text:
What is the advantage of becoming a full professor if you already have tenure as an associate professor?
What is the advantage of becoming a full professor if you are already an associate professor with tenure? Why not just stay an associate professor for life? What is the key difference between an associate professor and a full professor?
Why continue to write papers if you already have tenure? Can't a tenured associate professor stop writing papers and still have a job?

It is well known that as one advances the ranks of professorship, he is not much happier than before - citation needed!

It is not clear what you are after here.  You ask for the key differences but when they are provided in the answers you counter with hypothetical conditions about people who don't care about money or recognition.  Do you want to know about differences based on principle motivating factors outside of the main professional motivators across all fields (i.e., money and recognition)? Or are you just asking if deadwood exists in academia? If that is it, then the answer is yes, I even know some of them personally.

For the second part of your question, see also: http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/5663/1033

If you are seeking a tenured professorship just to have an easy life, you're doing it the hard way.

For the salary difference between associate and full professor, see here: https://chronicle.com/article/aaup-survey-data-2013/138309

One advantage of being a full professor is that you don't have people asking you why you haven't yet been promoted to full professor.

I suppose another advantage is more money.

Why continue to write papers if you already have tenure? Can't a tenured associate professor not write papers and still have a job?

The general answer is simple: most of the people who would quit doing research after tenure in fact quit before tenure.  The ones who make it to tenure generally care about research and intend to continue at it for a long time.
In more detail:
Reaching an associate professor position in a research university is a long journey.  At this stage you could stop writing papers and lead a comfortable life, if you were willing to live with the disapproval of your department chair (which is not an easy thing: there are many ways they can make your life unpleasant even if they can't fire you).  However, if that's all you wanted, you could have had it with much less effort along the way.  By the time you reach tenure, you have let many opportunities to change your career go by, and you have repeatedly passed through filters intended to measure your talent and ambition.  This selection process means tenured professors at research universities generally really want to do research.  Now, sometimes people change their minds or burn out, and a few might never have intended to maintain their research programs.  However, on the whole this is a group that has been selected for research enthusiasm and ambition, so it's no surprise that on average they maintain the desire to do research.

One key difference is that full professors are paid more.

But if one doesn't really care about the money (i.e. want to have an easy life and don't want to work hard to become a full professor) then he can stay an associate professor for life?

I don't mean to imply that this is the only difference, only that it's an important one.  At any rate if your question is "Are there people who never get promoted to full professor" the answer is yes.

Another key difference is that you get to sit on more committees. Hooray!

"Why continue to write papers if you already have tenure?"
Because it is fun?
While some academics forge a rewarding career from teaching and administration, for most academics research is what provides a substantial part of their job satisfaction.  If research is not something you actively want to do, academia might not be a good career path, especially not being a senior academic.

It is fun for may be 10% of full professors. For others, it is fulfilling obligations of all sorts: to co-authors, to funding agencies, etc.

If you don't find writing papers (or doing research more generally) fun after tenure, you've lost your way.

@Suresh, unfortunately many academically gifted students get steered towards research to fulfill society (or parents)'s expectation.  They may get to tenure but then realize this is not their path.  I have many colleagues who  were once brilliant students, but have no joy writing papers.

If you want to avoid administration, don't become a full professor.

@user151413 at least in the UK there is a lot of variation in that.  I suspect in most cases if you have a sufficiently strong research profile you can avoid admin, although I suspect that is changing as promotion becomes more and more strongly tied to grant income rather than research output.  At the end of the day, we [I am an SL rather than a prof] all have to pull our weight, we don't all have to do it in the same way.

not sure what warrants a downvote in what I wrote.

Yet another reason to seek promotion to full professor is political influence.  Especially in larger/older departments and universities, administrative positions (department chair, dean, etc.) and membership in influential committees may be restricted to full professors.  (For example, in my department, only full professors may serve on the promotions and tenure committee; similar restrictions apply to college- and campus-level committees.)
This is the flip side of the service expectation that Ben Norris mentions.

Good answer!  At my university, associate professor is sufficient to join any committee.  At least in my case, the question remains open.

I am a tenured associate professor in 'hard science' at a major research institution (part of that cluster famous for the Ivy on the walls). I've been an associate professor for ~5 years.
Fairly recently, my chair asked about timetable for promotion. Said Chair fell to the floor (almost) when I replied "I could care squat about promotion to full professor". Seriously - who cares? There are two motivations I can think of for wanting promotion. (1) money, and/or (2) ego. I get paid more than enough in my current position, thank you very much, and anyone who thinks a different academic title means anything to anyone (other than their own inner ego) is delusional.
I'm an associate professor. I write 3-4 good solid papers a year (have about 60-70 so far, 2 books, and a bunch of book chapters), do my share of teaching, edit for a couple of journals, get grants when I feel like it, and supervise students if they're good and I feel like it. I shift research gears with some frequency, pursuing what interests me. I go to meetings if I feel like it, not as a career move. That, of course, is the point of tenure. I do what I want, more or less.
The university system is predicated on people striving for promotion, for 2 reasons. One, the bean counters and political types in the university administration understand that outside of academics, like government agencies, alumni groups, and other folks who might have $$$ to give to the school, title carries gravitas. A lot of universities make a big deal out of the number of 'full professors'. Second, and more to the point, they want the lure of promotion to keep you active - not at anything as trivial as 'intellectual work', but...getting grants. Pure and simple. Without overhead off major grants, universities would crash and burn - so, how do you keep everyone motivated to keep playing the grant game? Hold out the lure of the 'perks' of being a full professor.
Problem is, the system doesn't account for people who could care less about money, or title. People who publish just fine without a lot of $$$ rolling in. People like me. I'm doing what I want to do now. I loathe administrative assignments, and if doing them is a necessary step on the road to 'full' title, I'll pass.

Nicely said.. this reflects my thinking very well!  Also, full Professors have a higher set of expectations; expect to wield their gravitas to gain more benefits for the university.  In turn this puts more pressure on me and distract me from doing what I love doing... so yeap, I'll pass too!

So is not wanting to do admin or opposing the system your main driver?

In the Netherlands, you need to be a full professor before you can be the main supervisor (promotor) of a PhD student. Otherwise you can only be a co-supervisor (co-promotor), and thereby miss out on all the credit.

And by credit -- of course -- he means money.

In Austria, an associated prof. can be the advisor of a PhD student. Anyway, we (all) do not work for money because we work to come to fame. ;-)

As of 2021, this answer is outdated for several Dutch universities (where associate professors can now be promotor of PhD students).

One could say that a full professor has a more prominent position in its department, but that is somehow more trouble (e.g. you can have to be chair) than entertainment.
I would say that the real point is that becoming a full professor is a recognition of your qualities.

Kloeckner: But that is a form of external validation. Isn't what you think about yourself more important than what other people think about you?

More, but not exclusively so. If you're a researcher, you're caring about what other people think of you ALL the time (writing papers, writing grants, etc etc)

@guesjnree You don't care about possessions, you don't care about salary, you don't care about recognition from peers; it sounds like what you want to be is not a professor but a monk

Isn't what you think about yourself more important than what other people think about you? — Ha ha ha ha!  Never forget: Professors are human beings.  Like other human beings, we need external validation.

@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft: In fact, someone in my field left an associate professor position to become a nun!  So indeed if your preference is to live in a monastic society, you can do that instead of going for full professor.

never mind-- I'll just give you one.  The answer is that, for many faculty, it is not necessary to become a full professor.  There are distinct advantages to doing so, however: 1) salary.  If you remain an associate professor, salary generally will not go up any more, whereas if you become full, you will get a substantial pay increase, and will probably be eligible for future merit based pay increases.  If you remain associate, this will not happen, so salary will actually go down relative to inflation; 2) service: associate professors have a harder life than is usually imagined.  They actually get the worst, most onerous service tasks, because assistant professors are usually shielded from these, and full professors can opt out of them, and get more interesting service work.  This is especially true at research universities.  Running the graduate program is almost always an associate professor's job, and it's a ton of work.  Full professors have more freedom more salary; 3) Status and prestige, leading to other opportunities: There is a stigma attached to staying associate for too long.  It may seem petty, but one's colleagues are a little like siblings-- you are with them for life, and you see some rise up quick and others stay behind.  There is often built up resentment and jealousy, and we are all only human.  On a less petty level, there are certain prestigious, well paying fellowships and other positions that are easier to get if you are full (eg., editing a prestigious journal or being president of your discipline's scholarly organization or running a search committee and determining who your department is going to hire).  Finally, at some institutions, if you do not continue to advance, you will not be fired, but you can be demoted away from the position you have to a more teaching-based job.  You will teach more undergrad classes (and more classes overall), and may not be able to advise grad students or perhaps even teach grad classes.    Again, this varies from institution to institution.  The pressure is greater at prestigious research universities rather than liberal arts colleges

Interesting discussion.  I am a full professor at a research university.  My rank does allow me to participate in any committee.  It also enables me to be the department chair (I have) and to chair other committees.
I still write academic research papers and get research grants and contracts.  Why? First, I have spent many years establishing a reputation in my field and do not want to forsake that reputation.  Second, I want to be a positive role model for my undergraduate and graduate students as they move toward professional life.  Third, I have financial motivation to do so (my university grants me a percentage of incoming research funds).  Fourth:  the research I do is important theoretically and for people who do important tasks in the "real world."  Therefore, I feel like (hope) I'm making a difference in the world. Fifth, importantly, my graduate students need money, and my department doesn't receive enough from the upper administration.  Therefore, grants/contracts pay their way. Sixth, I learned to be a driven, Type A, OCD academic in grad school, and old habits die hard. :^)

Agreeing with the answer provided by Noah Snyder, and following from the OP's comments to it:
In addition to an increase in pay, full professors often have a different expectation for service - to the department, institution, professional, whatever. Usually, these sorts of activities are undertaken to gain promotion and/or tenure. As a full professor, there are few options for advancement, and so fewer expectations that you do things to earn yourself a promotion.
Of course, slacking off after becoming a full professor will cheat you out of that better-paying named professorship or named chair.

As a full professor, there are...fewer expectations — Um, no.  This is simply false.

Not in every department at my institution.

The difference is often also that full professors have their own group or department. Associate professors often have just a few PhDs and postdocs. So, getting full professorship is a means of really creating your own group of people, and direct them towards research that you think needs to be done. In that sense it is comparable to rising in the ranks of any ordinary company, you start as a business unit manager, and then go on to be CEO.

This is not true in the US: even lowly assistant professors can have a "group".

Yes, anyone can setup a group.  I'm the CEO of room x.y.z.

I noticed one of the responses mentioned the increase in pay. Sure, that would be nice. As one in the process of going up for tenure in business, I can tell you that research is required even after tenure is granted. It is a common misconception that you cannot be fired after you receive tenure. It does become more difficult. As long as the university needs your skills AND you are doing what you are supposed to be doing (teaching, service, AND research), then it is virtually impossible to get fired. But, to satisfy the research component, you must stay what is referred to as academically qualified. This means that you continue to do research even after tenure. In fact, you must continue to do so, even after you have become a full professor. Failure to do so results in negative evaluations by department heads which leads to lower if not stagnant pay. It leads to the implementation of plans for corrective action and if those plans are not followed can lead to dismissal from the university, EVEN IF YOU HAVE TENURE.

Do you know examples of people whose pay was lowered?  I've always heard of this as a theoretical possibility, but not known it to actually be enacted.  (I'm not even sure if I know cases where pay is truly stagnant, though I've heard of people not getting merit-based raises.)

Even ignoring inflation, every single one of us at my state school had our pay lowered, de facto, after the 2008 crash, when our health care costs rose and our salary was frozen for years. Does that count?

@Corvus It seems pretty common that cost of living goes up faster than salary increases, particularly when budgets are tight.  My health insurance has been going up faster than my raises too.  But to lower a tenured faculty's gross salary from their current contract presumably requires exceptional circumstances.  (Cases where I can imagine this: merging universities or reorganizing some departments.)

It's fairly common to have your pay drastically reduced while still remaining employed.  It may need to wait until a contract renewal.

Most universities offer a bigger increase for promotion to Full Professor. However some universities may have amounts for promotion to Associate Professor at $3,000 and Full Professor $4,000.  Do know that these amounts are below average.

Per month or per year?

What currency are you talking about?

Hi and welcome to Academia SE. Sorry, but this answer is unclear: first, are the amounts specified per month or per year? Second, the question refers to the case where one is already a tenured associate professor, and your answer is unclear in this regard.  Please, have a look at the [Tour] and at the [Help] to see how this site works.


text:
Does consistency in how my name is presented/abbreviated as author on a publication matter?
Assume I have the name: "First Middle Last". I have been publishing as "First Last."
At my current job (postdoc) my adviser prefers that I list my name on my paper as F. Last (or F.M. Last), and I'm afraid that the change in style will make it less obvious that all the papers I've written are from the same person. Is this an issue that matters? If so, does it matter enough to insist on using "First Last" in spite of all other names being abbreviated on any papers?
P.S. If this is a community dependent question, I'm a physicist in the AMO physics and optics communities (e.g. APS and OSA).  I'm asking about how my name appears in the list of authors on the paper I wrote (not about how citations are formatted).

A more common issue that I've seen is whether or not to provide your middle initial. I'd be interested in the related question of whether providing a middle initial on some publications and not others causes many problems.

If you find yourself publishing under multiple names, e.g., "First Last" in one journal and "F. Last" in another, you might want to consider registering for an ORCiD. ORCiD provides a unique identifier which a researcher can use to unite all the different names she/he has published under.
If you have a more common name, like "John Smith", an ORCiD can help differentiate you from other researchers with similar names. And if you change your name, ORCiD can help you link the older to the newer.

Are you talking about how you are listed in citations, or how you are listed in the authorship of a paper?
In authorship, it definitely matters precisely how you are listed, especially since there are a lot of scientists in the world, and there's a decent chance there's another one out there with a very similar name to you.  It's fine to insist on having your name listed in the way that you want to have it listed.
In citation, though, the fraction of your name that appears largely depends on the style of the citation required by the venue (I have even seen one highly aberrant journal citation format that omitted the author names entirely), and also doesn't matter so much, since the citation is really just a "pointer" to finding your original article.

I was specifically talking about how my name appears in the original publication. (Thanks for the quick/nice response)

I believe that consistency is important and it is important for journals to accept your preferred name if at all possible.
I go by my middle name and it is important to keep it that way for me. One reason is that my first name is the same as my father and we have the same middle initial. Thus, there would be confusion if I published under my first name or just my initials. Even an ORCiD could be confusing if I linked by initials (although all those pharmacology papers might help my pub record ;-).
At least I don't get the confusion with my grandfather's pubs that my brother gets.
There is an additional consideration for women. When I got married, someone asked my wife if she was going to change her name.  She replied,"Why should I? I have more publications than he does."

If a journal requires a specific format (initials plus a last name, for instance), there's not much you can do. However, the more consistently and uniquely you can identify yourself, the easier it will be to make sure your work is properly "accounted for" and remembered. It's a lot easier to keep track of a "Hedwig von Restorff" than for a "John Smith," for example.

There are journals who insist on particular formats for names?  Ugh. They need to read this.

I think the author name style should be uniform for all the authors of a paper. Since your professor prefers initials for first names, you have not much choice :). The question here is whether bibliographic databases (e.g. Scopus) would recognize you and link this paper to the other papers you already have therein (i.e. recognize you as the same person). Additional data used to perform this properly is your affiliation. I have already published papers with initials for the first name. From my experience it works well in Scopus, even though I have very common last name.

Nowadays, I use just my first and last names on my papers (and my stackexchange registration), omitting my middle name. A few of my early papers, though, had my first and middle initials and my last name, for consistency with how my teacher and co-author formatted his name.  The discrepancy has never caused any problems for me, but it caused a little extra work for the staff at  Mathematical Reviews (nowadays MathSciNet). They are quite careful about keeping track of when two different names refer to the same person (and when the same name refers to two different people).  So at some point, I got a letter from them asking me whether the papers under both versions of the name were mine.  I don't know whether other fields than mathematics have an organization that is similarly careful about matching names to people.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why are recommendation letters highly relied upon?
For any kind of academic application (from graduate admission to professor position), recommendation letters have a major impact on the outcome. The basic idea is understandable: discovering what others think about the applicant. It can help the review committee to decide about the applicant.
However, recommendations letters cannot be statistically reliable. For instance, when all recommendation letters of an application are highly positive, this cannot guarantee that all colleagues think highly of the applicant. Instead, it can be the result of only a few friendships.
In a typical example, if someone has three socially close friends (including current colleagues, coworkers, past professors), then, his applications are always supported by strong recommendation letters. For example, one could have conflict with his entire university, but having close social connection with three persons who can recommend him.
So, why are recommendation letters relied upon so highly, given these limitations?
UPDATE: I do not mean friendly recommendation letters. I mean influence of friendship on a professional recommendation letter. As an another example, Applicant A who has good relationship with 20 professors of his department is an ideal academic with professional relationships at workplace. BUT applicant B who has serious conflicts with most of his colleagues (professors of his department), but having only three friends among his department professors will get better recommendation letters. Those three professors will write recommendation letters based on the applicant strengths by ignoring his weakness in the light of their friendship.

In many countries, students even write their own recommendation letters.

Only letters from sources that are known to the committee are given heavy weight.

One small thing I want to point out: no matter how unreliable recommendation letters may be (and I think overall the letter system works), there aren't many alternative measures of applicant aptitude that do better. For graduate admissions, we know GPA can easily be skewed by grade inflation, and official transcripts may fail to capture the full scope of the applicant's activities (did he do independent work for no academic credits? etc.). There are few (if any) ways to beat the flexibility of the recommendation letter in painting a complete picture of an applicant.

The premises of the question are dubious: things don't work in such an extreme fashion, although there certainly is risk of corruption, as with anything.

In a typical example, if someone has three socially close friends (including current colleagues, coworkers, past professors), then, his applications are always supported by strong recommendation letters.

No, that's not what "strong recommendation letter" means.
First, strong recommendation letters do not simply state the author's high personal regard for the student, but provide specific, personal, and credible detail supporting the applicant's potential for excellence.  I don't just want to know that someone thinks you'll succeed—I assume they wouldn't write you a letter if they thought otherwise.  I want to know why.  I want compelling evidence, not mere opinion.
Second, recommendation letters have more weight if they come from credible sources.  At a minimum, the author should work at a credible academic institution.  The best letter writers are themselves experienced, visible, active researchers, with documented experience mentoring and/or selecting candidates for admission/hiring/promotion at departments similar to the candidate's target.  For faculty promotion in my department, letters are essentially required to be from full professors, preferably in named/endowed positions, in top-10 computer science departments, and there is a strong preference for ACM/IEEE Fellows, NAE or NAS members, and major award winners (Turing, Gödel, Dijkstra, Gordon Bell, etc.).
The intersection of these two aspects of strong letters is direct comparisons with the applicant's peers.  An ideal PhD recommendation letter for my department includes sentences like "Among the 13 undergraduates I have mentored who went on to top-10 PhD programs in computer science, I would rank [applicant] roughly 3rd, well below [famous person who proved P=NP], but on par with [successful person] at MIT, [successful person] at Stanford, and [successful person] at CMU."

I did not merely friends. I meant if someone had three close friends and 20 enemies from full professors of his department, he will get better recommendations than someone who had normal relationship with 23 professors of his department. Don't tell me that full professors are 100% professional in writing recommendation letters, and never consider their personal relationships.

"credible academic institution": So do the NIH, DOE national labs, and NIST count as "academic institutions" by this definition?

@aeismail: Yes, provided the author can document experience with successful PhD student / tenure-track faculty / the tenure process.

@All Of course not. But lack of professionalism doesn't actually help that much; evidence is evidence.  And seriously, what are the chances that someone is going to be BFFs with exactly the three people who can write in technical detail about their research, and piss off everyone else in their department?  It's a small world; that sort of stuff gets out.

@JeffE that was just an exaggerated example to clarify the issue. I just mean that recommendation letters are biased, as they are statistically not representative of the views of colleagues; it is too selective.

@All If by "biased" you mean "will write false things because of a social relationship," then this probably happens, but I would argue that JeffE's definition of a strong letter would be at odds with the rest of a candidate's record in those cases. If a letter-writer says great things but the rest of the record shows otherwise, then the candidate won't be particularly competitive.

@JeffE That's one of the best descriptions of what one should look for in letters of recommendation I've ever read. The only thing I am a bit wary of is the "direct comparison". When done carefully and substantiated with clear evidence, it certainly works, but otherwise it is the hardest piece to either verify, or to make sense of. Given that Steven Krantz openly advised to write something like "Two best people are A,B. C fits in between in the sense that his research is on par with A and his teaching is on par with B" in one of his "How to..." books, there is a lot of room for "abuse" here.

@Googlebot If your recommendation letters show that you were able to get three different professors working at an accredited university to be "biased" in your favor, then that's statistically significant because some students finish a degree with zero professors biased in their favor and even many professors biased against them. Perhaps a small number of professors would be unprofessional enough to be biased in favor of a student for reasons unrelated to their academic potential, but three professors who are able and willing to insincerely recommend someone seems very unlikely to me.

The fact that applicants choose their letter writers definitely means the letters are a biased sample of opinions.  In certain cases departments take big steps to address this issue.  For example, promotion and tenure committees ask for some letters from people not suggested by the candidate, precisely to avoid this source of bias.  Nobody worries quite as much about graduate admissions, but there are still several safeguards:

If someone writes recommendations that seem unreliable, biased, or misleading, they will lose credibility and their letters will carry less weight for everyone.  This is a strong incentive to keep bias in check, since professional reputation is a critical aspect of academia, and nobody wants to be thought of as a fool or scoundrel.  Of course there are still some bad recommendations, but admissions committees really keep track of credibility: when we evaluate an application, one thing we discuss is what we thought of students recommended by these letters writers in the past and what we think of their judgment.
Having multiple letter writers also helps.  Finding one recommender who is strikingly biased is easier than finding three.
Admissions committees sometimes solicit opinions from other faculty members at the applicant's university.  If the applicant's letters seem questionable or difficult to interpret, or we're concerned about credibility, then it's easy to call or e-mail to get a second opinion.

Overall, I believe the system does a good job of minimizing conscious bias or manipulation.  It's not perfect, but I think you are underestimating the strength of the incentives.  If an applicant can find three people with a lot of credibility who are willing to hurt their reputations by writing unreliable letters to help the applicant get admitted, then they can take advantage of the system, but this is not so easy.
If anything, I'm more worried about the safeguards being too strong.  One severe drawback of the letter of recommendation system is how it handles unknown letter writers.  If the committee knows nothing about a recommender, has never seen a letter from them before, and doesn't expect to in the future, then the recommender has very little credibility.  If an application includes only letters from unknown recommenders, then the chances of admission may be low even if the letters all say wonderful things.  This isn't fair, since some applicants just don't have access to any other recommenders, but it's unavoidable under the current system.  (It's not just a matter of bias or honesty, but also of whether the recommenders are even capable of judging who would be a good candidate for admission.)

"Overall, I believe the system does a good job of minimizing bias."  While I think All way overstates the case, I think that there are really systematic biases in the system of relying heavily on recommendation letters; for example, everything we know about social psychology suggest that such a system will discriminate against women, etc. just in usually subtle, imperceptible ways.

@BenWebster: Great point!  I've edited to clarify that I mean conscious bias or manipulation.

While it may be redundant to write an answer after 3 people already have, I think the other answers have not actually tried to answer the question, but to disprove the OPs hypotheses.  I agree that the OP overstates the degree of bias and favoritism in the system of using recommendation letters, but those are serious issues.  As the other answers point out, a letter written largely on the basis of warm personal feelings will not be very convincing, but I think the personal attitude of the letter writer will influence the reader (does anyone doubt that it's easy to write a letter that spikes almost any candidate's chances that it is still professional and accurate?).  If you read a book like "Thinking Fast and Slow", and then look at how people actually make decisions about academic hiring, you will slightly horrified at how much we ignore the plain facts of social psychology.
People rely on recommendation letters because they are monkeys (OK, actually apes, but for rhetorical purposes give me this one) whose brains evolved in one sort of social situation that encouraged certain kinds of mental heuristics.  One essentially universal fact about humans is that we prefer to make individualized judgements based on intuition rather than rely on any kind of impersonal rule. We are overly confident that we know when to make an exception, and we feel better seeing a mistake made based on human misjudgment, rather than some sort of numerical calculation.  This is evidenced in lots of places:  for example, people actually try to actively invest in the stock market when any look at the facts shows it is essentially impossible to beat passive investing in the long run.
That said, I think for academic positions, it's also probably true that there is important information in recommendation letters which is hard to get anywhere else.  In a lot of cases, I'm not sure what we would look at instead.  I doubt they are going anywhere, and people will strongly resist switching to any "harder" metrics, as doing so just "feels wrong."

Recommendation letters for associate and full professor positions (both in hiring and promotion) do not come exclusively from writers that the candidate selects.  Instead, the department will solicit letters from independent sources in the candidate's field.  Furthermore, the references named by the candidate cannot have close personal or professional ties to the candidate.

that cannot be considered as recommendation letter, but external peer-review.

Potayto potahto.

@JeffE peer-review is exactly what can be relied on, but almost all job advertisement for full professor position asks for recommendation letters by people who know the applicant, not independent review.

Nobody who hires tenured faculty relies solely on letters provided by applicants.  Tenure cases require external letters chosen by the target department.

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

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


text:
What to do with a paper with references but no citations?
I just received a paper for review that does not have a single citation (in the text) of its references.
I wonder if this is common in other areas non-CS related.
Since it is a conference, I don't think I should contact the editor, but I do think it should lose many points in its evaluation.
Overall the paper is well written, and they do not seem amateurish people writing their first paper.
What would you do in this case?

does the conference review process allow author response and revision?

I don't think it allows author's response, only revision

So did you look at the other papers?  Do they have anything to do with the content of the paper?  Just curious.

@Leonpalafox If these authors are reading this forum you may have revealed your identity as a reviewer.

Having a bibliography section without any citation in the text is something very weird.

@AlexanderGruber That shouldn't really be the job of the reviewer. It's up to the authors to provide the context. As a matter of fact, determining the relevance of the references on its own can be a major task.

@MarcvanDongen Again: just curious

Not citing the reference list is amateurish! This problem is common in my senior project reports and grad students' "guided readings" course reports (literature surveys).

Have you checked with the rules for submissions? Are inline citations required? I wouldn't know of a case where they aren't or where it's not necessary to have them, but then again I have seen weired things for the first time before!

Reject.
No work exists in isolation. The authors need to position their work in relation to existing work, and this requires more than just putting a bunch of papers in the bibliography section: it requires a detailed comparison. The authors failed to do this.
In any case,  there will always be another conference for them to resubmit to.

This is true in non-CS related fields as well (e.g., business).

I know of exactly one published paper in my field (computational geometry) that was published with no references.  The references section reads, in toto, "No references on this topic seem to exist and no useful results could be found."

@JeffE: But that was back in 1985 when no useful results could be found.

@JeffE: Let me guess: a full day workshop with 5 submissions and one was an abstract where the full thing never got submitted?

My initial reaction is that they merely have encountered a set of issues for which there are no relevant papers they could cite. For example, where would you expect citations in there? Citations for the sake of citations are a Bad Thing. Citations should advance the position of the paper in a meaningful, shoulders-of-giants kind of way.
And initial reactions are often the right one[citation needed].
But upon further reflection, it occurs to me that with the vast multitude of papers out there, the likelihood of not having a single paper that could help advance this paper's position in a meaningful way is probably very, very small. What is much more likely is that the authors either did not do their due diligence in looking for work that could have advanced their position and/or saved them time, or worse, specifically excluded other research because glaring similarities. Both are common, and either is bad for the authors and the scientific community as a whole.
The main thing that concerns me is... where did they get the idea to do whatever is in the paper? Was it not at least partially based on some published work that they're either challenging or advancing? That is the most troubling thing to me.

It's not clear from your question, whether they simply don't regard other papers in the field, or they do have related work etc. but they omit the in-body-citations.
If it is the first case, I'd second Dave's answer (unless it's a brand new question with a brand new technique that solves it, and they clearly say that no related work can be found to the best of their knowledge).
However, if it is the second case, it seems quite technical issue that can be easily fixed, and in this case you can just mention in your review that references are missing and this should be fixed (also note this to the PC chair; s/he can condition the acceptance on fixing this issue)
The fact that it's a conference, in my eyes, makes it more flexible -- papers should be considered mainly by merit and not by technicalities. I can think of the opposite case, where the paper has all the citation, gets accepted, but in the camera-ready version all references are removed.

+1 for technical issues which might be the case here (though I can't imagine submitting a paper without checking its references and in-text citations).


text:
Which academic writing style allows extensive explanatory footnotes?
I am writing an essay which involves many concepts supposedly unfamiliar to the reader. It has been suggested to me that the explanations of these terms be in the footnotes as this way they wouldn’t count towards the word limit.
My preferred style is the MLA, which doesn’t seem to have a custom of such. Which style should I be using if I intend to put in extensive explanatory footnotes?

I would guess that "extensive footnotes" wouldn't escape the word count.

Can you talk about your field and the type of essay you are writing?

If you find yourself putting in tons of explanatory footnotes, I would suggest you need a re-write to reduce them. Footnotes with significant subject content are disruptive and annoying. Usually when I see tons of footnotes I assume the author got useful comments from review of a draft, but was too lazy to re-write accordingly.

"Which academic writing style allows extensive explanatory footnotes?" Bad academic writing style.

Think about it like this: Will whoever imposed your word limit be happy that you circumvent it this way? Also: Which kind of setting imposes that you use some style guide, i.e., you can’t use your own custom one, but also no specific style guide is imposed?

Always worth bringing up John Hodgson's 173-page footnote for those who haven't heard of it before. A huge contribution to scholarship, but he put it in a footnote because technically it didn't fall under the immediate topic of the book.

@BillOnne Please tell every theoretical syntactician this.

Not a real answer, but my feeling is you should look at some style guides for humanities. I think this "extensive footnotes" style is more common there than in STEM.

@Buffy even appendices or endnotes might count (or they might not but I wouldn't chance it)

If footnotes aren't counted toward a word limit, that probably means that footnotes are not expected to contain anything except citations of sources.  They exclude them from the word count so as not to encourage you to skimp on citations.  I would guess that for footnotes containing substantial text, either they will be counted toward a word limit, or, in the case of a paper being graded for a course, the teacher may just not read them at all.  Either way, unwise to try to bend the rules like this.

Write in your own style. Overly proscriptive writing styles are bad for science as a whole as they generally make things harder to read and create an artificially higher barrier to entry. You want your writing to be readable and concise without being cryptic. If you think your readers would benefit from footnotes, add footnotes. If you're writing for a specific journal, then I'm afraid you're stuck with whatever limitations they place upon you.

"an essay which involves many concepts supposedly unfamiliar to the reader" is called a textbook

I don't think Terry Pratchett did much academic writing....

Write for readability, not to abuse abstruse word-count rules
While there are sometimes writing assignments in university courses with some strange rules for computing the word-count, as a general practice, the decision of whether to put information in the body of a paper or its footnotes (or an appendix or elsewhere) should be made on the basis of readability and convenience to the reader.  The decision should hinge on what is the best way to present information to the reader (and perhaps also stylistic consistency of particular journals, etc.), not on the basis of some silly idea that words in a particular area don't count against a word-count restriction.
There is nothing inherently wrong with having extensive footnotes in a paper if this is the best way to present information to the reader.  Generally this will occur where there are lines of argument or observation that are ancillary to the main thrust of the paper, which would distract from the flow in the body of the paper.  Nevertheless, I would counsel strongly against moving material to footnotes merely to try to abuse a set of silly rules relating to word-count.  (If this paper is for a university assignment, and your lecturer has imposed a set rules that incentivise this, please feel free to draw their attention to this post to let them know that they are engaging in poor educational practice.)
As to what you might call a writing style that focuses on doing this, I would call it the style of bad writing.

If only journals and conferences accepted papers without abstruse word-count rules...

I think for journals and conferences it is far more normal to have page-count rules.

@FedericoPoloni Well, without any limiting rules people who already write excessively long papers would write thousand of pages...

As far as I am aware (but I could be wrong), there is no academic journal or book publisher that does not include footnotes into the total word length. Even if this is an essay, it is highly likely that your teacher also considers footnotes as part of the total word length. I advise you to confirm such details with the person in charge of the course.
There is no fundamental relationship between a citation style (or manual of style) and the length of footnotes. It depends on the topic that is being handled, and the chosen method of research. Longer-than-usual footnotes are more closely associated with certain research fields, especially within the humanities.
The most common use of extensive footnotes can be found in critical editions of pre-modern, medieval and ancient authors. A good example is the critical edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a more recent example would be Sonu Shamdasani's annotated edition of Carl Jung's Black Books.
Related to this, we can find academic journals that allow for extensive footnotes (within reason), depending on the topic: studies of pre-modern legal history, religious texts, archaeological finds, medical treatises, ancient architecture, etc. One journal that tends to allow for large footnotes is Monumenta Serica (example 1) (example 2).
Lengthy footnotes tend to become unavoidable when one is dealing with cultures that are profoundly different from modern ones, or when dealing with artefacts and documents that go back far in time. Other fields such as philosophy can also sometimes have unusually long footnotes. Again, it depends on the topic that is being analyzed.
However, it is important to stress that one should make every possible effort to avoid long footnotes, even when it is allowed. For example, make a list of the topics or concepts that require the longest explanations, and create a section near the introduction that provides a basic, clear and simple explanation of such concepts. Then, when you need to add more nuance or minor details to those explanations, use footnotes. Or try to spread the explanation of those concepts throughout the text, while still using footnotes for small details. At every stage of the process, ask yourself: "Is this explanation really necessary for a reader to understand the key points of my essay?" Train yourself to write clearly and concisely, because that is one of the main reasons why students are asked to write essays.
One last word regarding styles. It has become fairly common to use Chicago (or adapted versions of it) in books with extensive footnotes, not because it encourages such long footnotes, but because it is designed to provide detailed referencing data for finding old documents in historical archives. Chicago is extremely useful when you need to distinguish between different manuscript copies or versions of the same text, which can be spread over different archives around the world.

(+1) for pointing out that footnote usage can vary a lot, especially when considering fields of study that are not narrowly focused only on science or technology. Also, it is common in some fields that footnotes are placed at the end of the main body of text (both papers and books), which I personally find very annoying since until you flip back to see the footnote you don't know whether it's something mostly ignorable like "p. 73, Smith, 1949" or a useful tangential remark and/or explanatory remark.

I feel you. I, too, have wasted many hours of my life going back and forth between the main text and the endnotes...

Legal scholarship also tends to have lots of long footnotes, to the point that a page might have just a couple lines of body text with the rest of it filled with footnotes.

@DaveLRenfro Well, for instance, in the two-volume set of A. M. Yaglom, Correlation theory of stationary and random functions, vol. I; Basic results, vol. II, Supplementary notes and references, the footnotes are even all placed in the dedicated second volume! Yes, a bit annoying for an otherwise excellent book.

@Massimo Ortolano: The massive and comprehensive treatise Convolutions in French Mathematics, 1800-1840 by Ivor Grattan-Guinness -- 3 volumes, Science Networks / Historical Studies #2, Birkhäuser Verlag, 1990, 1602 pages -- is not quite as bad. At least the footnotes appear at the bottom of the pages. However, to see the bibliographic citations you have to refer to Volume 3 -- dedicated to excerpts of selected texts/manuscripts, tables, bibliography, and various indexes -- for the 130 page bibliography.

So far as I know, every style can accomodate footnotes.  You don't often see them used extensively, in the way you're asking about, because it makes for tedious reading.

One context where extensive footnotes seem to be common is legal writing - I often see footnotes which are so long, they continue into the footer of the next page.

PLOS journals don’t allow footnotes, FWIW.

Legal studies articles sometimes include extensive footnotes. For example, Marco Jimenez's article "Finding the Good in Holmes's Bad Man" in Fordham Law Review (Volume 79 Issue 5 Article 9) includes multiple pages that are 75%+ footnotes as well as one page (2075) that is entirely footnote overflow from the previous page! Many of the footnotes are case citations as would be expected, but quite a few include extensive commentary on the case as well that the author didn't feel quite fit in the body of his article.

I own a book, First Peoples in a New World, David Meltzer, that is a popular rendition of the scientific literature of the archaeology of what became the Americas from around 12,000 or so years ago. It is around 20% endnotes. Meltzer is one of the developers of some of the main theories of people from that time up to, say, the neolithic.
However, of you want to read it all, including the scientific notes, it is maddening to read, though very informative.
As a print book, the notes are certainly contributing to the word/page count, of course.
But, other books, those that merge a popular and a theoretical/scientific view into one work, probably satisfy your search for a "writing style". But that is much less likely to be used in an essay or paper.

I was taught that footnotes are bad and disrupt the reading flow. One should probably omit them alltogether, and with some writing discipline this is doable.
Now, speaking of the "oh, and by the way" notices – which you would rather write in a book or maybe a thesis, but not in a research article – I see two ways.
The more conventional one is to create a separate section and put all the trivia there. The other one leans on Knuth and Tufte and is more a presentattion thing: use extensive wide sidenotes, such as those in tufte-latex class. Put the trivia in there, without footnote symbols or anything. In this manner the trivia would not disturb the reading flow, the presentation of actual material.

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


text:
How can I transition into genome editing after a theoretical physics PhD?
I had a very bad PhD experience which has led to complete loss of motivation to pursue a career in theoretical physics. I don't have the motivation anymore to work on topics which are very abstract and, being a postdoc, it is even harder to do this independently. In addition, I find the long term prospects of doing this very dark. There aren't any good job opportunities and getting a tenure track position requires more than one postdoctoral experience.
Off late, I have been thinking of transitioning to biology and more specifically to the field of genome editing. I know this is very different from what I have been trained at, but I have always liked this field and did a lot of self-study during my graduate years. Prior to contacting people, I asked for advice if this transition is doable or practical. And everyone who replied has strongly encouraged me to go forward.
But it was a different story when it came to actually getting a position (I asked for internship opportunities also) in the lab. The advice was to get into computational biology where interdisciplinary people are more.
I don't want to transition into computational biology just because it would be easier to transition, but learn completely new skills. Otherwise, I would have preferred to dedicatedly train in data science and find the high paying corporate jobs. I want to stay in research and do impactful work, something with real impact and not esoteric like my graduate or postdoc work.
Given the situation, I have been thinking of doing another PhD because I don't have any constraints. But I fear that this is not recommended and I doubt I will get admission into good places. Should I meet the people whose work I admire in person or have an online discussion with them if that is possible? Most of the transition stories I have heard involve some kind of meet up during conferences/meetings and things fell in place after that. Any kind of useful advice keeping my interests in mind would be highly appreciated.

One step at a time.

Start with a year or so of wet-lab work, a masters program will get you that, then take it from there. You’ll want to understand the theory, goals, and practice.

As someone in the genome sciences, I can say anecdotally that there is an increasing number of physics PhDs finding great success in biomedical sciences / bioengineering. Take Stephen Quake as a paragon: https://bioengineering.stanford.edu/person/stephen-quake

I know that people often say not to do two PhDs, but in a couple cases I've seen it be the right move and work out great. In your case I think it might be the way to go. Biology has become so fascinating these days that it's completely understandable to want to switch fields.

At the risk of being blunt, it is probably worth pointing out that there is a difference between "wanting a job in a specific area" because you want to transition into that area, and "actually being qualified for a job in that area".
In other words, an honest evaluation of the situation is likely that nobody will give you a paying job in a genomics lab because you don't have the background for such a job: The people they want to hire as, say, postdocs have had several years of training and job experience in this area, and you don't. That's just a fact, regardless of whether or not you've done self study in the area. So you're stuck hoping for that unicorn to appear out of nowhere.
The recipe to actually getting these jobs is to obtain the qualifications necessary for these jobs. You won't get this qualification through self-study: You're competing with people who've spent several years at the lab bench during their PhDs. You'll have to go through that school as well. So apply for grad programs. You might of course encounter the same issue: They would like to hire people as graduate students who have had several years as biology undergraduates; if you know someone in biology departments, it is conceivable that you could find ways to demonstrate to them that you have equivalent knowledge and find admission anyway.
As for your last comment, "Most of the transition stories I have heard involve some kind of meet up during conferences/meetings and things fell in place after that.": These sorts of cases are first rare, second probably exaggerated (the person in fact did have quite a lot of biology background already, though they might have had a position in a physics department), and third quite often involve people who are not actually seeking a paid position: They are, for example, already physics faculty and simply find themselves in collaborations with biologists. I would not think this a viable path for you to get from where you are to where you want to be. There is no alternative to actually being qualified for the job you are seeking.

It really isn't very rare at all in the specific case of bioinformatics: this is a very interdisciplinary field, and also relatively new. Until quite recently, everyone working in bioinformatics came from different fields. In the lab I did my PhD work in, we had people who came from biology, computer science, pure math, physics, even aeronautical engineering.

@DanielHatton well, I started my PhD in 2002 and at that time, there were very few, if any, undergraduate bioinformatics courses and most people in the field came from different backgrounds. There were some post-graduate courses, although not many, but very very few undergrad ones. Of course, that will also depend on geographical region. I am mostly familiar with the European bioinformatics world.

@DanielHatton I don't know what to tell you. I can assure you that there are many in the field whose PhDs were in Physics. I cannot know why this "famous bioinformatician" told you what they did, you'd have to ask them. Also remember that this is a very wide field and I'm sure some sub-fields will be different than others. And, finally, my account is clearly anecdotal: I cannot rule out that I have just happened to come across more people with a Physics background because of the conferences I attend and places I have worked.

@DanielHatton, has the situation regarding physics graduates in bioinformatics changed since 2004? I can imagine that the rise of machine learning might have made some difference over the last 10-15 years. Just curious.

I work for a bioinformatics company and we have hired physics PhDs as recently as 2 years ago. We are still actively recruiting math and physics people.

@terdon You're missing the mark. OP specifically does not want to go into bioinformatics, but into genome editing. Different field, for which different backgrounds are necessary.

@WolfgangBangerth yes, I know. I had misunderstood the question.

First a slight reframe: if your disappointment with theoretical physics is that it's too abstract and you want to do "impactful work", maybe consider opportunities outside academia as well. Academic research does a good PR job of selling itself as the non-profit, idealistic, make-the-world-a-better-place counter to industry, but in my experience most academic research is pretty inward-looking and gives relatively little reward to anyone who is not driven by scientific curiosity itself. So look also at medical physics (which can be research or clinical!), relevant industry, data science etc.
If you're set on staying in academia, one thing to be wary of is that many of the biology labs who might be interested in hiring someone with a physics background "out of the box" would be doing so expecting you to bring in physics expertise. If your negative experience is with academic theoretical physics, this may work just fine for you, but if you have grown to really, really dislike physics and/or want to do fundamentally different work, then it could be very frustrating to be the "pet physicist" while everyone else is doing the more traditional biology work that you were hoping to do.
Basically, you need to have something to offer to the lab that hires you: it's either your physics/numeracy expertise (for example, as a data scientist sort of role), or as a biologist in your own right. In the latter case, as you correctly identify, you are not actually qualified, and pursuing some relevant qualifications would help both your CV and your understanding of life sciences (I would probably start with an MSc rather than a PhD, especially if you've just emerged from a negative PhD experience).
And, as @terdon points out, "genome editing" isn't really a field in biology. At best it's a technique - there are a handful of labs working on the technology itself, but the vast majority of people use transgenesis/CRISPR/what have you as a tool in pursuit of a biological question. This is a common problem I have seen in people with a hard science background - they often tend to be interested in, or aware of, only a few high-profile technical or abstract problems that are actually rather unexciting from a biology perspective (all fields are prone to this, not just biology...). If you want to work as a biologist, then having some relevant academic background would help you understand what your colleagues are working on and why it's interesting. You absolutely don't have to change your own interests or preferences. But placing your specific interest, which may be genome editing, into a more solid understanding of the biological problem it's trying to solve will help you make connections with a broader range of people and align your work with actually useful outcomes.


text:
How to contact a potential PostDoc advisor?
Reading this very interesting question ("How long before PhD graduation should I start applying for post-doc positions?") about "when", suddenly I started to reason on the "how" issue.
Imagine you were going to finish your PhD program and wanted to contact a professor to express interest for a possible PostDoctoral contract within his group, and wanted to know more information about it.
How approach him/her in the best way?
What to write in the email to send him/her?

Generic open positions (e.g. "Jobs - we have some postdoc position available on...", without the beginning date nor other details)

In some fields, well-known scientists will get so many postdoc inquiries that they will simply not reply if you mail them directly. In such cases it is helpful to have your PhD advisor contact them.

Depends on whether you know the person, or not. If you know him/her well, you might go for an informal inquiry. In the case the person is not your acquaintance, you better formulate it as any other job seeking inquiry.
To the style, this template always worked for me well (as advised in some job-seeking training course I took):

Salutation,
1.- me
2.- you
3.- us together
4.- conclusion and a kind request for a reply.

salutation.

Each of the points above should be a single paragraph.
Firstly, you introduce yourself, possibly mentioning how you know each other if that is the case and most importantly articulating the purpose of the e-mail/letter, that is that you are seeking a job. In passing you should mention what you are doing now, position, affiliation, expected date of graduation, etc. Basically you want to motivate the other party to read further.
Second paragraph should be about the other party. What you know they do, or did in the past and highlighting whatever other positive aspects of their work, which are a relevant reason for your application. Possibly, you can mention that you learn from somebody else/opening, etc. that there is a possibility of an open position in the group, etc. The purpose here is to prepare the ground for articulating why you fit for them in the subsequent paragraph, as well as to show that you mean it and you made your homework well (e.g., read their papers).
The third, most important paragraph, should be about you as a fit for the position, or the group. It all revolves about how you can contribute to their work and why it should be their interest in hiring you. Here you expand on the relevant experience/projects you did, about your abilities to publish papers in top journals/conferences in the field, your abilities to solicit external funding, teaching, whatever. Still you should consider how much bragging is appropriate. The message should be clear and concise: "there is a potential fit between the two of us".
Finally, I would close the letter by explaining what can be found in the attached documents and possibly what other constraints you might have. When appropriate, I also make it clear that this is of course an unsolicited application, but still I would be glad if the person would find time to review my background and reply.
Attach your CV and the statement of your research interests.
Worked for me. Also you should be as concise as possible. The length of this reply is probably already at the edge of acceptable length.

I came a cross a short but interesting editorial note from American Chemical Society written by a potential postdoc supervisor. She raises lots of advises like send few thoughtful emails rather than tones of thoughtless copies and pasted emails. I think it is quiet useful for every postdoc applicant regardless of his major.
Couple of interesting quotes from the author is of value

Funding issues aside, the majority of the
  postdoctoral applications I receive do not capture my interest,
  and I am sure this is true for most faculty.
Many email requests that I receive appear to
  be sent by someone who has taken a long list of faculty names/
  emails and sent oﬀ their application with little thought. I usually
  do not even read such requests after the ﬁrst few sentences
My advice to potential applicants: send far fewer but personalized
  emails. Read about a faculty member’s research and tailor your letter
  to the group. Obviously, include your CV,
  prior research accomplishments, your career plans, and how a
  position in the group would help move you toward your goals.
  Provide details that help sell you, including important
  interactions with colleagues, the skills that you bring to the
  position, and other key points that may set you apart.
  When writing an email to me, for example, I like to know
  why you selected my group: was it on the advice of a mentor,
  because you like a particular aspect of my research, or hope to
  gain a speciﬁc skillset? Next, explain what you can do for me.
  Most applicants list a myriad of reasons why getting hired is
  good for them. Perhaps not surprisingly, I hire people because
  it helps my research program. I want an outstanding researcher
  and also someone who has good communication skills. Reading
  your email is my ﬁrst opportunity to judge your ability

You may find the whole text of less than a page here

I would treat it like a networking exercise.

Do you know each other -- Contact them directly
Does your advisor know him/her -- Talk to your advisor and get the scoop on the potential advisor. Talk you your advisor and devise a contact plan. Maybe your advisor can provide an introduction at the next conference or a suggestion for a lab visit for you.
Do you know someone in common -- Talk to that person. Get the scoop on the potential advisor. Then contact the potential advisor dropping the common person's name and saying how he/she thought the potential advisor would be a great fit for you.
You know no one in common -- Networking fail. Go meet more people.
a. Have you cited the potential advisor in a paper -- Send them a reprint as an introduction
b. You don't know the potential advisor (or anyone who knows him) and have never cited him -- Before contacting the person, you need to know why you want to work with him/her. If you are confident, send an email introducing yourself. If you are hesitant, ask your advisor for an email introduction.

You don't know the potential advisor (or anyone who knows him) and have never cited him -- Why do you want to work with this person?  (i) Because (s)he might want to change fields, thus no one in the network knows the putative advisor; (ii) has read their papers, as one should, and finds the work interesting. And yes, it did happen to me. I have sent several unsolicited letters to potential advisors that I had no previous contact with, and got a reply for more than half of them.

@fridaymeetssunday see edit. I didn't mean it in a bad way, I meant it in the you need to know why you want to work with the person to explain your position.

Fair enough. The original answer felt like it was discoursing unsolicited contacts. IMO, this part - Before contacting the person, you need to know why you want to work with him/her. - is the important bit, regardless of one's network. Btw, I always added a paragraph explaining why I wanted to change field, and extended the point in the motivation letter, and got feedback that that worked in my favour.


text:
How to prepare for a (PhD or PostDoc) admission procedure?

"Luck favors the prepared mind"
( Louis Pasteur )

During the MS degree program or PhD program, it's advisable for a good student to get used to take a look on scientific activities of research groups he want to join, after graduation.
So, if the student decides somehow that he wants to try to join X, Y, Z groups, how should he prepare himself the best for the admission procedure?
What should he do before actually applying for that position in that group?
What should he do before the (formal centralized or informal) admission procedure starts?
Some of my own answers:
Task #0: he must read all the recent papers of the group he would like to join, and know very well those related to his research field.
Task #1: prepare all the admission material (we've already discussed about this)
Task #2...#N... what else?
What would you suggest to anyone to prepare himself to an admission procedure?
Thanks a lot

I'll start with some steps prior to yours in the interest of making the answer more generalizable:

Determine which universities to apply to. This will involve weighing factors such as ranking, faculty members, student opinions (from online discussion sources like this one or face-to-face discussions), sub-field specialties, and location, among others. You can prepare for this by looking all this stuff up:

US News & World Reports rankings for graduate programs is a good ranking system; there may be better ones I'm not familiar with.
Check the department's faculty page (example) for each university to see broadly-defined research interests for faculty members. Some people will explicitly list whether they're taking on new graduate students or not.
If you know anyone in the field, talk to them to see which universities/professors/labs would be good to check out.

Determine which lab to apply to. This will involve a lot of the above, but specifically it will involve talking to graduate students. This question covers that topic in pretty good depth.
Read up on the fundamentals of the topic you're interested in. I would suggest you be familiar with the field enough to ask a basic question about it. In my field, review papers would be a great resource for this, although I will admit that it may be hard for you to find a good one. Speak with one of the subject matter librarians in your university (i.e., if engineering, talk to the librarians in the engineering library) and ask them to help you find recent review papers on your topic.
I'll concede this is a difficult task, but being able to ask even simple questions about the field shows familiarity, and will make you look better during the interview. I recall some of my graduate school interviews where I just sat there, almost completely unfamiliar with the lab's research topic, and I felt very foolish indeed.
All the stuff in the question you linked to above.

At this point, most of your work is already set in stone; your undergraduate grades are set, your summer internships are complete, you finished the GRE, and it isn't likely you can do anything for your professors at this point to improve your recommendation letters. Just focus on the labs themselves and learn as much as you can before making decisions.

The answer to your question also depends on whether you want to apply to a specific group (which I think of as the "European model" of admissions) or to an entire department ("US model").
In the US model, test scores, transcripts, and letters of recommendation tend to be the most important factor, with the statement of purpose being a less weighted criterion, as you tend not to be "locked in" to the area you outline in your statement of purpose. In that case, selecting a group follows admission, and then you need to do your homework on the different groups at the institutions you're interested in.
However, in the European model, selecting a group occurs before the admissions process begins. In that case, everything eykanal mentions in his answer is important. However, the key thing will be to convince me that you are directly and actively interested in applying to my group:

Indicate how your skills and background are tied in to the projects available in my group.
Show that you've done some looking into the recent work in my group.
If you've established previous contact with me, raise a reminder of that.
Explain why you would make a good fit in my group.

If you start doing those things, you'll make me want to request letters of reference and call you for an interview. If not, it's likely I'll send your application to the "circular file" without further consideration.


text:
Which bibliometrics index to trust more?
We've already discussed about which bibliometric indeces are diffused the most, and how they work.
We all know that, along the most common h-index, there are many other parameters deriving from it or similar to it.
From Publish or Perish website, we can list:

g-index: Egghe's g-index
hc-index: the contemporary h-index
individual h-index: its three variations hI-index, hI-norm, and hm-index

Between these (and other) bibliometrics indeces, which one do you trust more?
Which one do you think is the best one to get the scientific excellence of an author?
Why?
Thanks!

a more succinct answer to your question is Goodhart's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

If we are to reduce someone's scholarly worth to a number, allow me to (facetiously) suggest the Erdős–Bacon number: http://tinyurl.com/ylqt2h

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."            — William Bruce Cameron (sometimes misattributed to Albert Einstein)

The short answer is NONE. A longer answer is "to get the scientific excellence of an author, read their papers and understand their contributions".
The problem here is in expecting a number to characterize the contributions and quality of an individual researcher. Probably the only way in which these measures can be useful (and that's stretching it a LOT) is if they are viewed in aggregate (for a department/university) to get a very crude picture of research productivity (not excellence).
But the signal is so noisy as to be useless.
Really, there's no shortcut for the hard work of reading, researching and asking in order to assess the "scientific excellence" of a researcher.

I was expectin' an answer like yours... and if you were obliged to choose? ;-)

I really wouldn't :). It's like asking me to choose which knife to cut myself with.

To give a somewhat inflammatory analogy, it's like being asked whether, if one were forced to choose one or the other, it's better to judge researchers based on race or sex.  There's just no good answer.

(+1) To add to this, all of the different proposed metrics are simply some type of numerical transformation based upon (essentially) the same information. Unless the information with which to base the score off improves to be a better/reasonable indicator of "scientific excellence", no amount of transformation to those metrics will make them a better indicator. The saying "garbage in - garbage out" is apropos here.

Good point @AndyW: in fact the American Statistics Association did an analysis a while back showing that h-index correlates strongly with the square root of total citations.

@Suresh: can I convince you to dig up a link to that ASA study? Thanks.

ARgghh. I just spent a good 15 minutes googling, and can't find it.

There is some discussion of this here: http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/

You can trust them all, equally. Each index has a precise meaning that is well defined (once the database used is given). For example, if a researcher has h-index 3, you know that she has at least 3 papers with at least 3 citation each, and that she has not 4 papers with more than 3 citation each, and this is quite reliable informations.
Now, what you probably mean is whether we can trust some index to say something else; but what? Research productivity? Academic success?
It's just like the number of books sold by a novelist. You can trust it to tell you how many books she sold, and it may help you decide whether you want to publish its next one if you are only interested in sales. Of course if you want to decide whether she deserves the Nobel prize, you might not want to base your decision on this index.

Indices are (unfortunately) liked by managers, administrators and funding agencies rather than by researchers. Hence, you should ask these managers, administrators and agencies which indices they trust (and why). I am not sure that academia.SE is the right place to find managers...


text:
Are there formal studies analyzing available test time versus performance?
Are there any studies showing that there is a direct connection (or a lack of a connection) between extending the time given for students to complete a written exam and their performance on the exam?
I think there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that would suggest that the more relaxed time constraints are helpful, but I would like to be able to point to "field studies" if possible, as that would make for a more convincing position with my colleagues.

This question is so near to yours: Is it wrong to impose a challenging time constraint on exams?

The difference here is asking about formal studies attempting to verify and quantify the effect, not just if it's "appropriate" or "fair."

Several studies have examined the impact of extended test-taking time on performance at all academic grade levels. Many of these studies focus on individuals with learning disabilities, but generally include students without learning disabilities as a control group. I have summarized some studies here, and provided a list of additional studies which may be of interest. The studies indicate that other individual factors (academic ability and skills, perception of time, and method of test administration) may impact test performance in concert with or in addition with extended time.
One study of learning disabled (LD) and non-learning disabled (NLD) college students being given a reading test that assessed vocabulary and comprehension assessed outcomes for those who received an extended test period of time and a half compared to the normal period (Ofiesh, 2000). Individuals with LD saw significant improvements in the extended time period compared to NLD students. Some NLD students did show improved scores in the extended period, but the difference was not significant. Similarly, in a study assessing the performance of elementary, middle, and high school students on the Stanford 10 achievement tests who received either the recommended amount of time or extra time, the authors concluded that NLD students exhibited no benefit or detriment with extended testing time (Brooks, Case, & Young, 2003). This did not vary whether they received a few minutes up to double the recommended time.
Another study of 6th grade students taking a standardized test found that NLD students did not see a significant increase in scores in an extended-time condition, but LD students did (Huesman & Frisbie, 2000). However, NLD scores also varied based on instructions. When NLD students were given extra time, and told to take their time, their scores improved; when given extra time but told to work “quickly” but to still do their best work, they did not significantly improve, possibly because they were placed into a mindset of being timed. Another study examined the impact of extended time (1.5) on both multiple choice and problem solving tests in three university courses, but found no improvements in performance (Armitage, 1999). However, in a study of prospective graduate students who took the GRE writing test, participants who were given 60 minutes performed better than those given only 40 minutes (Powers & Fowles, 1996).
A study of SAT performance for nearly 2,000 LD/ADHD or NLD high school students was examined for groups allowed standard time or 1.5 or 2 times the allotted time for verbal and math sections (Mandibach, Bridgeman, Cahalan-Laitusis, & Trapani, 2005).  They found that NLD medium- and high-ability students performed best in the 1.5 time condition, but low-ability examinees saw no benefit. Extra time affected math more than verbal performance. Strong conclusions about LD student performance were non-significant in part due to small sample sizes. The authors note that low-ability students may not benefit from extra time because they lack needed problem-solving skills, while medium-ability students may benefit because they are able to check their work. Less benefit was seen for high ability students who may not have needed the extra time. The authors also noted that for longer tests, breaking the material into sections and setting time limits per section seemed to benefit all students, rather than asking them to pace themselves across all material.
One study found no direct effect of extended time on written essay quality for college students, but did find that student who were allowed to use a word processor wrote more than students who provided handwritten answers, and that typed (but not hand written) essays demonstrated a link between length and quality (Lovett, Lewandowski, Berger, & Gathje, 2010). The authors propose it was not time that led to these improvements, but the flexibility to edit their answers when typed.
A review of the evaluation of written exams cites several other studies regarding the impact of time on writing quality (Cho, 2003) and may be of interest. A report by Tindal and Fuchs (2000, pgs 26 – 35) provides a concise summary of the literature of test extensions or untimed tests from kindergarten through post-secondary education, including specific summaries of each study found in their review. This might be a good place to start in terms of additional literature.  Although most of the examples I described here found few effects for non-learning disabled students receiving extended time on tests, I’ve also listed additional literature which may provide alternative results.
Referenced studies:

Armitage, C. (1999). Extended time limits on university examinations (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from: http://dspace.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/1880/24993/1/47990Armitage.pdf
Brooks, T. E., Case, B. J., and Young, M. J. Pearson assessment report. (2003). Timed versus untimed testing conditions and student performance. Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved from: http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/tmrs_rg/TimedUntimed.pdf
Cho, Y. (2003). Assessing writing: Are we bound by only one method?. Assessing Writing, 8(3), 165-191. doi:10.1016/S1075-2935(03)00018-7
Huesman, R. L., Jr., & Frisbie, D. A. (2000, April). The validity of the ITBS Reading Comprehension test scores for learning disabled and non learning disabled students under extended-time conditions (ED 442 210). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans LA. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442210.pdf
Lovett, B. J., Lewandowski, L. J., Berger, C., & Gathje, R. A. (2010). Effects of response mode and time allotment on college students’ writing. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40(2), 64-79. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ887306.pdf
Mandibach, E. B., Bridgeman, B., Cahalan-Laitusis, C., & Trapani, C. (2005). The impact of extended time on SAT test performance. College Board Research Report No. 2005-8 – 35 pages. The College Board; New York. ETS RR-05-20. Retrieved from: https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport-2005-8-impact-extended-time-sat-test-performance.pdf
Ofiesh, N. S. (2000). Using processing speed tests to predict the benefit of extended test time for university students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14(1), 39-56. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ649045.pdf
Powers, D. E., & Fowles, M. E. (1996). Effects of applying different time limits to a proposed GRE writing test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(4), 433-452. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1996.tb00500.x
Tindal, G., &. Fuchs, L. (2000). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations (ED 442 245). Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442245.pdf

Additional studies:

Alster, E. H. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scores for college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 222-227. doi:10.1177/002221949703000210
Calahan-Laitusis, C. (2004). Accommodations on high-stakes writing tests for students with disabilities. Princeton, NJ: ETS. Retrieved from: http://144.81.87.152/Media/Research/pdf/RR-04-13.pdf
Cohen, A. S., Gregg, N., & Deng, M. (2005). The Role of Extended Time and Item Content on a High‐Stakes Mathematics Test. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(4), 225-233. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00138.x
Crawford, L., Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2004). Writing Performance Assessments How Important Is Extended Time?. Journal of learning disabilities, 37(2), 132-142. doi:10.1177/00222194040370020401
Knoch, U., & Elder, C. (2010). Validity and fairness implications of varying time conditions on a diagnostic test of academic English writing proficiency. System,38(1), 63-74. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.12.006
Lewandowski, L. J., Lovett, B. J., Parolin, R., Gordon, M., & Codding, R. S. (2007). Extended time accommodations and the mathematics performance of students with and without ADHD. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,25(1), 17-28. doi:10.1177/0734282906291961
Lewandowski, L. J., Lovett, B. J., & Rogers, C. L. (2008). Extended Time as a Testing Accommodation for Students With Reading Disabilities Does a Rising Tide Lift All Ships?. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26(4), 315-324. doi:10.1177/0734282908315757
Munger, G. F., & Loyd, B. H. (1991). Effect of speededness on test performance of handicapped and nonhandicapped examinees. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(1), 53-57. doi:10.1080/00220671.1991.10702812
Runyan, M. K. (1991). The effect of extra time on reading comprehension scores for university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(2), 104-108. doi:10.1177/002221949102400207


text:
Should first introductory paragraph explicitly state the subject of the paper?
I am trying to write an introduction for a scientific paper. I am not sure, when I am announcing my subject, should I write that this is the subject, or just mention it without announcing it outright?
This is very confusing so here's an example.
a. Man was always interested by aliens. This paper discusses the possibility of alien life.
b.Man was always interested by aliens. Currently, scientific discoveries are shedding light on whether it exists.
Which phrasing is better? Is the first one too blunt?

Oh and I'm not sure whether this is the right forum to post this question, could you tell me if it's not?

Neither. "Man was always interested in aliens." is needless filler. Omit it.

Thank you so much to everyone for their answers, all of them were very helpful. I'm not choosing one 'best' one, there are so many useful tips.

The purpose of the introduction is to focus in on the specific, and likely more narrow, topic of your research from a larger perspective. the "larger perspective" is the larger scientific problem to which your study is tied. Therefore you can start the introduction by briefly explaining the larger perspective followed by identifying the existing gaps in knowledge and gradually work towards your own question.
Many books on scientific writing compare the introduction to a funnel where the wider question is focused to the appropriate width of your research question. the main point is to set your study in a wider perspective so that you can tie your results into the gaps of the larger perspective. This helps readers to get a good perspective of your research and evaluate the results vis-à-vis existing knowledge.
Hence, your scenarios a and b look like a way to describe the writing strategy where in reality the two or three sentences usually requires one or a few paragraphs of text.

You want to "capture" your audience when writing—that is, you want to make sure that you hold their attention as long as possible. Getting their attention by telling them what the purpose of your paper is, and what they're going to learn, is a good way to do so.
While the "funnel" approach that Peter mentions in his answer is valuable (and is also discussed in general books on writing as well, such as Sheridan Baker's The Practical Stylist, where it is called the "keyhole approach"), the "key" to the introductory paragraph is its conclusion—this should be the generating point both for the introduction and everything else that follows.

Coming from a psychology perspective, I have seen eminent authors adopt both writing approaches.
Introductions to journal articles should generally have an opening. The opening of an introduction should generally introduce the aim of the research, the importance of the research, the gap in the literature that is addressed, and the method adopted to achieve the aim. Of course, often these themes are only touched on in the opening, and emerge more completely through the course of the literature review and are also often consolidated at the end of the introduction in a section often titled "the current study".
Your question pertains to how to structure the sentences or paragraphs of the opening. The more common model I have seen used is to have a motivating introductory paragraph that relates more to importance or gap and then have a second or third paragraph that culminates in the aim of the research. However, it's also possible to do it the other way around and have a very clear opening paragraph that states exactly what the study aims to do. And then have a second paragraph that touches more on importance, gap, and context.
I have found article deconstruction to be a useful tool to develop ideas about writing structure. In particular I wrote up an article deconstruction of an introduction that used the "aim-first" approach here where the first-sentence started with "The purpose of this study was ..." . I also have more detailed notes about introductions - see particularly the discussion of the opening.

The best model for an essay is "get attention and state idea, explain explain explain, restate idea." However, every essay is different and there are countless strategies.
The best idea is to start the essay with something that captures attention and at least hints at the topic. Then at the end of the first paragraph state your claim. You want to snag the attention of the reader, and tell them the thesis statement. Keep the "hook" relevant though. A good idea is to start with a shocking fact or tell a quick story, unless its a scientific essay.
The middle is for explaining everything, and maybe a good idea is to use a paragraph to discuss the stuff from the hook paragraph. Then the end is pretty much an inverse of the first one: Restate your claim and tie up loose ends.

" A good idea is to start with a shocking fact, or tell a quick story. " Not in a scientific paper, really.

... Good point.