text:
How does a software application idea become a research project?
As a software developer just starting out in research (working for a lab) I have this idea of a software application which is meant to target a specific need: specifically to help users query data using specific and novel methodologies (navigation languages and autocomplete methods).
Anyway, I know that ultimately I want to do science and not engineering. By that I mean that ultimately I don't want to build a tool (although it could help prove my idea) but that I want to investigate (that's really what research is about isn't it?) about how the navigational and autocomplete methodologies are important for querying data (for example)
So I'm a bit troubled wondering how I can transform this application idea into a more scientific research project. Should I look at the novel parts of the application (such as the autocomplete functionalities) and investigate how that might make querying better for users? Is that even research?
I guess overall I'm puzzled on how to make the idea of my software application stand on its own. How do I make my software idea contribute to the current body of human knowledge? Does software even count as knowledge? I guess I'm trying to convert the idea of my software application into a piece of knowledge. Any help/clarification?

What do you mean "autocomplete methods"? Can you describe more details?

Your software idea may be able to become a piece of research if you can come up with a few things:

Research question. Ask a question relating to your software idea - for example, "How can we do X?" "What is a better design for X?" etc. Check the literature to see what has been said about this question (and related questions) by others.
Research result. What is the actual, novel contribution of your work? Is it a new technique that hasn't been done before? A rule of thumb for designing certain kinds of applications? A much better way to do a certain kind of task (for some reasonable definition of "better")?
Validation of research results. What kind of convincing evidence do you have that your result is sound? Depending on the type of result you claim, your evidence may be in the form of performance benchmarks of your technique relative to state of the art, user studies from users of your application, or something else entirely.

The best way to get a better understanding of what constitutes a research question, research result, or evidence, is to read a lot of papers in your field of interest.

For papers in the OP field of interest, it would seem SIGGRAPH and CHI are good starting places.

Your desire to do research is commendable. But although you are a seasoned engineer, you are still an undergraduate at research and you need to slow your pace. Although you have a headstart in relation to your peers, you still need to develop some research maturity which takes time or a mentor who might give you a push to the right direction.
I was also an programmer first and went into researcher later, so I understand where you are coming from. But like me at first, you do not really "get" it. Autocomplete is not research. Period. A tool that shows a nice graph of semantic data is not research. Period. It is a DEMO and you can submit it to a demo track of a conference or a smaller workshop and that is it. But even then, unless the tool does something unusual it will get rejected. Unless you want to built the new Virtuoso or the new Neo4j  then your tool is not research. Period. And developing a GUI tool is something that I would not easily recommend, because making a GUI tool that is good enough for showing to others, takes a lot of time. That is why developing such GUI tools, is usually reserved for MSc thesis projects and students like you and is not something like a PHD student undertakes on his own. Of course there are always exceptions, but this is what I have seen.
On the other hand, developing a new, better index for autocomplete than e.g. a trie is research. But even then, building the autocomplete module is not proof. You need experiments, related work section, literature review, proofs, complexity analysis, knowledge about data structures, which you may have but probably you have not.
Conclusively, you are now a good programmer. But that does not automatically make you a good CS student. You need to build a theoretical background to formalize research questions. And that I am afraid requires time and/or guidance.

Thanks. Do you know me by the way? I think you're spot on... lack of theoretical CS background.

For software to "contribute to human knowledge", it needs to advance human knowledge -- a new algorithm, a new human interaction technique, a new approach to coding (often embodied in a new language tuned for that purpose, for clarity, though almost all such can be implemented in older languages with a bit of work)...
If you have a really new approach to performing or using autocomplete, that probably counts. If you're just using autocomplete in your program in a place where it's obvious to an experienced practitioner that autocomplete would be appropriate, it probably doesn't. You could do some legitimate research on measuring exactly how much difference which kinds of autocomplete help which users -- but that's human factors engineering, not software engineering per se.
Programming is just a tool. If you use it to conduct research, you're doing research. If you aren't, you aren't. Writing may be a good analogy -- you need to be able to write well to communicate, but "writing well" is usually not the creative act unless you're someone like e. e. cummings who can create a new way to approach writing itself. Deciding what to communicate and how, or finding ways to measure the advantages and disadvantages of varying approaches to communication, is usually where human knowledge is advanced.

Thanks. So the idea of autocompletion is obviously well established and not new. However, I want to apply it to datasets that exist on the Web (not locally). This is the novelty of it. Would that still qualify as "contributing to human knowledge". The software would then simply implement the idea.

As an example, here is a tool that was developed by Tim Berners-Lee to prove a concept. http://swui.semanticweb.org/swui06/papers/Berners-Lee/Berners-Lee.pdf However, what is truly the contribution to human knowledge that the tool shows? It's still a bit blurry to me.

Not everything TB-L does/publishes can be classified as "research". (Ditto for most mortals.) ...  Here the contribution to knowledge would be the concept; the tool, as you say, exists in order to illustrate the concept and provide a starting point for exploring whether it's worth pursuing.

Interesting, then perhaps this tool can also showcase the concept.

Sure. But simply implementing isn't research; it's engineering.

But didn't we say the concept itself is research? You're showcasing a concept that wasn't showcased before... therefore advancing human knowledge imho.

CREATING AND DEVELOPING the concept is research. Showcasing it is engineering.

(The on-screen cursor was a new invention once; IBM had the patent on it. That doesn't make every program that uses it part of research on that concept.)

Your first step should be an extremely thorough search of the scientific literature, in order to explore what's already been done in the area covered by your application - that is, assess the originality of "the idea" and its theoretical underpinning.

I would start with a quality blog post, with references to other approaches, justification of claims. If you can accomplish it, this piece of software might be a candidate for a paper.
In a journal paper you need to have something novel concrete to show, to support it with evidence and reference with other research. But it needs to be something concrete not "it is a great app, because I think so, my friends and it got 10k likes". More like "new algorithm allows to compute X with 7% less error...", "we introduce a new statistical model for classification of words based on Y..." or "75% user accomplish goal of Z with autocomplete vs 53 who...".
Software engineering and scientific research (which topic? algorithms, statistics, linguistics, psychology...) are different skills.


text:
Paper for software tool - Medical Domain
This is really related to this question (Creating paper on software tool).
But there was this comment there which asked for more details about the software's domain.
I created (still in beta stage) a software for Brain Tumor, but I would like to publish (if possible) about the software itself and not so much on the validation of it. (This would be eventually a later paper).
What's is the best approach for publishing about this software "proposal" for usage in medical clinics?
My concern is that while it's being tested. It wasn't tested enough for a full paper, but I still want to publish it.

I think it is pretty unlikely anyone would use a software so critical without good testing. You can publish it informally and get some user feedback, but I doubt you would get a paper.

If you want to publish software in a quality scientific journal it is usually required that it represents a significant advance over previously published software, which is usually demonstrated by direct comparison with available related software. There will be no way to get around this.
I would also recommend to put the code on github (http://github.com). Github is more and more recognized as THE resource for code hosting. It is a free service for public repositories, and it is widely accepted in the community, e.g. you can register your Github repos with Impactstory (http://impactstory.org).
"Source Code for Biology and Medicine" (http://www.scfbm.org) might be an appropriate journal for you.

there is no current software that does something related to this. I know that this is quite rare specially regarding to software's and that's why I cannot really compare with something else. I would have to test on clinics, wait months and compare what the physicians used to do and compare with this automated usage.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the modus operandi to get a postdoctoral position at a foreign university?
In the field of Materials and Chemical Engineering, what exactly is to be done in order to secure a postdoc position (or even face an interview) at an overseas university especially when you have got no connections of your own or your PhD advisor?
So far, I have tried (1) cold emailing the professors to which I barely got any response, (2) applied for postdoc openings announced at different platforms like LinkedIn, jobs.ac.uk, etc. but unsuccessful in both of them.
To further add to my pain, my PhD adviser has barely got any connections, she has an expertise in Theory and Modelling while I have done research on interdisciplinary experimental and theoretical studies on materials. Although, I have good publication record to my name with seven papers in internationally peer reviewed journals and other skills as well. A few professors have replied to my email that I have a good CV and strong credentials but they don't have funding for me.
I want to know what is the right way to connect with the professors that I want to work with and how to approach them in a right way through an email. (Since I don't have funds, I can't afford to connect with them through a conference or in person!)
Please help!!
CV attached

I don't see how strangers on the internet will help with this problem.  At least not without reading your CV.

Added my CV link to the question. Thanks for the input

This question is quite clearly not a shopping question and should not be closed for that reason.

does any of you work have any citations? Maybe people who have cited you would be interested.

This is what I have done in mathematics. I have applied in Europe mostly.

Go to conferences relevant to your subject and get to know people. Give presentations. Ask around for jobs.
Find senior researches active in your area; start, for example, from a bibliography of a recently published article and search online for the names. Are there open positions at their departments?
Take one country at a time, or, in case of a large country, even less. Wikipedia might very well have a list of universities in that country. Go through them, one-by-one, and see if they have research (projects, researchers) relevant to what you are doing. Keep track of particularly relevant universities and check them periodically for new open positions, or set up some kind of alert or RSS feed if possible.
If there are any country-specific job databases, follow those, too, and use alerts or check periodically.
When writing the application, include a few words about how your current skills are relevant for the department or what you would be working on. This shows that you know where you are applying to, but also requires you to have done the work.
If you have contacts who are also applying for jobs, ask them if they know of any that would be suitable for you. They might not want to have you as a competitor, and it might not be polite to ask, so this is best with people who have somewhat different career stage or research interests. Also share jobs relevant to them with them, possibly excluding the ones you are applying for.
Your advisor seems to have published with a number of people. Maybe some of them are possible contacts?

I am doing what you suggested in #2. Looking for their names in literature and then emailing them after going through their lab group page that mentions they have open position. However, I am still not getting any response from any of them.

Should I approach grad students working under profs to know if there are any positions available? Of course assuming that profs won't reply to reminder emails as well!

I doubt contacting a more junior person would not hurt; the professor might be too busy to read emails or might get too many of them. but I would primarily send applications to open positions, as in many places all or all substantially long positions are by default conducted as open search. But this depends on the country.

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


text:
Including incomplete or complete BS after MS in résumé
I have just got a MS in Math and I'm about to start a PhD program also in Math. The problem is that before starting the Math program I dropped out of a combined BS+MS program in Computer Science after ~3 years. I'm not sure about how, or even if, I should include that info in my résumé.
I'm considering some possibilities and I'd appreciate it if you could give me some advice on them.

Include that incomplete BS+MS program in Computer Science in my
résumé.
Pro: show part of my undergrad academic background. Con: being percieved
as a dropout.
Stop including that incomplete BS+MS program in Computer Science in
my résumé.
Pro: not being percieved as a dropout. Con: not showing a part of my
academic background.
I need only four credits to finish the BS part of the Computer
Science program. It will demand me only a light additional workload to get
them in two or three semesters while working on my PhD. I could finish
the BS part of the Computer Science program and start mentioning it in my résumé only after having completed it.
Pro: I'll be showing a BS diploma in a related field. Con: the
graduating date for the BS in Computer Science will be after getting
the MS in Math, so that could be seen as a lack of direction in my
career.

I think that this question is not a duplicate of this one because I'm considering also the possibility of actually finishing the incomplete BS program and how it compares to inlcuding or not information about it if I don't get the diploma.

EDIT for clarification
I already have a BS and a MS in Math and I've been admitted for a Math PhD. I want to know how I should expect to be judgen when applying for a future postdoc or applied math job if I happen to add a Computer Science BS diploma in between the Math MS and the Math PhD.
The intuitive answer to me would be that, if after finishing my PhD I'm able to prove that I've work hard, adding in that BS in the résumé should not harm. But I'm also considering the possibility of being judged as lacking direction in my career.

I think the most important question is what are you using this resume for? You say you're "about to start on a PhD program also in Math" -- does that mean you already got accepted? Are you looking to get summer jobs?
My main concern is if you have a PhD degree, a Masters degree, and another Bachelors degree, you won't have enough space to list other degrees (especially if you want to list relevant coursework). You'll hopefully get teaching experience, work experience, and leadership skills to fill out the rest of your resume.
If you don't have another Bachelors degree, what did you list when you were applying to the Masters? I would just follow whatever you did there. It might seem odd that you have a Masters but no Bachelors degree.

I already have a BS+MS in Math and I've been admitted for the Math PhD. I want to know how would they judge my application for a future postdoc if I happen to add a Computer Science BS diploma in between the Math MS and the Math PhD.

You'll probably want to use a CV when applying for a postdoc, which basically means you'll include everything,
Your school may have a career advisor (or someone else experienced) you can ask about how to phrase it in your specific case. You'll be able to explain your situation more fully and get more individualized advice than you might on the internet.

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


text:
What's the proper response after receiving an email from an unfamiliar sender accusing an academic of my discipline of misconduct with evidence?
I have recently received an email from an unknown source where an academic (who I don't know) is accused (backed by some evidence which I haven't examined in detail) of misconduct, particularly academic plagiarism.
Since the academic is not from my university I am not sure what to make of it.
What's the proper course of action in this case?

Treat it the same as those article soliciting emails, i.e. ignore.

There is no action needed or appropriate on your part unless you are part of some official investigation.
You might want to be wary of both parties in the future, however. Especially the email sender. Accusing others with such mail is a form of defamation.

Especially if such mails are circulated indiscriminately to what probably amount to various recepients.

If evidence of plagiarism is supplied it is not defamation. Only when circulating false evidence could it possibly be defamation.

@DeboraWeber-Wulff, laws differ of course. I haven't seen the "evidence". One person's plagiarism is another person's parallel research. I used the term informally, however, not in a legal sense, since the facts aren't all here. But the intent certainly seems to be to harm the reputation of a private person.

@Buffy After having seen the evidence I think it's fair to call it plagiarism. What's curious about the case is that the accused academic is an expert on AI Ethics.

@Alex, strangely, that is not uncommon. If this happens to be a German researcher, do contact me by email. I can be googled.

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


text:
Can I get a masters degree if I drop my PhD?
I am an undergraduate right now, looking to apply to Grad schools. I am just confused about the kinds of degrees offered by graduate schools. Some state they have a "M.S, M.S/PhD, and PhD" programs. I have read a lot that students who quit their Ph.D in between after realizing that the program is not for them can leave with a masters but is this available for (almost) any PhD program or just the M.S/Ph.D program? Does a university that simply states an offering of a "Ph.D" program also allow students who quit in between to leave with a masters?

This is going to vary widely by both field and country.  Can you update your post with that information?

My field (economics) in the US generally works the way you're describing - you can quit in the middle of your PhD and leave with your masters.  At my program, once we completed some number of graduate credits (I think it was around 2.5 years worth) we simply filled out an application on the student management portal for a masters, and they awarded it.  It was like five extra minutes of work, so I think all of my classmates did it.  They called it an "incidental masters degree"
That said, PhD programs frown heavily on entering a PhD with the goal of leaving in the middle with a masters degree.  They offer funding to PhD students with the goal of putting quality applicants on the job market, which masters students can't do.  Conversely, students who enroll in a masters program not only aren't funded, they usually pay a lot in tuition.
It does make for a nice consolation prize for the few classmates I have who never finished though, since they at least come out of the program with a masters.

Sounds like it's heavily incentivized to enroll in a PhD program to get the masters degree. Frowning upon ppl that don't want to pay for something they can get paid for instead of solving the underlying problem sounds like an, er, interesting approach.

@DonQuiKong I mean, you're not wrong.  I've never been on an admissions committee, but I imagine they expend a fair bit of effort looking for students who will actually finish their PhD.

So you're saying they are additionally favoring good liars? ;)

This varies, but in my experience (US/Canada, biology/math/statistics),

entering an "M.S." program assumes that you will want to complete the Master's degree and leave (for industry or a PhD program elsewhere).

in an "M.S./Ph.D." program you are initially enrolled for a Master's; if, toward the end of the Master's program, it looks like you are doing well and you want to continue on with a Ph.D. in the same program, you can do some paperwork (in my old institution this was called a "Master's bypass") and be automatically enrolled in a PhD, without writing your Master's thesis, defending it, re-applying for the PhD program, etc.. In this case your Master's work would typically be rolled into the first chapter (or two) of your Ph.D. thesis.
Under this option there would not be any stigma associated with stopping with a Master's degree; part of the intention of an M.S./Ph.D. program is precisely to allow students to decide whether they want to continue with a Ph.D.
This option may be limited to students who plan to continue with the same supervisor.
There may also be an option for students who want to go through the process of getting their Master's degree (written thesis, defense, etc.) and then start the Ph.D. program; not much difference except that you do have to do the write-up and defense, and you get to add a degree to your CV.

In programs with an M.S./Ph.D. program, entry into the Ph.D. program would typically be reserved for students who already had a Master's degree in the relevant field.

Many schools will "offer" a terminal master's; this is a consolation prize for students who enrolled in a Ph.D. program but for some reason are unable to complete it (e.g. they are performing so poorly that they are being kicked out of the program, but well enough that some level of certification of achievement seems appropriate, or because they decided they were unhappy). "Terminal" means that such students would not typically be eligible to apply for a Ph.D. in the same program.
At most programs that offer both MS and PhD degrees, whether or not they have a formal MS/PhD track, it is usually pretty easy to get accepted into the PhD program if you do well in a Master's degree.

As may be clear from all of the above, these programs are usually flexible; if you started a "Ph.D. only" program and decided to drop out, you might have the option to write up your work and finish with a Master's. The M.S./Ph.D. is somewhat less stressful as it gives an explicit choice point.


text:
What's the point of publishing your peer review report along with your new paper?
One journal that I think of, for example, is Nature Communications.
Why does the author choose to publish the peer review report of their new paper?
Is it to educate others who are submitting papers to the journal?
The peer review reports are pretty interesting to read: some are short and to the point (mostly flattery, with some short recommendations for revision), and some are very long, detailed, and maybe a bit harsh or rude.
A related question, reviewers, e.g. for Nature Communications, have the option of being named in the peer review report, for recognition of their review efforts.  Are their names known in advance, during review, before the paper is accepted or rejected?  I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but just wondering.

"The peer review reports are pretty interesting to read" - that alone is a pretty good reason already, don't you think?

Are their names known in advance, during review, before the paper is accepted or rejected?

Depends on the journal. At Nature family journals, I believe the identity of reviewers that choose to sign their reviews is only revealed at publication time.

Why does the author choose to publish the peer review report of their new paper?

I imagine it is because they are primarily supporters of the concept of openess in peer review. I pass no judgement on the merits either way here, but you can't be a supporter of the theory of open review (and therefore gain its benefits - like more reluctance of the part of the reviewers to be unfair), and then not opt to publish the reviews of your papers.
It will also help readers to have confidence that the paper has been properly reviewed.


text:
Can Chinese "scientists who publish in the top Western journals... earn in excess of $100,000 per paper" via cash-per-publication incentives?
The recent Politics SE question Did China scientific incentives address the fact that the system can be gamed? includes the following:

These guys have surveyed the financial incentives offered by the top 100 universities in China and mined that data for interesting trends. They say that cash-per-publication incentives are common and that scientists who publish in the top Western journals can earn in excess of $100,000 per paper. What’s more, there are already worrying signs that these financial rewards are skewing the process of science in China.
China has well over 1,000 universities. But in the 1990s it began a program called Project 211 to turn 100 of them into world-class institutions. “Eventually, 116 universities were admitted to Project 211, forming an elite group of universities occupying 70% of national research funding and supervising 80% of doctoral students,” say Wei and co.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/07/12/150506/the-truth-about-chinas-cash-for-publication-policy/

Question: Is it really true that Chinese "scientists who publish in the top Western journals... earn in excess of $100,000 per paper" via cash-per-publication incentives?

There isn't a [cash-incentive] tag for some reason, though if something like this is true it seems it would have a powerful impact on academia, academicians and advancement of fields of research. I should probably ask "How common are cash-per-publication incentives in different countries?" separately.

Done. How common are cash-per-publication incentives in different countries?

This article from 2020 says "China bans cash rewards for publishing papers".

A subquestion is: does this go to a single person (and which one?) or is this split between authors?

There is likely more up-to-date information to be found, but the 2017 paper Wei Quan, Bikun Chen, Fei Shu Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016), Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 1-18 (2017) [arXiv link] states

A landscape of the cash-per-publication reward policy in China emerged as all 168 cash reward
policies were analyzed. Chinese universities offer cash rewards that range from 30 to 165,000
USD for a single paper published in journals indexed by WoS, and the average reward amount
has been increasing for the past 10 years. The results show us the overview of the cash-perpublication reward policies in terms of eligibility, amount, and their diversity and trends.

Nature, Science: Among most cash reward policies, publishing a paper in these two
prestigious journals would receive special treatment. Chinese universities offer the
highest cash reward to Nature or Science papers. The author(s) may receive a prize
up to 165,000 USD; some universities even announced that the amount of cash
rewarded for a Nature or Science paper was negotiable. Indeed, the average amount
of cash award for a Nature or Science paper increased 67% from 26,212 USD in 2008
to 43,783 USD in 2016.

This analysis was also mentioned in a 2017 Science News article.

I just saw this comment which links to Nature in 2020 saying these are now "banned". So the answer might be "Used to be yes, but now it's no." or similar.

@uhoh I believe they are banned in its current form. There are thousands way to give a bonus, the devil is in the details ... see, as a western example, the bonuses paid to top manager of failing banks: (german only https://www.blick.ch/wirtschaft/verfuegung-des-bundes-zeigt-cs-bonussystem-war-noch-ausgekluegelter-als-bekannt-id18735433.html )

@EarlGrey I've limited the question to "via cash-per-publication incentives" so as to avoid the detail devil.

Personal cash rewards existed and other forms of rewards (e.g. funding preferences) still exist. But the number should be contexualized.
Rewards in excess of 30000 USD are not for any top "Western" journals, but almost always reserved to the two journals Nature and Science (possibly also Cell). Most rewards (and indeed the most controversial ones) are well under 5000 USD. Not negligible of course, but the amount of personal payment is less of an incentive than preferences in funding and administrative support from the university and the government and other forms of internal rewards (academic ranks, which are tied to salaries, and tenure etc.).
The bonus system is part of perverse incentives that encourage bad publication and citation practices in China, but the particular high rewards themselves for the three journals are not really part of it.
Many institutions who claim to offer a very high amount of rewards basically never intended to pay it out, because overwhelmingly most institutions in China (or in any country) do not publish in these three journals for a variety of reasons (lack of infrastructure and talent, or they are simply not positioned for shiny researches), especially as first or corresponding authors (which is usually a requirement for these rewards).

This is just an anecdote, but I worked with Chinese researchers who said they got paid in the order of £1000s for a paper in a top journal. I never heard of a figure of £100,000 though. This was in 2019.

you worked with the researchers having poor single-party connections.

Anecdotal, but I also know of people circa 2018 that claimed the same, up to 2 papers in Q1 journals a year would essentially double your yearly salary. I don't remember the number, but that must be somewhere between the 2 numbers you mention.

@EarlGrey What do connections have to do with this particular bonus? Direct payment in question for high rank papers was set by each university/department/program/political divison in public policies.

was set by each university/department/program/political divison in public policies.
The answer lies in the question: who is the head of each university/department/program/political division that decides who is hired and who is not?

@EarlGrey And that matters because? You seem to think an abundant amount of researchers are all trying to get to hired at the university with best rewards per publication, when in fact the universities offering high amount of rewards are lower-ranked ones with less infrastructure support (which is far more expensive than the rewards) that try to attract researchers. If you show yourself capable of publishing in Science and Nature, or consistently publish in other high rank journals, you choose which university you'd like to go, not the other way around.

Corruption is rampant in China, but on this particular topic it is irrelevant.

This is less than an anecdote, it's an anecdote of an anecdote.

@xngtng "when in fact the universities offering high amount of rewards are lower-ranked ones" try to connect the dots. Being a professor at the university it is still a powerful (and prestigeous) position in the social structure. In lower-ranked university quality of research is less interesting (by factual definition, they are lower-ranked university). If science is not the main objective of these institutions, then it is education and and all the connections between tertiary education and local/regional realities. Therefore politic is extremely relevant.

@EarlGrey Sorry, I simply do not follow your logic. There is nothing to suggest people getting offered 1000s in reward are less connected than people getting 100000s in reward because of the ones hiring. In fact the opposite is more likely to be true, that people hired at prestigious institutions with low or no cash rewards (but of course no less lucrative since they get more funding and can lend the name of their institution in a variety of legal and grey ventures for far more money) may be more connected (politically and academically) than people hired at lower ranked ones with high rewards.

@xngtng your reasoning is sound, as long as you do not consider the source of the money. Money for universities are not created out of thin air (terms and conditions applies, regular banking can do that https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070 , but here we are discussing university funding which in general does not work the same way as company funding). University budget approval is a political game. 1000s of dollars is the same order of magnitude of other expenses. >10'000s of dollars is not.


text:
How common are cash-per-publication incentives in different countries?
I've just asked Can Chinese "scientists who publish in the top Western journals... earn in excess of $100,000 per paper" via cash-per-publication incentives? in which I reference the recent Politics SE question Did China scientific incentives address the fact that the system can be gamed? which includes the following:

These guys have surveyed the financial incentives offered by the top 100 universities in China and mined that data for interesting trends. They say that cash-per-publication incentives are common and that scientists who publish in the top Western journals can earn in excess of $100,000 per paper. What’s more, there are already worrying signs that these financial rewards are skewing the process of science in China.
China has well over 1,000 universities. But in the 1990s it began a program called Project 211 to turn 100 of them into world-class institutions. “Eventually, 116 universities were admitted to Project 211, forming an elite group of universities occupying 70% of national research funding and supervising 80% of doctoral students,” say Wei and co.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/07/12/150506/the-truth-about-chinas-cash-for-publication-policy/

Question: How common are cash-per-publication incentives in different countries?
Are these pretty common or rare? Of course there are benefits; monetary and otherwise, an excellent publication track record can impact salary, tenure, side gigs (contracts, consulting) but here I'm only asking about explicit "cash-per-publication incentives".
Until there's some verification of that substantially large upper limit, I can't really ask "Is China exceptional in the size of its monetary incentives?" but I am curious about that.

In Denmark, part of the department's core funding is settled in proportion to its publication rate (per scientist) adjusted by journal scores (higher impact journals scoring more). The total sum handed out across all university departments in the country is constant however, so in effect there is competition among the departments. For me as a scientist in Denmark, personally, I couldn't care less. This is just yet another futile exercise of New Public Management.

Wow this is really a big load of crap dressed as an objective measure.

Indeed. I am not frustrated by the system itself (which I ignore effortlessly) but by the fact that government funds are being spent to maintain it.

Normally a researcher does not make any money directly from the publications. It is possible to make money indirectly, like building up a reputation that could make getting a research grant later easier, or a better scientific position in the future (or any). Publications are the requirement for retaining the status of the researcher, problems are expected if the researcher does not have them, or they are too old. China is doing a very unusual thing.
No the question is, how easy is to get this money, maybe this is reserved for a few exceptional cases. But if a publication in reputable, international journal is enough, then it is probably a good time to start learning Chinese (be sure you pick a simplified one).

Be careful. The last part of the answer is problematic. "先生們" means "Gentlemen", some people may think this is not gender neutral. Second of all, it's in Traditional Chinese. Currently, mainland China is using Simplified Chinese. Only Taiwan and Hong Kong are using Traditional Chinese. I live in Taiwan. So I know. I won't downvote this answer. But, someone probably will.

I do not say I am expert in these languages, just that it is time to learn them. Shame to depart from traditions, from another side.

Traditional vs Simplified was a big issue. It was Mao's idea. Most Chinese can read both. The problem is that the official version in main land China is simplified. Some users on this site know about this. I had to let you know. Anyway, +1.


text:
How can I do better research when the experimental design is lacking?
I would like to do first-class research. However, how do I actually accomplish that when my supervisors design not-so-great experiments and I don't have the resources to do more independent work?
In many fields (e.g. psychology, neuroscience), graduate students work in a group (i.e. lab) studying topics that their advisor finds interesting. Each student might have their own thesis topic, but all of the work is focused on the same big question or general research topic.
Typically the data collection is mostly dictated by the senior researchers, as it is very expensive. Once it is collected, the lab might spend several years analyzing it, especially in bigger projects. This means that the potential of a project is mostly determined by the experimental design. If there is something wrong with it, not much can be done afterwards and the results must still be published.
So what can a young researcher do in these fields if the experimental designs (decided on by the advisor or other senior researchers) are lacking? Especially if I have done most of what I think is possible post-hoc (e.g. with the statistics)?

Though I am not familiar with the specific field you are referring to (neuroscience &c.) one big question presents itself:
Did you actually talk to your adviser/other students about the "problems" you perceive in the experimental setup? Are these actually "problems" or maybe (just maybe) an insufficient understanding on your part?
If it is indeed a problem of experimental design I would propose to contact the ones responsible for the design and try to work something out - i.e., additional experiments or (if possible) looking for external data.

Indeed! Although there is certainly always the possibility that the most-senior people are somewhat incompetent, it is at least equally likely that the most-junior people misunderstand something. Given the self-selection mechanism for asking questions here, it's hard to guess which is manifest, etc. If junior people are skeptical, asking for explanations, and following-up (even if the explanations are cryptic!), surely won't hurt anything, and may be usefully informative.

While it is possible that the student is misunderstanding something, bad design of experiments is very common. See for example http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v14/n5/full/nrn3475.html (titled "Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience").

There is no easy answer for this (I speak from experience having been in this situation).
I found some of the thoughts at the following link helpful:
http://sphinx.mythic-beasts.com/~mark/random/mediocrity/
Good luck!

authors: Михаил Камахин


text:
Ethical reaction to fake academic degree claim. (Unfinished PhD)
Let's assume a hypothetical context where someone figures out that a given businessperson's claims to have a PhD from a prestigious university are not true. The person in question was enrolled in a PhD program but they never finished and therefore no degree was awarded. The person is introduced in interviews and presentations as "Dr." and listed in the company's website as having a PhD in a scientific topic from a specific real university.
Provided the evidence is unequivocal, the questions are:
What is the ethical response to this? How to handle it?
Is it fraud?
What are the mechanisms available to denounce this, if pertinent?
(depending on answer to previous question)
I'm personally interested in the case for Europe and UK, but cases for other countries may be of general interest.
This is related to other question about Diploma mills, but my question is about real prestigious universities, real enrolment but no award.
This question does not relate to degrees pending imminent conferral, but to incomplete degrees, falsely advertised as completed.

It is fraud in some places and in some fields, depending on local law. Denouncing it comes with potential traps, also depending on local law.

This is clearly fraudulent claim. In Germany, I suspect that it is falling under criminal code. Lawyer required. I am not sure how severe this is in other countries.

If the businessperson is sufficiently well-known, many newspapers would be very interested in the story. Contact a credible journalist and present your evidence to them, I’m sure they will do the rest.

Just a thought. If the evidence turned out to not be so unequivocal as originally thought, then any public statements in this regard could be quite dubious. If this is a big deal, it could be worth consulting with a lawyer before taking any steps. And a lawyer with a relevant specialty. Paying for 2 or 3 hours of a lawyer's time could be well worth the trouble it could save you. And in particular, paying so that you get client-lawyer confidentiality.

Companies or those who have good reason can ask the awarding university to confirm the award...

Thanks for all comments and answers. I will not accept answers yet, to get a chance to receive information specific to the UK and/or applicable to the whole EU. I feel that one should have an ethical obligation to denounce such actions, and appreciate the strategic concern of this backfiring in case evidence is considered  insufficient. I find interesting the idea of delegating the responsibility to journalists, but newsworthiness and social imperatives do not necessarily align. Any idea on why the downvotes?

Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
In Germany, using a Dr. title without having earned it is illegal, and it is punished with imprisonment up to one year or with a monetary fine (this is a link to the relevant law in German).
The mechanism available to denounce this is to report the offending person to the police. Before doing this, I would suggest talking to a lawyer, as there might be consequences if the accusation turns out to be false. If the offending person is working as a medical doctor or some other regulated profession, the corresponding regulating association (for example, in the case of doctors, Bundesärztekammer or Medical Association of Germany) or other fair competition associations might sue the offender on the grounds of unfair competition (this has happened already several times).
The ethical thing to do depends on your particular sense of ethics. What you will do depends on what motivation you have to do it. The other person could sue you for false accusations, and going on a legal fight as a private person is very expensive, so there must be a good motivation. If the offender has been selected over you for some position and you feel that this is due to the fraudulent use of the title, you might as well just inform that particular employer of the situation. Going public is not recommended unless you have talked to a lawyer, as you could land in legal trouble if you make public accusations that turn out to be false.

You got the right law, but the rest of this answer is incorrect. Misuse of titles is an "Offizialdelikt", which the state has to investigate and prosecute on its own. So notifying the police would be enough. It's just that in most cases monetary damages are involved as well, for which one should get a lawyer, but that is a separate thing.

There's also the possibility that the person making the claim is doing so without the backing of their bosses. For example, if the CEO of a company is making such a claim, notifying the board is a less risky avenue than suing the CEO yourself. The board should have an interest in the reputation of the company and shouldn't be so happy about the CEO representing themselves with fraudulent claims.

@mlk you are right, my bad. I updated my answer. It would be nice to have some data about how seriously the police pursues this kind of reports if there is no evident damage involved, but I could not find any. Most news articles involve either suing or people forging diplomas.

In many countries (Germany being a well known example, and I know this is the case in the Netherlands as well) the use of the "Dr." title is protected by law. Using the title without having obtained the appropriate degree is an offense it these jurisdictions and can be prosecuted.  In other jurisdictions it can be less spelled out, but generally it would still constitute some sort of fraud (the way of handling it legally will differ though).
A relatively low key (and therefore safe) first step to take if you learn that someone is claim a PhD title they do not have, is to contact the university that supposedly conferred the degree, and inform them that you think someone is wrongfully claim to have a degree from them. It is very much in the university's interest to protect their reputation from fraudulent claims, and take appropriate legal action.


text:
Do the authors have to cite or make comparisons against works on domains such as arXiv?
I'm reviewing a conference manuscript (computer science) and i found 2 other recent methods related to the same problem which were published on arXiv.
So, i think it is highly recommended to compare their method to those ones. The arXiv papers also claimed to beat the state-of-the-art, but on different datasets, so one cannot compare them based on the reported numerical results.
So, should/could i say that it is a weak point that the authors have not included/used those recent relevant works in their introduction or evaluation basis?
Or they do not have such an obligation as those papers have not been yet published in any proceedings?

You don't need to cite things you don't know about of course. The question really is whether you should know about them. This varies by field as noted by the answer here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/115771/75368

Since notification tools (e.g., Google Scholar) can alert researchers to new results, they should know

As a stylistic note, it’s actually arXiv

@Buffy, "You don't need to cite things you don't know about of course." In general, I politely disagree. Publishing authors are responsible to become aware of what is currently published in their field. Looking at it another way, I would not consider, "I didn't know that article was published" to be an acceptable excuse for not citing relevant work. That said, my point doesn't necessarily apply to grey literature like arXiv: so, I certainly agree with you that whether or not someone is expected to know what is current on arXiv depends very much on their field.

@mikea, it would depend on the contents of the articles. If something newly appears on arXiv that convincingly contradicts the authors' findings, as a peer-reviewer I would at least clearly express my reservations to the authors and to the editor. Peer-review should respect scholarly accuracy more than a sense of that authors have a right to publish something just because they said it before anyone had time to contradict it. Or perhaps I misunderstand your implication?

I think this question is ultimately about standards within particular fields and societies. In math, where arxiv has been central for decades, it would be odd to overlook highly related examples, and using your language it's reasonable to assume authors would be obligated to check. In psychology, where I work, preprint repositories are still fairly unusual, and authors are not expected to review these sources.

in math, where arxiv has been central for decades — ...or in theoretical computer science, where everyone uses Google to find references already.  (See also: ECCC, technical reports, manuscripts on personal web pages)

If you know about these results, then you should definitely mention them in your review. Since you are the sub-reviewer you can simply notify the PC members about this, and they will (or should) know how to treat ArXiV publications.
Usually, I think they will not consider it a detraction of the result. Also, they will need to assess whether the results have been obtained independently of the ArXiV papers or not.

Usually, I think they will not consider it a detraction of the result. — That really depends on the age and content of the arXiv paper.  If a paper solving the same problem as the submission has been posted on arXiv for more than a few weeks before the submission deadline, the submission is likely to be (and should be) rejected..

I think few weeks is not that much. If it was like half a year maybe. I know of cases were this didn't detract the acceptance of papers; though this was for very prestigious journals, and it was claimed that the results were independently obtained, and so this case is slightly different.

Ultimately, scientific papers are supposed to further the "state of the art" in a field. For that, they need to compare with the state of the art, which includes any publication a paper's authors or readers can find -- whether it's in a peer reviewed journal or on a preprint server such as arXiv does not immediately matter.
So yes: you should definitely mention this!

On one hand, I do consider it the job of reviewers to verify that authors are aware of relevant literature and to help them become aware of relevant work that they might have missed. So, I think you should definitely mention the arXiv articles that you found.
On the other hand, I think the authors should be given the right to decide whether they want to consider non-peer-reviewed work in their study, even if they are made aware of it. After all, they have submitted their work for your peer-review because they value the peer-review system; they should not be required to consider work as relevant that has not been formally evaluated by independent, qualified scholars.
So, in short, I think you should bring these works to their attention, but leave it to their discretion whether or not to incorporate their findings.

...because they value the peer-review system — [citation needed]  It's at least as likely that they have submitted their work to the peer-review system because, to first order, only peer-reviewed publications count toward hiring and promotion decisions.

@jeffe, yes: in your example, they value the peer-review system for its role in validating their publications for the sake of their career advancement--I very much have such scenarios in mind when I talk about "value". I did not necessarily mean that they value the system intrinsically.

@Tripartio : Quite many don't value the peer-review system particularly highly. It's more they need the peer-reviewed articles as it boosts their chances to be hired to spots they want in the future. Like a necessary evil.

Many researchers could be much more productive if they did not have to spend such large amounts of time and energy banging their head against the peer-review wall.


text:
How to write an open research section in a systematic review paper?
I was writing the open research section for my systematic literature review, where I identified various research areas from multiple research papers. However, my supervisor said my open research section was not adequate, as it should include open research areas based on my own experience or knowledge. I am quite confused. Can anyone please suggest how to write the open research section in a systematic review paper?

What you call an "open research section" is usually called "future research" or a "research agenda". I don't know what exactly your advisor told you or why, but I can affirm that such sections include both a collection of open questions gathered from the literature that are still unanswered as well as new questions that you propose "based on [your] own experience or knowledge". Both are valid. However, if you are an undergraduate (as suggested by the "research-undergraduate" tag of your question), I would not expect you to have so much to offer "based on [your] own experience or knowledge", so I am surprised that your supervisor would insist on that.
I wrote a working paper on "Developing Novel and Relevant Theoretical Contributions with Literature Reviews" that includes a section on how to gather and write questions that are as yet unanswered (pp. 12-13):

Unanswered Questions: Aggregative and Contrarian Contributions
After the preceding sections that present propositions of what is accepted from the  literature (aggregative) and what is newly proposed (reconciling and contrarian), the  final important section that we recommend for a research agenda is a presentation of  open-ended questions with uncertain expectations of their answers. There are two categories of such research questions. The first consists of a recapitulation of research  questions from the literature that are still unanswered. Since these are not new  questions, their value would be only aggregative. The second consists of completely new questions that either arise from conflicts in the literature or are different from what the literature has thus considered.


text:
Is it appropriate to send out a manuscript under review to a professor?
I have a MPhil and planning to start my PhD soon. I sumbitted a manuscript to a popular journal in the field. After two rounds of major revisions, the editor is requesting a minor revision now. I finished the revision and submitted. The revised manuscript is now "with editor".
At the same time, i am emailing an oversea Professor who is one of the big names in the field. I am trying to invite her to be my co-author of my second manuscript. She agreed to read. And she asked me to send her the one with editor. Is it appropriate to send her the manuscript which is "with editor"? She mentioned that one of her PhD students may want to read my manuscripts too.
In fact, i would like to collaborate with this professor and ask her to be my oversea PhD advisor. I am happy that she wants to read my works. But i am not sure if this is an appropriate action to send out a manuscript under review.
Thanks in advance.

It's not only appropriate, but something you should do with all your papers, in my opinion (with the agreement of your coauthors, of course).

You still hold all rights to your work, so yes, it is fine to send it.
I'm assuming that you don't have concerns that your work will be stolen if you show it to someone else.
Even if you sign away your copyright to the paper, no one is ever likely to object to informal sharing with colleagues.

+1 - although it's worth mentioning that the situation is more complicated if the OP isn't the sole author. In such a case one should of course get permission from the other author(s) first. (Also, I'd recommend that the OP state the status of the article when they send it, but that's just a suggestion.)

@NoahSchweber, yes, the "you" can be plural.

As long as it is made clear that it is not yet accepted for publication.  In lots of disciplines there is a thriving sharing of unpublished articles, often called "preprints" even in cases where the articles don't ever get published. Heh. In some cases, the preprint archive has similar reputation to some journals.

Is it appropriate to send her the manuscript which is "with editor"?

Yes, sharing manuscripts is a great way to collaborate and see the quality of the work you have done.
Just make sure you know more about her PhD student and what collaboration is possible with the PhD student as well. Sometimes the collaboration is with the PhD student who has more time to work with you compared to the professor. Being too focused on a professorial level supervision may result in you missing out on great collaboration and supervision opportunity. A PhD student may be more up-to-date and have more time to spend with you to develop your PhD.
It is worthwhile to look at the rules and regulation around external/overseas advisors at your institution before you consider it too deeply. How much time and paperwork is involved? What are the expectations? etc. Is worthwhile to contact the university that the professor is at to see how easy it is to do external supervision with her institution. Some places require external supervisors to do courses before they can do the supervision which is a lot of hassle and painful administrative timewasting.
Either way, it sounds like you at least have an external thesis examiner...

Yes, of course should you share your manuscript with all trusted and interested parties. In order to avoid the danger that your ideas are stolen, you may consider to publish the manuscript online. In several areas, some authors publish their submitted manuscripts online on, say, the arXiv (for math and physics), which most journals are happy with since it increases the citations and hence their impact.
This has the advantage that the your authorship of the ideas in the manuscript is clearly claimed: nobody can steal them and claim originality (not even the reviewers and editors – and since you're asking, yes that does happen) and sharing the manuscript is not necessary. The disadvantage is perhaps that you cannot completely withdraw a faulty version published in this way (there are several arXiv papers that failed to ever get accepted for publication with a journal).


text:
In Harvard style, must the year be in parentheses?
Almost all Harvard referencing resources seem to teach that the reference in the list or bibliography should be:

Name, I. (2020). Title in italics. Place: Publisher.

However, Microsoft Word formats it without the parentheseson the year, and uses a comma:

Name, I., 2020. Title in italics. Place: Publisher.

This discrepancy is seen on other citation builders, too. Citethisforme's 'Ultimate Guide' uses the parentheses, but actually building a reference using the builder tool on that same website omits the parentheses. E.g. a completed citation using Citethisforme's citation builder.
My institution requires the parentheses, but changing this behaviour in Microsoft Word means editing the Harvard style.xsl file's formatting for each and every type of reference, which would be very laborious.
Might it still be correct to format it without the parentheses? Is without the brackets more common, and this is why Microsoft Word has chosen this format?

"My institution requires the brackets..."  Well, then, that's the answer to your question.

How many types of reference are you actually using? I assume that you just need to edit those types in the .xsl file, and I can't imagine there are that many of them.

As far as I know, the term Harvard referencing is usually a synonym for the author–date parenthetical referencing in general, similar to how Vancouver refer to numerical style of reference. I am not aware of an authoritative manual for Harvard style that is analogous to Chicago or APA. It is possible that different organisations use the term Harvard for their own author–date styles.
Different author–date styles differs on how citations and the reference list are formatted. For example, according to the Chicago Manual of Style, the reference entry for a book look like this:

Lastname, Firstname, and Lastname, Firstname. 2020. Title of book. Place: Publisher.

while in the 7th edition of APA it looks like this:

Lastname, I., & Lastname, I. (2020). Title of the book. Publisher.

These two are perhaps the better known author–date styles, but there are many different variations used by different publications or organisations. The Zotero Style Repository currently lists over 4,000 different author–date styles. (Maybe your institution style is already listed there.)
If you are required to precisely follow your university style, then the only "correct" format is what the style prescribes. (For a university coursework, many instructors might be satisfied with a close approximation. You might want to check whether the (possibly 6th edition) APA format suffices for your need; it should be included in any reference generation tools.)


text:
Bibliography in master thesis
I got for a review one Master thesis in the field of computer science. The student mostly uses internet blogs and some lecture slides found on Internet as a source of information. This is a bit of surprise for me because in natural sciences we do not trust such sources. Typically one needs to cite a paper or a book. But I am not sure about computer sciences: what is the standard in this field?
Edit in response to a question:
In order to explain R² in Statistics the student uses this blog.
In my opinion this is a rather standard stuff and some good book should be cited instead. Moreover, this suggests that the student avoids reading books.

It depends on more than the field. For some things it might be entirely appropriate, for others not. Say more.

@Buffy see my edit.

The correlation coefficient might not need a reference at all in a master's thesis. What are some of the other blogs referred to, and for what ideas?

@EthanBolker A lot of similar stuff. For instance https://thecleverprogrammer.com/2021/06/25/explained-variance-in-machine-learning/ or https://www.baeldung.com/cs/svm-multiclass-classification or https://towardsdatascience.com/what-are-rmse-and-mae-e405ce230383

I would expect a masters thesis to reasonably thoroughly cite relevant scholarly literature.  It should provide evidence the author is familiar with important scholarly sources and can relate them to the thesis.
It is perfectly fine to cite nonscholarly sources, including blogs and online lecture slides, in addition to scholarly sources.
I do not believe there is a discipline where a written masters thesis is required and citations of scholarly sources are not expected.

Just to understand you better, you say that scholarly sources are necessary, but "grey" literature can be cited in addition, right?

I think the blogs you link to in the comment are likely to be reliable, and easier to learn from than from a textbook.
Whether the level of exposition in the thesis and this kind of research are acceptable in a Master's thesis depends a lot on the context. You should ask the person who asked you to undertake the review.


text:
Using Titles in Germany?
I was wondering what is the correct use of titles in Germany as I am so confused by it all.
My English title is: Mr X HNCert, CertHe, FdSc, AMRSB, Mem.R.E.S, FIScT, FSABM.
Would my German Title be: Herr Bakk. rer. nat. mult. X HNCert, CertHe, FdSc, AMRSB, Mem.R.E.S, FIScT, FSAMB
I am going to work for six months in Germany and was wondering of the correct way to do things. S

Why do you want to translate all of these? What is the context?

I am going to work for six months in Darmstadt, I am a Biochemist/Microbiologist with a specialism in Mycology

@user73451 This is not what Thomas asked, I believe. It is irrelevant what your title is where you live or the translation of that title. Why is it so important? Does it make any difference if you just go with Mr X?

@padawan I know from experience that titles matter in Germany. No it does not make a difference to me.

Seems like you might need someone who recognizes those titles to translate 'em.  What do they stand for?

@Nat HNCert is a Higher National Certificate in Applied Biology, CertHe is a Certificate in Higher Education in Biochemistry, FdSc is a Foundation Degree in Science specializing in Applied Microbiology and the other letters are memberships of different organisations/societies

And you really take two minutes to introduce yourself in your language and assume everyone to know all these terms? I don't see no "Prof" and no "Dr" in there, so you are Mr. X in Germany. :)

"titles matter in Germany" ... not from my experience.

Actually, these are not titles.
The only academic titles that are used in Germany in writing or conversation are Dr. (also Dr.-Ing.) and Prof. (sometimes MSc and more rarely BSc and also there has been Dipl. which, of course, is still in use).
No one would ever use certificates or memberships in their name. This would look extremely strange in Germany. Also, one usually does not introduce yourself as "Dr. X" or "Prof. X" (you may want to use these on letters or emails signatures, though).

I've also seen Dipl.-Ing. / DI (Diplom-Ingenieur) used, in writing at least. I think a useful rule of thumb might be "if it takes less than five years to earn, nobody cares" :).

Right, these are postnomials


text:
Should I wait to quit with MSc or quit right away
My situation is as follows. I started a PhD 5 months ago in a reputable university. However, I am not happy with my lab and supervisor and do not want to spend 4 or more years here. I shared my thoughts with my supervisor and he told me it is better to stay one or more years and finish with a MSc than quitting now, and if I like it then I can just stay and complete my PhD.
I already have a MSc but from much smaller university unlike my current one, what is the best action to take now?
Is staying and having two MSc a good option, or quitting now would look better on my CV as I did not spend too much time in the program and start looking for other opportunities?
If it matters, the reasons I am not willing to stay are:

The current projects in the lab do not interest me and I do not want to be working alone, specially my supervisor told be it is better to work in the same line or else he would not have much time.
My supervisor has joined this field recently and does not provide useful feedback with no post-doc or other seniors to help. Much of what I will do would be completely on my own.
After working for one semester, the research we are doing in the lab in far from the state-of-the-art and mainly focuses on getting papers accepted in a coming conference, (Is this reasonable motivation to quit? I prefer to be working with people more involved in the field.)

Are your MSc and the PhD program in the same field?

Close but not exact. My MSc is in Software Engineering and PhD is in Computer Science.

At a minimum, you should check with your graduate program director whether a second MSc is even possible.  My university would not grant a MS in computer science to someone who has an MSc in software engineering.

Look for other opportunities whilst still continuing with your PhD. Hopefully you find something by the end of your masters year and you can part ways then.
If you can go to an employer and say you're in the middle of a PhD but have realised it isn't the path you wish to follow and are looking for other employment it looks better than dropping out and then looking for work.
Also, not that I'm trying to change your mind but, I don't know a single person doing a PhD who hasn't doubted it was the right thing for them at some point. Make sure quitting isn't something you would regret later in life and think about the reasons you chose to apply for a PhD in the first place.

I agree with you. I do not want to quit PhD for good, but if I am not doing it in the right place then it is not a good investment of time and effort.
I would still like to do my PhD in a more specialized lab. I figured the university is not a big factor, the supervisor and the lab you work at is more important.

Here are some possible courses of action:

Continue, status quo, as your advisor suggested, and see how things develop
Continue, but negotiate certain changes
Withdraw from the program as soon as the current semester is over (which I suppose will be in a week or two)
Withdraw from the program in a semester or two, depending on what you want to do next
Switch advisors
Inform your advisor you would like to concentrate on coursework next semester and take a break from the research project for the time being
Request, from your department, a leave of absence for personal reasons (which you need not explain)

If you decide to leave, plan your exit strategy in the context of a particular goal.


text:
Paper Withdrawal before Publication - Can I send the paper elsewhere
I submitted a paper for publication in a journal indexed by Scopus. Before acceptance, I sent an e-mail requesting withdrawal of the paper because the review process took longer than expected. I did not receive any reply. Later, I received an acceptance notice with two major problems.

They requested publication fees much higher than the advertised one.
They did not provide any reviewer comments.

For those reasons, I insisted on withdrawing the paper. I neither paid any fees nor signed the copyright transfer form. I sent a second e-mail stating that I would like to withdraw the paper because of those reasons, but again received no reply. Finally, I sent an e-mail with a notice that I assume the paper is withdrawn.
Can I go ahead and send the paper somewhere else?

As far as I'm aware as long as you didn't sign the copyright transfer you're under no obligation.

@LioElbammalf No legal obligation, that is. However, they did not provide any reviews, so probably even OP's academic obligations to this journal are pretty limited. I probably would write an unambiguously worded letter in which you make clear that you are withdrawing the paper (not just asking to withdraw) in view of the non-existing review, and the misleadingly advertised fees and that you do not transfer your copyright to them in view of this. It's all not very nice, but predatory publication channels aren't very nice either.

@CaptainEmacs thank for your prompt rely. Most probably, I will not receive a rely. So is it enough that I make it clear that the paper is withdrawn and that I will send it somewhere else and then go ahead and submit it to another journal? I do not want to be accused of double submission

@LioElbammalf Thank you but my concern is when can I go ahead and submit the paper somewhere else

I do not know how to prevent being accused of a double submission in case they just proceed to publish it. You probably do not intend to fight a copyright case with them. There is indeed a danger that you may have "burnt" the paper; only you know whether it is worth taking the risk with another journal. What you might say upfront on submission to the editor is that: "Disclaimer: I withdrew the paper from another submission due to their unprofessional handling thereof and I am in full possession of the copyright. I hope you are able to give the paper full and proper consideration."

Why would they publish it if the asked money is not being paid?

@Coder Perhaps for retaliation, to prevent the author from taking it elsewhere? We are talking about a suspected predatory journal.

thank you so much at last I got confirmation from the first journal that the paper has been withdrawn

As long as you can prove that you withdrew your paper, you can submit to another journal. The possibly delicate point is with the proof.
I would think that in case the first submission comes up, any sensible editor would take a copy (with all headings) of the emails you sent to withdraw as a decent enough proof. Moreover, what you describe points to the first journal being predatory, which might be easy to decide for the second journal editor depending on how obviously predatory it looks. Then the first journal would not have much credit, even if they would go as far as forge emails.
If you want to be completely safe, you can mention in the cover letter that you submitted your paper to another journal quite some time ago, and then decided to withdraw it (precise that you mentions this because the first journal never answered you emails). It would make your case bullet-proof in case the first submission ever comes out. This might not reflect too well on your submission however (it might prompt the reason why you withdrew, or it might make the editor fear you could withdraw again while he or she bothered to get a report), but I would not think it would have a significant impact.
Last, it seems you might have submitted to a predatory journal, and that would mean you should have been more cautious. If you don't know a journal, don't publish there without getting an opinion by someone well established knowing the journal.

thank you so much at last I got confirmation from the first journal that the paper has been withdrawn

You just need to communicate this matter with the editor before publishing. The editor has confirmed withdrawing your manuscript. You can submit it to other journals.


text:
How to be a good reviewer when suspecting dubious results or being sent contributions outside my field of expertise?
Recently I have been appointed as a reviewer for an IEEE journal in CS. This journal is indexed on Scimago and its ranking is a Q3 journal.
I know that one cannot know all the topics covered in the diverse areas of CS, but as a reviewer, I have been assigned some papers that do not specifically belong to my field of expertise. Even though the journal appears to check the familiarity of the reviewer with the topic before reviewing it, I just feel it is not close enough.
Apart of that sometimes I get some papers in which the practical part or the methodological part is jumped quickly, and for me, it lacks consistency and is rather descriptive; I know the limitations of space, but I believe some authors should put more effort on that section.
Also, how can I know that the results that they present are for real? I have read many cases in which some authors fake their own results or push them to show nice results when in reality is not like that.
What to do in the aforementioned situations?

What is the name of the Journal? What are your fields?

I get some papers in which the practical part or the methodological part is jumped quickly, and for me, it lacks more consistency and to be more descriptive -- Then say exactly that in your review!

Your title says "dubious results" which is a strong statement.  Your question doesn't read that strong -- it sounded like you were doubtful only because you've heard of cases of authors faking their results.  Can you clarify?

This question appears to contain at least two very distinct questions. It may be better to ask them separately. As for "Also, how can I know that the results that they present are for real?": You cannot (in general). Apply some plausibility tests, check the calculations and then, if still in doubt, tell the editor about your gut feelings. He has to decide.

In any field, once you start reviewing, you're going to see a lot of problematic submissions, because there are a lot of people out there who submit really bad manuscripts. In some cases, the authors are unaware of their problems, while in others they're trying to slip a minimal paper past peer review because they aren't really interested in the science---they just need the publication to graduate or get promoted.
Your job as a reviewer is to make sure that what gets published is credible.  That means that if you don't understand something or don't feel that the evidence presented supports their conclusions, you have a duty to report that as a problem with the manuscript. Depending on the severity of the problem, you might recommend either revision or rejection---and the handling editor will make the actual decision.
You shouldn't, however, demand that authors to do new work just because you think it would be interesting. You also shouldn't expect to know every tiny detail of their methodology.  So, where to draw the line?  Here is how I think about it:

The authors need to provide enough methodological detail that no significant implementation decisions are missing.
The conclusions need to be well-supported by the evidence presented.
The overall thrust of the paper should be interesting to a typical reader of the journal (this one varies highly by journal).

None of this will allow you to detect clever fraud, but not-so-clever faking often leaves a clear trace (data that looks too nice), and cherrypicking of data is usually detectable because the authors present data from very few samples or trials.

Also, keep in mind. It is not your job as a reviewer to know for sure that their results are correct. If they print fraudulent/cherrypicked data, it will be dealt with when the next researcher tries to duplicate their results, or tries to build on their incredible new method and finds that it does not work as claimed. There will be some author who will write a counter-paper (if it is worth the time to debunk). All of this will reflect on that author lying, none will reflect on you for letting in a paper where you would not have been able to disprove the results without thorough testing.

@dan1111 - If no one ever builds on the method, it's probably not doing any harm either. In an ideal world, everyone would just be open and honest with their findings. Obviously, if you have some reasonable way to check some figure or method, you should give it a shot. But you shouldn't feel you are personally responsible for the contents of a paper just because you reviewed it.

If you feel unable to referee a paper (due to any circumstance), refer it back to the editor, possibly with a list of colleagues which you suggest.

This is good advice.  In fact, most journals that ask me to review papers include this in their letter to me.

Also, how can I know that the results that they present are for real,
  I have read many cases in which some authors fake their own results or
  push them to show nice results when in reality is not like that.

Unfortunately, that's not uncommon. However, we can't assume fraud. Doubt is not enough, if you can know for sure that the results are fabricated, then put that in the review. Otherwise, it is up to those who replicate later to find out if the results are not reliable.

I get some papers in which the practical part or the methodological
  part is jumped quickly, and for me, it lacks more consistency and to
  be more descriptive;

This is more of a problem. Chances are that others reading the paper will also find the lack of consistency and coherence troublesome. Depending on how bad it is, you can either suggest a revision or reject on this basis. If it is incoherent or obfuscated then you owe it to future readers to give feedback on this.

but as a reviewer, I have been assigned some papers that do not
  specifically belong to my field of expertise, and even though it
  appears to check the familiarity of the reviewer with one topic before
  reviewing it, I just feel it is not enough.

If you are not comfortable with the subject, basic decency is to return it to the editor. I would never suggest rejection a paper that I do not fully understand, I would just return it to the editor. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

As to the last part, it might be possible to distinguish between a paper that you don't fully understand and one that is not understandable.  The former should be returned to the editor, the latter should be rejected (or major revisions demanded).

I agree, if you know the subject well and the paper is incoherent or deliberately obfuscated then it is a different thing.


text:
Do you consider it as weird if I thank the open-source community in the acknowledgement section of a paper?
In a PhD thesis I read recently, the author mentioned open-source software in the Acknowledgement section, an idea that I liked very much (I missed that opportunity in my thesis).
Now I am considering to do a similar thing in the paper I am currently writing (working everyday on a Linux system with a lot of open-source software tools). Would you consider that as weird and inappropriate?
(My field is physics.)
Update: As mentioned by @pseyfert in the comments, the LHCb experiment seems to have an acknowledgement to open source software in their templates (looking at their paper repository, they seem to use that template), it reads "We are indebted to the communities behind the multiple open-source software packages on which we depend ".

I have seen numerous papers where software has even been cited in the bibliography. Granted, I remember only science-oriented software, like scipy, but I don't see why one wouldn't be able to cite, say, the linux kernel as well. I think one ought to do so, actually; the only problem being that the number of software packages one uses in doing one's research is large, maybe prohibitively so, and it's easy to miss a piece of software used. But then again, people frequently cite hundreds of papers where necessary, so why should software be exempt?

@RQM as long as the paper is not about some research about the software itself, I would rather prefer to not cite some software, because in the end the physics results should be totally independent on the software used for data analysis for example. This is why I would like to say Thank you instead to the general open-source community (and maybe do so for all my future papers).

But often, the results are not truly independent from the software used. First, there are various ways in which you may implement, say, performing non-analytic derivates on data in analysis software, which have different numerical properties, and second, software has bugs, which might alter the results. Stating which software and which version one used makes research more reproducible. (Of couse, this applies to scipy more than to notepad.)

It's weird if you spell it without a "w".   ;-)

@DavidKetcheson haha, well spotted, just noticed^^ (fixed now)

Have a look at this question. Maybe it is applicable to cite the software or even papers regarding the modules/methods you used:  https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/89238/do-i-need-to-cite-mathematica-in-my-paper/89241

since you specified physics: one of the cern experiments has an acknowledgement to open source in the template acknowledgements http://lhcbproject.web.cern.ch/lhcbproject/Publications/LHCbProjectPublic/Summary_all.html so there are literally hundreds of papers which already do that.

I also mentioned technical forums and Q&A sites (about GAMS, C++, the GNU Scientific Library, LaTeX, Maths, Statistics..., in my case) in the acknowledgement section of my PhD memoir.
I do not really think that doing the same in the acknowledgement section of a paper is inappropriate. As long as it is expressed in the same terms as other acknowledgements, I actually think it is a good and revolutionary idea.
Of course, all the coauthors of the paper should agree in including that kind of acknowledgement, just as it would/should be regarding other acknowledgements.

UPDATE
To expand and complete my answer, I should say that, in my humble opinion,

the 'Acknowledgements' section of a paper is not usually mandatory;
in case there is one, it should be kept not too long;
you can mention anyone or any 'entity' you are thankful to;
if there are too many people or 'entities' to mention, try to select the most relevant ones;
you may consider to keep some place for sort of formulaic or routine acknowledgements such as thanking anonymous reviewers, etc.

But, of course, there should definitely be a place for the 'real' acknowledgements. If you are really thankful for the help from online communities, or you just want to highlight it, I think there is no problem. For me, it makes no difference with other 'personal' acknowledgements, such as thanking some concrete colleagues for reviewing a draft of your paper, for instance.

[...] technical forums and Q&A sites [...] now that's another great idea, and, of course, you are completely right on the co-authors' agreements!

Indeed, the idea of acknowledging 'the open-source community' or something similar sounds nice to me.

Nice update with a few good points (also, I do not thank the referees by default).

People have thanked thrash metal bands, porn actors, and transportation authorities in their acknowledgments; some have written "unacknowledgements".
There is much more leeway for personal quirks in this section than in any other part of your publication, and it's the least likely to be read.
Thanking someone who actually facilitated your work is not at all weird. It's in fact very appropriate, even if that someone is a collective entity.

I even saw someone thank the football world cup for providing some peace in his office during the writing.


text:
Is there a negative stigma associated with choosing a university for non-academic reasons?
I am considering a master's degree in Japan.
From a purely career oriented POV, I should be aiming for universities in the USA, Germany or Italy as these are the leading countries in my field. However, I have a great passion for Japanese culture and language. I have considered applying for the JET program, but I wish to avoid a 1-2 gap in my resume.
Would going for a Japanese university (instead of a stronger one) for personal reasons be seen as a bad thing? If so, would it leave a lasting mark and impede on my future career?

Studying in Japan is such a relative novelty (for Westerners) that you can spin it positively in many ways.

"...impede on my future career" Is your plan to have a career in academia, or government, or industry? I doubt it makes a big difference, but then, I know very little about academia, so... (Speaking as a very small representative of industry: I'd have nothing but a positive reaction.)

1-2 years spent working abroad for the JET program is usually considered a resume entry, not a gap, and will be looked on positively by many people. Talk to people running the kinds of programs you're considering to find out how they would view it.

@Karen, You're right, I shouldn't see it as a gap. However, I'd still rather avoid being out of engineering for 1-2 years... I'll finish my undergraduate degree at 24, possibly masters at 26. If I decide to do a PhD, I'd rather not finish it really late.

Wait... since when is Italy one of the top countries for robotics??? (at least I infer from you saying "my field" and defining your field as robotics in your about page) I ask because I'm Italian but, if this is true, is something I'd never have guessed... probably harvesting all these kiwis requires some advanced agricultural robots....

@Bakuriu, you'll have to take my advisor's word for that statement. I heard it from him.

@Bakuriu Probably you've been a bit distracted and should pay a bit more attention to the industrial world.

@William that was my impression as well but i guess its not the case.

There are a lot of different areas of robotic research and universities in Japan, US, and Italy (the University of Rome is known) - all are considered top level but each have a different focus. So like many other graduate positions, I would look more at the advisers at the universities and how well known they are in your specific area of research (more than Japan is better, US is better, no Italy, no UK, no.....)

Assuming there is a negative stigma, why would you ever need to tell anyone why you picked the university you attended? Having a great passion for Japan and Japanese should be enough for anyone assuming you do an awesome project which you can and should do no matter where you go to school. This is especially true if you're likely to want to stay in Japan after your schooling to be an academic there, and it's a great reason to go to a Japanese university if you'd like to make a life there due to your passion.

Or even find out whether you want to make a life there.

As someone on the ground in Japan, I would say that there's more to consider than just the supposed quality of the university if you choose to do a graduate degree in Japan.
First, there's the school year. With the exception of ICU and the University of Tokyo, the school year here starts in April -- meaning if you finish a degree elsewhere in May, you will have an 11 month gap. (the same time gap will hit you on the return but less so. Since programs finish in March, it would not be impossible to start up somewhere else the next fall.)
Second, the gap in quality between institutions in Japan and elsewhere may be larger (or possibly smaller I guess) than people realize. The language barrier in many fields means that it may be hard to grasp the lay of the land within Japan, so the institution you go to here maybe much worse in quality than you thought. On the flip side, when people think about how good your program was, they will have the same information gap. (So they may think "oh, I've heard of X university and professor Q from there, it must be decent).
Even in programs and areas that publish in English or ostensibly hold courses in English, the opacity may still remain.
Based on the second reason, I would say merely doing a degree in Japan leaves no negative mark on your CV. I don't think it's ever hurt to be able to say I got 1.5 years of funding to go study in Japan at a decently ranked university there.
BUT because of the above opacity, it may be hard to tell how good the program you come to really is. If it is poor, then the quality of instruction may genuinely hurt your ability to do further research, i.e. you may not receive the same quality of mentoring and thus not be as prepared for Western-style independent research.
At least in my case, it didn't particularly help much of my research being in Japan, and I didn't learn any new techniques. (But I'm in philosophy where this opacity barrier is huge and I had already started writing my PhD thesis before I came).

If you are considering an MA/MS/PhD or study in Japan, rather than the JET Programme, you should focus on the MEXT Research Scholarship.

Thanks for the answer. As for the MEXT program, I already knew about it, but I don't feel that it's comparable to the JET, they don't have the same goals.

I'm slightly confused by your comment. The top of your question says I am considering a master's degree in Japan.. JET won't get you a master's degree. In fact, you can't get one while on JET due to visa requirements, lack of control over placement location (how does one take an MA while living nowhere near a university?), and the fact Japan doesn't have evening MAs.

Thats what I meant. I will most likely apply for MEXT for a masters degree. I was considering JET as a separate thing entirely from any degree.


text:
If no funding is available at the time of admission, what are the chances of getting funding later, and when would I find out?
I applied to graduate school (masters programs) for an engineering major. It is not the most common type of engineering like electrical (my undergrad field) or mechanical. I applied to about 9 schools and heard from the 4th one today (accepted in all 4 so far). Three of these four are top 10 program (in the specific major) in US. Two of the four are top 15 graduate engineering schools in US according to published rankings.
The caveat is that all four of them have said that no funding/financial aid is available at this moment. If aid becomes available at a later date, we will notify you as soon as possible. Schools I applied to stated, if you apply before certain date you will be considered for funding and I did apply before this date. I read the post on this here and here.
What I interpreted from these two posts is that if they really like you they will offer you funding or sometimes it is offered after you accept to attend the program (does this hold any merit?). I am just slightly disappointed. It is just surprising to me that none of the school offered any funding. One of the school's professor contacted me first, after looking at my application, which I looked at as a plus (and I didn't feel like I messed up our conversation). Another school had a application deadline in January and I got positive news from them at the end of January which is unusually early (this was the most competitive university I applied to).
My question is, if they offered no funding in acceptance letter does this usually hold true or should I even consider that it might change and I might get some funding? Usually how much percent of tuition is covered with funding? Is it true that you get funding as you accept the offer?

I would not be a international student. I could be out of state, but not international. In US.

Are you applying for MS or PhD?

I applied for masters

In engineering in the US, funding is standard for PhD offers but definitely not standard for masters offers.

I think whether for masters or PhD if they do not have funding at time of admission, then you should assume they will never have funding.  How are you going to pay for the degree (assuming no funding)? If you can not, then I could recommend that you pass on this opportunity.  Funding should cover 100% of tuition and fees as well as provide some living allowance.

@emory I have some money saved up from working, and probably loans. But i dont want to cover more than about 20% of my tuition in loans.

Were you eventually able to secure funding after acceptance to the phd program? I was asking because I am in a similar situation. I recently got an acceptance to the phd program, but without funding. Thanks!

Yes it is possible, but more likely during the PhD level (it happened to three friends of mine). So basically they got the acceptance letter, they might even gave an initial fee (e.g., for first 3 months); and then, the supervisor worked out how to apply for a funding from the university or put them in a funded project.

What I saw was that becoming a TA is more likely than funding. Especially at the end of a year when they try to sign up TAs for the next year.   You get a part time job with just enough to survive on while living near school and finishing your degree.
The other more common situation was people working in EE and going to school for one or two classes that their employer paid for.  The income is a lot more but you do a lot more work hours too.

In most US grad schools, funding is provided only for PhD candidates. But I have heard that few universities have waived tuition fees either 100% or partly from 2nd semester if you top the exams. Apart from that if you need monthly stipend, either you need to apply to a proper international graduate scholarships or TOEFL graduate scholarships. You can find details on appropriate scholarship suitable for you in US News website.
Good luck.

One of my friends who studied masters at Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta was waived from tuition fees from semester 2 as she ranked top in final exams. I'm not sure about other universities.

I earned a funded terminal Masters degree.  I thought it was common.  Though funded PhDs are more common.

See update, not an international student

It's really, really hard to say with any certainty, or even give a vague statistic. Some people - and we've had some posts here to this effect - entered a program with the hope of getting funding later, and just never got it (at both the Master and Phd level, sadly). This is very US-centric, by the way.
Meanwhile, some people do enter with no funding and receive funding in the second semester or even the second year. From everyone I've talked with about this, everyone said they had no idea for sure until they actually got the funding - and often the funding is only semester to semester with no promised/guaranteed renewal.
Ultimately I do not advise you to start a degree that does not offer funding if you cannot, at least in principle, finish it entirely self-funded. If it's a PhD in STEM, I generally suggest you don't take it at all if they want you to pay for the privilege of attending. Too many people go through a year+ of a program hoping something will become available, and ultimately have to drop out or switch to another program because the funding just doesn't come in. If the program doesn't guarantee you anything, that's just it - there is no guarantee. I'm also not aware of any statistics that are kept on such a situation, and doubt they'd be useful anyway. You just don't know, at all - some people get funding, some don't.
With all that said, you should generally know that at the masters level funding generally is available at the University, Department, and Professor level - and University/Department stuff is commonly quite limited. Each department is different in how they run their budgets, but most people I've known who went to a masters and arranged funding did so by working with professors in their first semester, often working in some research unpaid for the semester or at least working closely with the professor, in an attempt to convince the professor to hire them officially as a research assistant and fund them the following semester. This can work, but you should be relatively open about your interest and intention so that there is actually the possibility of being actually funded if you get along well together. It seems to work best with professors who have available funding and aren't maxed out on PhD students, so they are willing to spend some funds on anyone with the right skills and match to the research they have going.
Again, I must emphasize that such financial uncertainty only makes sense if you would be willing and able to pay for your degree program and living expenses entirely out of pocket (and/or with loans) if you could not obtain funding at all. Any other method will expose you to some potentially very unpleasant situations.