical physics, judging by the institutions he mentioned); looking at their web site, they seem to largely focus on environmental sciences and IT/computer science.

You should also consider the total cost of employment to the institution for a tenured person.  You might think "I'm doing half the work for half the pay" but by the time you consider the cost of providing you with offices, labs, benefits packages, pension contributions, a parking space etc etc etc the institution is getting half the work for more like 80% or more of the cost.

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but at US R1 universities, a position like the one you imagine doesn’t exist. To have a job with tenure at any salary, you have to teach and do some administrative duties.
If you win a Nobel prize or move to France on the other hand, the possibility of you getting a tenured research-only position may become more realistic. See this question for more details.

By personal experience, a tenured position in France involves a lot seeking for funding.  I am officially a research engineer at CEA/LIST, but in practice I spend more time on searching for funding than other scientific activities. And this is even true at INRIA or CNRS. That money-seeking activity may take 50% of your time (unless you are a Nobel prize)

@BasileStarynkevitch This seems to be true in the US as well. I know someone who was in a university-affiliated biomedical research institute and they spent a huge fraction of their time on grant applications, far more than would be the case in a typical university lab.

If you give up tenure, you can seek a teaching-free, permanent position at a national laboratory.
You have no hope of avoiding all administrative duties.  It will always be, at a minimum, necessary to administrate getting someone else to do the administrative duties for you.

You might be able to find such a position, but it would be more likely if you already had an international reputation as a top researcher. Otherwise I think it would be very unlikely. Only the rare opportunity.
The reason is that universities also have an obligation to students, from which much of their funding comes. Even US State funded universities (tax funding) depend on showing a good outcome for undergraduates and other students. So, most universities will want tenured people to do some teaching, if only to advanced graduate students.
I completed my doctorate in mathematics at such a place. Everyone there including the top faculty taught two courses per term. Sometimes those were small seminars, but other times they had to teach first year Calculus and manage a staff of TAs. It wasn't an option. I doubt that they would have even glanced at you if you made such a proposal.
Post docs, as you say, often come with few requirements but research, but you can't really make a career of that.
And, a new faculty member needs to go through a period of probation as an assistant professor, usually seven years and with a mixed set of responsibilities. Promotion to a tenured position then is normally up to the tenured faculty to approve, though the administration also has a voice. But I also doubt that you would meet the spoken and unspoken requirements of those responsible for your tenure decision.
Note, however, that this is a US position. It might vary in some other places. It might even vary at a few institutions in the US, but not likely for a new and inexperienced faculty member.
If you could attract enough grant money, however, some universities would give you a desk and library/computer privileges. Especially if you can work with doctoral students. But then, you are really responsible for continuing on that grant treadmill if you want to keep the position.

There is a difference between teaching undergraduate and graduate classes, especially if you are vested in the graduate students you are teaching.  There are plenty of R1 schools that have time release based on departmental rules on research activity, meaning if you are heavily active in research they will have you teach less class.
There is also the ability to buy-out your teaching time with research grants.  This would require you to get grants, but if you are so focused on research instead of teaching, this would be expected anyway.
It is very possible to have to teach 1 class a semester. This could end up being to mostly your own masters and doctoral students. With enough funding you can likely teach 1 course a year, assuming your administrators approve it.

Many US universities have "research professor" positions that have no teaching responsibilities, but I don't know of any such positions that come with tenure.


text:
Chicago manual of style block quote reference placement
In the Chicago manual of style Author-Date format, what is the preferred way to place the reference to a block quote, if the author name is mentioned in the text.
As Smith (2000, 3) wrote about this issue,

       this is a block quote which is
       spanning more than three lines
       so that it definitely deserves to
       be indented.

Next paragraph ...

or
As Smith wrote about this issue,

       this is a block quote which is
       spanning more than three lines
       so that it definitely deserves to
       be indented. (Smith 2000, 3)

Next paragraph ...

It is clear that Chicago prefers says that the reference should be as close as possible to the quote, but in the case above I'm unsure.

According to the style manual itself, the preferred placement is generally after the quotation. However, it allows for placing it before the citation as well.
From CMOS 16th ed., section 15.25:

Text citations in relation to direct quotations. Although citation of a source normally follows a direct quotation, it may precede the quotation - especially if such a placement allows the date to appear with the author's name.
...
When the source of a block quotation is given in parentheses at the end of the quotation, the opening parenthesis appears after the final punctuation mark of the quoted material. No period either precedes or follows the closing parenthesis.

This doesn't directly address the case when the author's name is already present in the preceding sentence. However, if we instead look at Kate L. Turabian's Manual for Writers, 8th ed., we're given an example in line with your second example. A similar example is shown in these notes.
All in all, I think your second way is generally preferred. Nevertheless, there is some freedom you can use if it makes things clearer. For example, if the parenthetical citation does not include the year (which seems not be required for block citations) putting the citation (including year) before the quotation may be a good idea.


text:
Is it possible to publish a simple result that refutes prior work in a leading journal? (without support from your advisor)
In a certain field of science, it has been known that X leads to Y and assumed that if Y is observed it is caused by X. Using a relatively simple (mathematical) experiment, I have shown that also A, B, C, ... (class of certain objects), lead to Y, which means that observing Y does not guarantee X.
In my opinion, this is something that should have been checked years ago. In fact, this finding can be used to refute or at least considerably weaken the work done in a certain sub-field over more than 10 years. (though there's some prior critical work on this but the people do not seem to have cared)
Is it usually possible to publish such findings in leading journals?
Another problem that I have is that the work challenges a major part of my supervisor's work, which rests on the mentioned assumption. She seems quite upset, and tries to see the work just as some technical quirk, which it is not. I joined the lab quite recently, so I have no idea what to do. Anyway, I am very serios about this: I'll resign if it necessary to get thing published as soon as possible. It could even end my career altogether but if science is not about truth I don't see why I would like to stay in it.
I am very early in my career and the most technical (mathematical) person in the lab. What I have shown is kind of similar as finding a counter-example in math.

If you can convince people of your findings (which sometimes can be hard), you can get these types of papers published. But the standard of proof is much higher in cases like this; you really need an iron-cast argument for why the conventional wisdom is wrong. A "mathematical experiment" might not cut it, especially if it doesn't show that this has implications in the real world.

If your supervisor's work is challenged by you and she does not accept reasonable criticism, switch labs, fast! Of course, it may be that you do not understand what she's done and that she's actually right, so reflect whether this may be a possibility. But if it's the first, go elsewhere. There is no point staying in a lab that is not interested in as close understanding of truth as possible. This not a response whether you should publish, thus not an answer.

Have you also shown that A, B, C, etc. do not lead to X?  If they did lead to X then, as far as your results are concerned, observing Y might still guarantee X.

While it's entirely possible that you've discovered some piece of groundbreaking work and your adviser is stonewalling you because this work makes hers look worse, it's more likely that you're over reacting. Sometimes people early in their careers make these discoveries, but it's also possible that you are misunderstanding your results or the other work in your field. The last thing you should do is quit your lab and give up your career without verification.
I would recommend you find some other professor and explain your work to them. Ideally this would be someone that you trust and understands the literature. If it turns out that your work is correct and important, you probably don't want to continue to work for your advisor and should consider switching groups. My guess is that what you've found is technically correct, but known and probably not that big of a deal.

I have discussed the finding with people from other universties (whom I trust) as well as a leading figure in the field (she is an editor and invited a submission but the journal is not very good). So, I don't think the case is that I am over-reacting.

The answer is yes.
But you paper will have to meet the standards of the journals you're aiming at (that might include experimental data) and show a good understanding of the existing body of work. Especially if as you state your work contradicts a lot of the existing literature, the level of scrutiny will be high.
Now since you say you are quite early in your career it's possible that you are missing some aspects and that your work is not that controversial or that it is indeed just a technical quirk. In that case insisting in publishing it while ignoring your advisor's criticism will of course deteriorate your relationship and will probably mean you'all have to fined someone else to supervise you. But having it rejected will not affect your career negatively. Everyone gets paper rejected. Just make sure you don't make a habit of submitting work that claims to revolutionize the field but turn out to be wrong.

I am [...] the most technical (mathematical) person in the lab

That might be true but it's very unlikely that everyone else in the field lacks the necessary mathematical skills to understand the issue.

Thanks for the answer. I have already discussed my work with one of the leading figures in the field (the author who published the other critical paper earlier) and she was supportive. She is the editor-in-chief of one (not the best) journal in the field and welcomed a submission. However, I think my supervisor can keep my work hostage if she likes, since I used their money and so on, she would need to be a co-author per some lab policy, and keep revising my work ad infinitum.

@job then continue to talk to that other person. She seem to be exactly the one to talk to and will be much more helpful than the answers you might get here.


text:
How many days unofficially does a publisher wait after the minor/major revisions deadline for a journal? Can they take actions against authors?
I have very limited time the current period and I need more time in order to address all the changes I get as feedback for my submitted journal paper, from the reviewers. The problem is that I need a couple of days (about 5) after the deadline they gave me. My questions are the following:

Can I extend the dealine (officially or unofficially)?
If I am "late" (5-6 days after the official deadline), do I have consequences?

What does your experience in similar cases indicate?

It is good practice to let the editor know if you need more time for the revision. This can for example be achieved by replying to the e-mail you got in which the editor gives you the deadline. Just ask for an extension and you will usually get it without having to explain too much why you need it.

The exception would be for a special issue that has a promised publish date. But normally if a paper doesn't make one volume it will be pushed to a future one. So, not a problem, just ask. Don't ghost the editor.

In Special Issues (not hardcopies), what is happening? Are they strict?

Special issues likely have firm publish dates and so firm finalization from the authors. They need to be strict to meet deadlines. The same is true, roughly, for conference submissions so that proceedings can be printed, though a few days might be acceptable. For ordinary submission to journals (print or not) it is less of an issue.


text:
Incorrect report and no answer from editor
Several months ago I submitted an article to a journal with good reputation. Then I received two different reports. One was asking for minor revision. However, the second one overlooked at the content of the manuscript, and confused it with several previously known results. The editor, seeming the latter report, had to reject it (I would do the same in his position).
However, mistakes happen. The report of the second referee was completely wrong (from a math point of view, hence nothing subjective). I wrote a long reply to Editor's decision letter explaining point by point why the second referee was incorrect. This happened 1.5 months ago, I had a confirmation (from the editorial system) that the editor received the message, but I never received a reply.
Meanwhile, I just submitted it to another journal. But what should I do? Just ignore everything and go ahead? I mean, this is like getting a non-sense rejection..

It happens, sadly, all too often: A referee who is in a rush and does not read the paper beyond the abstract can easily misunderstand the content of the paper, or a referee who, for some reason, is biased against you personally or because you are using a technique that they find abhorrent (also happens), or a referee who got annoyed that their paper on the subject was not cited... I have seen it all as both an author and an editor. Rebuttal letters may help, but, most likely, not. I suggest moving on, unless, as
Bryan Krause says, you can clearly identify and correct a cause of confusion.

I didn't write it above, but I am almost sure I am in the last case of your list of cases. Anyway, moral of the story: the editor will ignore me (unless I know him) and I just have to move on. Well..

Generally, it's your responsibility to write a paper that your readers understand. If a reviewer gets it wrong, the editor doesn't necessarily need to feel that it's the reviewer's fault. Remember that the editor chose them as someone they felt had the expertise to review your paper - if they didn't get the point, then possibly the paper needs clarification.
Since you've submitted to another journal, I think you should probably write again to the previous editor a short message clarifying that you're submitting somewhere else, to avoid any accusations of dual submission, and then move on.

if you speaking about math results and someone tells that they are already known, then it is either correct or not. I spoke with several colleagues, the referee was simply wrong (and it was sufficiently clear from the text). Anyway this is not the point of the thread.
The submission is officially closed 1.5 months ago, however it is probably a good idea to write a short message to the editor, thank you for the suggestion.

@PaoloLeonetti The reviewer being wrong doesn't get your paper accepted, though. Can you change your paper to make it less likely that someone else will get it wrong? That may not mean improving the math in your paper, but rather improving how you contextualize your result with respect to previous work. If a reviewer is confusing your work with something already done, have you cited what was already done and explicitly stated how your work went past theirs?

@PaoloLeonetti What Bryan Krause is trying to say is this: The fact that the reviewer misread your paper is your fault, not the reviewer's or the editor's fault.

Thank you both for the replies. Of course, I included a missing reference on a related topic and some paragraphs of explanations before the re-submission. However, it didn't change anything on its content.  The issue is the some reviewers just try to get a first impression..

@PaoloLeonetti References and explanatory paragraphs are part of the content of your paper. Hopefully those updates will help with the next reviewers.

I personally found this answer pretty helpful. I recently had a paper returned with a rejection from 2 referees. My initial, and continuing, reaction had been, "These guys just stuck with their preconceptions and didn't properly read my paper". ... But you are right. They're busy; they're volunteers they have limited time ... and most importantly, it was my responsibility to engage them sufficiently, and right from the start so they didn't give up until they awere convinced by my argument. ... So, back to the paper to make extensive revisions!

I think what you experienced happens to all authors, sooner or later.  Unfortunately, in my experience, an editor will ignore such emails unless you are known to the editor.  Move on.

You are, sadly, right


text:
Do degrees from the ETH of Zurich value the same as 'normal degrees'?
I have noticed that the ETHZ gives the following degrees / titles upon graduating:

Bsc ETH [Subject] instead of BSc [Subject].
Msc ETH [Subject] instead of MSc [Subject].
Dr. sc. ETH Zurich instead of Ph.D [Subject].

I am aware that there already is a question on academia stackexchange about why this is the case.
More interesting is the question about their equivalence in industry or academia. Please don't misunderstand. I don't want to ask if they have the same value as an Ivy-League degree or not. If a college or university asked for people having a master's degree or a Ph.D. degree, are candidates with a Msc ETH or Dr. sc. ETH considered too? Would they think something like 'Oh hey, he has a Bsc ETH, so he has no real bachelor.', or do they think that Bsc ETH = Bsc?

My impression ( I live on the Swiss border, and several people from my department have collaborated with people from the ETH) is that the ETH has good standing. If we were hiring and someone from the ETH came by, then that would not be held against her or him.

I don't want to ask if they have the same value as an Ivy-League degree or not. If you did, we would have told you that they do.

You know Einstein studied there, right?

are candidates with a Msc ETH or Dr. sc. ETH considered too?

Of course, yes.
The reason for the presence of the ETH qualifier is well explained in this answer, and the (possible legal) validity of a certain degree can be established regardless of any qualifier attached to the degree.
Moreover, if you look at the position of ETH Zurich in international rankings, you will see that it can be certainly classified among the top universities. Whatever one can say about the real validity of such rankings, a university would probably not be able to stand in top positions if its graduates were systematically ignored in other university selections. And if this were the case just for the presence of the ETH qualifier, I'm sure they would have already removed it.

do they think that Bsc ETH = Bsc?

Given the prestige of the ETH Zurich, I'm sure that several if not many selection committees would think Bsc ETH > Bsc.

Yes, it is.
The reason why ETH issue degree like MSc ETH rather than just MSc is that, in Switzerland, there is degrees like BSc FH or MSc FH (FH = Fachhochschule = University of Applied Science) which issued by the Universities of Applied Sciences and ETH wants to make difference (aka. show superiority)


text:
Can somebody with a PhD in theoretical physics become a Assistant Professor / Instructor in Mathematics?
Most community colleges and universities ask for PhD / Master's in Mathematics in order to become a Assistant Professor / Instructor in mathematics. I know that this will greatly depend on the particular school, but do people in academia view theoretical physicist (someone with a PhD in theoretical physics) as equivalent to someone who has a PhD in mathematics? It's not mathematical physics, but I would expect theoretical physics to be a mathematical science too.

I can't answer your question directly, but I can answer the relevant question "Can people make the switch from mathematical sciences to math" with a yes. There is a professor in my school's math department whose Ph.D is in computer science. Is a Ph.D in theoretical physics equivalent to a Ph.D in math? Maybe if you're Ed Witten, but generally no, you'd have to make up for that deficiency in some way.

My mother had a Ph.D. in experimental physics, but (after raising 5 children) taught mathematics courses at a couple of colleges.

Daniel Kaplan at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota is a professor of mathematics whose Ph.D. is in physics.

Sir Harold Jeffreys got a Ph.D. in mathematics and became a professor of astronomy and published research in seismology, and wrote a book on probability that took a particular philosophical position and was a bit contemptuous of logical rigor, and a book on scientific induction, in whose third edition there is a one-page appendix that is our only historical source for Mary Cartwright's proof of the irrationality of pi. (Possibly someone digging in archives could find the thing that Cartwright herself wrote.)

Can somebody with a PhD in physics become a mathematics professor? Yes. My department has (at least) four such people.
Is this common? No, not particularly. I think my department is rather unusual in that respect.
do people in academia view theoretical physicist (someone with a PhD in theoretical physics) as equivalent to someone who has a PhD in mathematics? No, as a general rule I don't think anybody will say that they're equivalent - theoretical physics is certainly very distinct from math, and most theoretical physicists will not be seriously considered for a position at most math departments. Nonetheless, some theoretical physicists publish work that is close enough to pure math, or even outright do a career change after their PhD and start publishing exclusively in math journals, to make them a good fit for a position in a math department.

I second this: it is extremely rare to meet a physicist (experimental, theoretical, any) with enough background and training in mathematics to be able to provide elementary proofs for elementary propositions.

As you said, every School is different, but generally it is not unusual that a Professor in Theoretical Physics to belong to a Mathematics school. In my limited experience, though, it is perhaps more common for these faculty members to focus on research (as Theoretical Physics is in fact a very advanced mathematics), rather than on teaching, particularly on undergraduate level.

I have definitely seen folks with PhDs in physics work as lecturers in math departments, where they typically teach things like the calculus sequence, introductory linear algebra, and Boyce & DiPrima differential equations.  I think it would be much harder, today, to get a tenure track positions in a math department without a math or statistics PhD, though I can think of a few senior figures in the field whose degrees are in physics and not math.


text:
Reference list order in a thesis
Currently I am writing my master's graduate thesis. I am confused that which ordering style is more formal in a thesis reference list. For instance, consider the following three reference lists that I took as it is in order:

[1] M. Fedrizzi, S. Giove Incomplete pairwise comparison and
  consistency optimization European Journal of Operational Research, 183
  (1) (2007), pp. 303–313
[2] Z.S. Xu Goal programming models for obtaining the priority vector
  of incomplete fuzzy preference relation International Journal of
  Approximate Reasoning, 36 (3) (2004), pp. 261–270
[3] P.T. Harker Alternative modes of questioning in the analytic
  hierarchy process Mathematical Modelling, 9 (3) (1987), pp. 353–360

Here the reference lists were not written in alphabetical order. Is there a general rule (convenience) for better formatting?

Your university or department may have a thesis style guide which you should adhere to. However, I don't think there is a general rule that applies across universities/ countries/ fields.

Are you using MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.?

@MichaelC. To many people *myself included before I started using this site) those names mean nothing, as one just let's LaTeX handle these things.

There are two systems: list the references in alphabetical order, or list the references in the order they are cited in the text. In my experience, which of these two systems is used depends on the academic field you're in.
Before computers made searchable pdf files common, the first system was really useful when looking for a specific author or reference in the bibliography, and the second was really useful when looking for where a reference was cited in the text.
With current technology, I don't think it really matters which system you use, although you should pick one and stick to it. My advice would be to check some other theses submitted to the same department to see how they did it.

Each academic discipline has a citation style it uses. For example, social sciences use APA. Unless your university and department has specified a specific citation type/style, I would recommend using the citation style: APA, Chicago, MLA used in your academic discipline.


text:
Is a 20 days period of time enough to review a journal paper for a first time even if the paper subject is in the heart of my research area?
I have accepted a journal paper for a peer review for the first time. However, given a very limited time to review it, I’m no longer confident about whether to continue or come back from it.
The subject of the paper is my field of research for years. Also, I have many publications in the same area (optimization in wireless sensor networks). That is why I was excited about the experience and decide to accept reviewing the paper. Especially since I was waiting for the opportunity to take a first paper to review.
The problem is that I didn’t give much importance to the due date which is of 20 days. I thought they were enough time to review something you already know. And I didn’t know that practically, a review takes at least one month to three months, till now.
I am in the middle of the required period and I start doubting my decision on accepting to review. I want to ask what should I do.
Should I send an email to the editor explaining my position and declining the review? In that case, wouldn’t that affect my credibility and image in the community?
Or should I continue with the review and do as much as I can with the remaining time? In that case, I could perform a not very high-quality review (for the reason of the very short given time). Wouldn’t that affect again, my image and give a false idea about my capabilities? Another important point is that I could “harm” the paper author and not be “too fair” with the decision on his paper.
So, to resume my question, I have only 10 days or less left to review a journal paper for the first time, and don’t know if it is enough time even for a paper in the heart of my research area.

"a review takes at least one month to three months" - what do you mean by this?! Working on it full-time or 10 minutes every now and then? In my field, most people that I know spend approx. 2-8 hours for a review, depending on its complexity. Whether 20 days are sufficient totally depends on ones personal schedule.

@LuckyPal Same-ish, but this is highly field-dependent. Complex theoretical papers can take a few months while in my field someone would normally spend a few hours on a preliminary review, take a day or two to mull over it for a bit, and the rest is down to scheduling.

I wouldn't worry about the deadline.  For example, IEEE IoTJ specifies two weeks.  I rarely adhere to that unless I have time.  Finding reviewers is hard and they are volunteers.   You don't need to email the editor. He/she understands.    As for reputation, a journal's submission system may track how many papers you've accepted, rejected, decline to review, and time taken.  How these stats are used is entirely up to an editor.

@LuckyPal It is not a (5-6) page conference paper. It is rather a (15-16) pages journal paper with a well-known publisher. It includes complex mathematical demonstrations all over the paper that should be verified. I may agree that 3 months is a lot of time but 2-8 hours is also a very short amount of time. You may be talking about professors that have reviewed tens of papers. I clearly mentioned it is my first time. I'll add that I'm not a professor but a long-term researcher. Since my last paper was published more than a year ago, I may need time to examine what the community is up to.

@Hana I am also talking about regular papers, published in the higest impact journal. I am aware that theoretical mathematics is much more difficult to review than more applied research, and reviewing for the first time naturally takes more time. Still, the effort you suggest seems far off the scale to me. And if the editor sets a deadline after 20 days, they seem to also think that you should not spend more than a few days of working time.

Yes, contact the editor with your concerns. I'll guess that the "deadline" may be more flexible than you think unless it is for a special issue. That seems unlikely and a failure on the editor's part not to provide more time initially.
If you can, give an estimate of how much time you'd need and mention the possibility you might need to withdraw.
The editor has a lot of experience with such things. It isn't an unusual case.
The "appropriate" length of review depends on many things, especially the complexity of the paper. But editors realize that their reviewers are also busy.

Thank you very much for your answer. It is very helpful. For the editor's email address, I only have the email they mentionned at first which is an administrative one (it does not contain the editor name). Is it for sure that my email will reach the person in charge when sending to that one ?

Some journals/publishers try to have a sped up review process, especially many MDPI journals. 20 days review time is not out of the norm for them. If you tell them that you need more time, they might look for another reviewer altogether as they want to maintain their swift review process.

Reviewing a paper for the first time, even if there are lots of technical details to check, I would expect to take between two days and one week. The reason that a typical deadline is three months is that it may take a long time before you have those few days available for reviewing (especially if you have other papers waiting for review). So I would interpret a deadline of 20 days as basically saying "if you have time available now or in the near future to set aside for this review, please accept, but if not we would rather ask someone else to get a quick turn around".

I would recommend you connect with experienced people in your field to check how they conduct peer review. If everyone in your field would take 1-3 months full-time for a review, I suspect there would be very little actual research being done because everyone would be busy with conducting peer reviews only. If the editor sets the deadline to 20 days, then they also seem to expect you to work not more than a few days on it.
I am aware that theoretical math is much more difficult to review than more applied research, but the effort that you describe seems far off the scale. In my field, most people that I know spend approx. 2-8 hours for a review, depending on its complexity. Whether 20 days are sufficient totally depends on ones personal schedule. Of course, it is an absolutely legitimate request to extend the deadline if it seems not possible to finish the review within the suggested time. And it is always better to communicate time problems directly that to wait until the deadline extends.
If it is your first peer review, you should definitely seek for guidance in order to do it well, e.g. from your supervisor. At my university, there is even a semester-long peer review course, where people are taught to perform good peer reviews and conduct several real peer reviews for highly reputable journals throughout the course. I think it is a big mistake of the research community to simply assume that everyone knows how to perform a good peer review just because they have published research themselves.


text:
Number of international doctoral students in the US: how to reconcile OECD data and SEVIS data?
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)  and the US Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) apparently disagree on the number of international doctoral students in the US.
For example, according to the OECD data, in 2019 there were 88,530 mobile students enrolled in a doctoral program in the US (see line "United States", column "Mobile including homecoming nationals").
However, the SEVIS says (p.5) that:

There were 187,902 F-1 students who sought a doctoral degree in
calendar year 2019.

There may be some difference between the definition of "mobile student" and "F-1 student", but I don't think that on its own it explains a difference of 100,000 people.
The most likely explanation I see is that the SEVIS definition of "doctoral program" differs from what the OECD calls "doctoral or equivalent level". In particular, my guess is that the difference might come from the inclusion/exclusion of medical doctorates or professional doctorates. But this is just a guess, and I want to be sure.
My suspicion comes from the information I collected relative to the classification scheme used by the OECD (ISCED), which generally does not seem to consider M.D., J.D., etc., as doctorate level (happy to elaborate on that if it's useful, but I didn't want to post a too long question). However, no idea of what the SEVIS consider as doctorate level, hence my question here.
I asked a similar question on the opendata stackexchange website, in the hope of getting more detailed data from the SEVIS, which would probably answer my bottom-line question, but to no avail. Anyway, my problem is not really about getting data, but about explaining the discrepancy between the two sources.
If someone has any information that could help reconciling the apparently conflicting figures, I'd be interested.
Thanks,

P.S.: I originally asked this question, because a paper I read (NB: not published in a journal, but in a government publication from my country) on international PhD students makes a comparison between countries by relying on the OECD data, except for the US where it takes data from the SEVIS. There's no rationale given for this choice, and unfortunately the authors won't answer when contacting them about that. The paper in question is used as a reference in some academic papers, but I doubt its reliability because of the discrepancy between the two original sources.
But besides the case of these papers, it raised my curiosity as to why the figures would be different between these two sources. It may be useful in the future if I stumble other papers who use data communicated by the SEVIS, to know what we're talking about exactly.

The numbers for bachelor's and master's degrees don't seem to match either. According to SEVIS, the numbers of F-1 students pursuing these degrees in 2019 were 517,556 and 494,099, respectively, while looking up bachelor's/master's or equivalent on the OECD site you linked gives 400,849 and 336,685 mobile students, respectively. The consistently lower numbers reported by OECD makes me suspect that there is more going on than just a disagreement about the definition of "doctoral program".

@Anyon Thanks, I completely missed that. A part of the answer is probably in the OECD methodology texts, I'll have a look at that. However, without more details about the SEVIS methodology, I'm afraid it may be a bit difficult to completely explain the differences.

OECD's data collection methodology seems to rely on filling up questionnaires - https://www.oecd.org/statistics/data-collection/educationandtraining.htm. I am not really sure how and by whom these questionnaires are filled. I do see references in OECD manuals as 'reporting countries', but would need some further checking. USCIS data, being official in nature, is bound to be accurate and I presume it would be a case of simple filtering of - type of visa, type of program and year, from their database.

@NebUzer Thanks. From what I've found, the data come from the "UOE data collection" system, that is each country reporting to the OECD, to the UNESCO, or to Eurostat. For the US, it is apparently the National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., which reports to the OECD, if I believe this document from 2014 https://www.oecd.org/education/EAG2014_Annex3_SourcesUOEDataCollection.pdf (cont.)

(...) I've also found the following, that could explain partly the discrepancy: "OECD international statistics on education tend to overlook the impact of [...] short-term exchange programmes that take place within an academic year and are therefore under the radar" https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/573e058e-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/573e058e-en . But again, without more detailed data or explanation from SEVIS, hard to tell how much it explains the difference between the SEVIS and OECD data.


text:
Why does a PhD take a longer time in some countries?
I am talking about computer science. Recently I did survey on my own i mean informally. I find out that there are some researchers who were able to do PhD in same area in 4 year as compare to other researcher who did their PhD in 6 or 6.5 year's in the same research area. Is it depends  upon the duration of the PhD of supervisor or it depends upon the country etc.
Question : Why does a PhD take a longer time in some countries? What factors affect this? Does it affect the research quality? I mean if I am taking more time I should have more quality research.

My PhD took 6 years. Another student -- same topic, same university, same advisor -- took 4 years. It's highly individual.

@Thomas So you are saying it totally depends upon the person, but are the problems due to which it takes longer I mean is it due to the uncertanity in the research or individual learning speed.

In the U.S., not all programs require holding a Master's degree before starting a doctorate. In fact, coursework is commonly part of the U.S. Ph.D. (taking several years) but I believe this is different in Europe.

Research ... no telling how long it takes to solve a problem.  Unlike the problems you have been given before, where they have been solved before, and the person posing it to you knows about how hard it is.

@alhahu I'm saying there are many factors, but often it just comes down to individual circumstances.

Many factors that vary systematically between countries may affect time to graduation.
Here is an incomplete list:

In the U.S., grad school starts with studying for an MA degree; in Europe, an MA is a prerequisite to joining grad school
whether or not PhD studies include classes
availability, generosity and length of funding, vs. necessity to earn a living while working on the PhD
incentives to delay graduation vs. incentives and opportunities to join the labor market as soon as possible
quality of supervision and extent of leeway to pursue own interests and potential dead ends.

I'm not aware of any empirical studies testing each factor's relevance.

I'd add that it varies a lot by field, as well, not just country. For example, in the biological sciences there is almost never a PhD that takes fewer than 4 years in the U.S. in part because masters degrees are not required for entry, whereas in engineering it is quite common to have a brief PhD if you already have a masters degree.

@Bryan Krause by country, by university, and by person!

In the UK you can go BSc -> PhD directly, without a Masters degree. In the UK, many (all?) Masters take 1 year, while on the rest of the European Continent they take 2.

"In the U.S., grad school starts with studying for an MA degree" Maybe sometimes, but often the student gets a PhD but does not receive a Master's degree.  And it could be called an MS.

It is not even true that all PhD students in the US automatically qualify for a master’s degree if they drop out early. My department’s PhD program has significantly lighter course requirements than our MS program.

It also varies over time, as the expectations of how much experience a fresh PhD should have change. For example, the ideal duration of a Finnish PhD degree has gone down to 4 years (after Masters), to bring it better into line with international degrees. And probably because the postdoc has become more integral part of researcher training.

Just to add a few cents to henning's answer with a background of computer science in Germany:

In the US, a PhD is more regulated then e.g. in Germany. You are more focussed on one topic. In Germany, you often start in a broad range of topics and you'll have to find your specific topic in your first year.
You often have other assignments like project management, writing grant applications or supporting grant applications, giving lectures, etc. This distracts you from your thesis, but will give you many management skills you'll need in your post-doc phase or in industry.
Sometimes you are a victim of circumstances, e.g. partners not delivering stuff, sickness, family issues, ...

In Germany, you often start in a broad range of topics and you'll have to find your specific topic in your first year. — This is also true for many PhD programs in the US (including mine!)

Why does a PhD take a longer time in some countries?

The most important factor is funding agency policy or lack thereof.  Some funding agencies provide funds that cover a fixed period of time.  Some issue penalties when a student exceeds the time limit.  Local traditions are a secondary factor.  Students often take as long as their funding situation permits them to take, even if they would earn more by graduating sooner.

Does it affect the research quality?

It definitely affects the research quantity.  A longer PhD leads to more results.  Students who take a long time and do not have a lot of results might not have received the degree if they had less time.  Research quality is a matter of opinion, but quality probably increases a bit with time.
My advice:  get the shortest PhD that will get you where you want to be at the end of the PhD.

At least in some countries/fields/universities (like mine/mine/mine), PhD students are not tied to specific grants (or to grants at all), so funding acency policies are utterly irrelevant.

I don't think a longer PhD necessarily leads to more results. All else equal, perhaps, but I know people who do phds in my field who have to teach a 2-2 load as the instructor of record and others whose universities fund then such that they don't have to teach. The teaching load alone could add a year or two to any program without actually affecting the dissertation's depth or quality.

@JeffE And that's why US PhDs (in funded fields) last so long.  I would say funding agency negligence is an essential factor in degree duration in the US.

@guifa You are right, my answer does not account for part-time enrolment or the equivalent.

@AnonymousPhysicist "Negligence"? Really? Why should funding agencies dictate how universities run their degree programs?

@JeffE Funding agencies should not fund unethical programs.  US universities have the opportunity to delay students graduations so they can bet more cheap labor out of them.  Funding agencies should be funding student work that helps them get the degree.  Other work should be done by staff who are paid appropriately.

@AnonymousPhysicist That is certainly unethical, but it is far from the only reason some PhD students to take longer to finish than others.

@JeffE I thought the asker was not interested in individual/institutional factors, but rather national factors.  So, yes.


text:
How to survive as a theoretician in computer science?
I am currently a PhD student in the mid of my PhD. I have seen many of researchers in my field have published just one or two articles. My research more precisely is related to designing algorithms for problems related to polynomial factorization. This field requires two three years of background for research work or even more for some people. I am very much interested in this field, but worry about the future of my research. Here are some problem which I think may be problematic after my PhD:

Getting a post-doc seems quite challenging as my field is purely theoretical.
Suppose I join some institute as an Assistant professor then it will take longer for me to become Associate professor. Because the rate of publication is slow.
Funding also seems also quite problem

I am only motivated by theory and not that much interested in practical aspects.
Question :  Is there any way to avoid above mentioned problems to some extent?
The above information I have collected by searching online and talking to few researcher who works in the field mentioned above.
One solution that comes directly to my mind is try to relate my research to some practical side but that does not seems to be solution in my case.

This is also true for those who works in pure mathematics.

Suppose I join some institute as an Assistant professor then it will take longer for me to become Associate professor. Because the rate of publication is slow. -- This is generally not true in the US, where all assistant professors are on a fixed tenure clock regardless of whether they are theoreticians or not. For which part of the world is your question valid?

What country?  I'd answer from the perspective of a US mathematician, but wouldn't dare answer for other countries.

@ Alexander Woo Asia. Please answer as a US mathematician. I might get some idea from your answer.

Here are some problem which I think may be problematic after my PhD:

Your first course of action is to find out if your worries are actually true. Talk to your supervisor(s), who are presumably also working in theory, and find out if they share your concerns. Some countries and universities are more amenable to highly theoretical work than others. For instance, I work at Chalmers University of Technology which prides itself on industry impact, so doing purely theoretical teaching and research is not of highest priority here. However, if I look at some other research universities, things appear to be quite different.
In general, you may see things too pessimistically. It is true that, by and large, researchers in theoretical fields publish less than in applied fields. However, faculty search and promotion committees are usually aware of that and factor this in when making decisions. That is, they will not put your CV next to a person in software engineering and conclude that the SE person is better than you just based on publication or citation numbers. Generally, you will be compared against people in your own field, and your achievements will be measured against the standards of your field.
However, specifically when it comes to funding, your stance that you are entirely disinterested in applications may in my experience indeed become a limitation at some point. There are funding agencies in most countries that focus purely on foundations, but competition tends to be stiff as all theoretical researchers compete for the same funding. Applied funding is often more plentiful and also more varied, and simply due to there often being more diverse avenues to get your research funded, competition is often less intense.
That said, I have seen many theoretically minded researchers develop some interest in applying their theory at some point in their career, so just because you are not interested in applications right now does not mean that you will remain entirely disinterested forever. The other question is how much funding you really need when you are only interested in theory: given that you will not have much need for infrastructure and staff programmers, often a little funding can go a long way in theoretical fields.


text:
Adding more results to the thesis
Is it possible to add some additional results after submitting the "complete" thesis to advisor. I must add that my advisor has already sent the thesis to Ph.D commission.
The additional results are not a correction of the thesis. I just want to add some more results to it.

Publish the modified thesis as a separate book, if no formal publication is required for original thesis. Or just make a paper out of the new stuff.

Check with your advisor, and if they do not know, check with your department director of graduate studies (it may have a different name, but it is a faculty member who is "in charge" of the PhD program).
In general, there shouldn't be any problem, but your institution may have special policies and what not. As always, it is better to be open about any changes. More communication is better that less.
Be positive when you write to your advisor and motivate the changes.. E.g., "I would like to add these results because they improve the dissertation in such and such a way ..."

It depends strongly on the PhD-process in your institution. E.g. my "old" university required me to publish my thesis and I was able to change and add stuff during the process. But those changes were not revied by a comittee so they had no impact towards my grade.
The general rule at my current institution is, that you can not change your thesis (no matter if bachelor, master or PhD) after you submitted it. But you could add an addendum and maybe someone loooks at it ;-).