text:
Asked to leave PhD program, is there any point in fighting to stay?
My friend (who spent 3-4 years in a PhD program, discipline in social sciences) is encountering a serious situation with his committee/advisor. They are asking him to leave the program because the committee did not approve of the dissertation proposal. Earlier last summer, my friend had re-written the topic of the proposal.
Is this common? What can he do? He's a bit reticent to inform me but it seems he's not getting the support of his adviser. Can he talk to the graduate director to request to change advisors at this point? Or should he beg the committee to let him stay and try to somehow reach a compromise with his advisor on the type of dissertation he can produce. Or should he quietly leave and not put a fight? I suspect they might make things difficult for him if he persists to stay. Or should he talk to the graduate school?

Perhaps leave while you are still early in the program. I dont think her advisor will make her phd journey easy. Advisor student relationship is very vital for phd program.

Was there a previous proposal? Did the committee reject the previous proposal if there was one?

@alex so after 3 to 4 years this is early? And him or her ?? The OP says him.

Why did he re-wrote the topic of the proposal, did he do this by himself or with approval of the advisor?

There is a difference between having a dissertation proposal rejected and being asked to leave the program. I suspect that there is more to the situation than that. Rejecting the proposal might provide the occasion to ask that someone leave the program but is unlikely to be the reason for that (at least not the sole reason).

@scaaahu There was no previous proposal. Whenever my friend would  write short pieces to explicit the dissertation, these would not connect with the advisor. She would ask him to submit a new idea.

@John Coleman I agree. There is probably more to it. If the committee is using the rejection of the proposal to ask my friend to leave, this is not a professional behavior. It seems to me that one committee member is wielding unusual power; that the advisor is not resisting; I just wish the advisor would bat for my friend.

A conversation with the graduate director sounds like a good place to start.  I suggest you offer to go along as an extra pair of eyes and ears.

@aparente001 I wish I could attend; I am not in the same town.

@Mark He did not re-write the proposal; this version was the first one. The advisor was not agreeing to the ideas (in the form of short papers of 2-3 pages) my friend was proposing.

When doing your PhD you need the support of someone, so it is no use trying to finish your PhD if everybody in your department is against you. So if there is a conflict between your friend and his advisor that escalated to such an extent that the two cannot fix it themselves, than it is time to move up in the hierarchy. The graduate director can either try to mediate between your friend and his advisor, or try to find an another advisor.
If that fails, then that is a horrible situation for your friend, which in most (but not all) cases a professionally run department should be able to prevent. In that case there is pretty much no other option but to leave and try his luck at another department. However, beware that that department will in all likelihood be in the same field, and scientific fields are like small villages: they gossip a lot. So, your friend will most probably enter that new department with a "reputation". Also your friend should consider his own role in the conflict in order to prevent making the same mistakes again. Remember, he already has a reputation, so he probably won't be treated as leniently as a new PhD student.

It could also be that the advisor (already) has a "reputation". In that case, other departments might feel sorry for the student/OP's friend, and try everything to give him an easy transition time.

This is a nice answer. The situation in which your friend is finding himself is an unwanted one in a professionally run institute/institution.  Unless your friend and the advisor did something very wrong either scientifically or ethically, a phd topic cannot be dismiss after 4 ys. There should be a way, albeit unpleasant, to solve the situation.

@Mark good point: Advisors definitely also have a reputation

@Alchimista Yes I agree; this is a helpful answer. I hope the issue is
resolved professionally. It seems though that professionally in
academia means not conveying matters directly to graduate students.
From what I know, neither my friend nor the advisor did anything
wrong ethically or scientifically (it's a social sciences/humanities
program).


text:
Can I live off post-docs?
I'm currently a theoretical/mathematical physics PhD student in Brazil. I still have little more than a year until my PhD finishes, and as far as tradition goes, it's soon time to look for a post-doc position somewhere.
Brazil has recently suffered a coup d'état, with its legitimate president being replaced by a puppet. One of his most significant measures was to reduce science funding to almost zero, guaranteeing the best Brazilian researches would leave the country. In the end, staying here is unfeasible for a scientist, which means I'll be applying to Europe. I am also an European citizen, which means I can stay there for as long as I want.
Now, I'm also a very active climber. Climbing pretty much shapes my life in almost every sense. I love travelling and I'm used to spending almost nothing so that I can climb as much as possible. I was talking to a friend today about a plan of going for as many post-doc positions in Europe as I can, preferably near places I can climb, and keep my routine of climbing & doing physics - that is, I want to avoid dealing with the mess a fixed position comes with: classes, bureaucracy, etc. In the end he said that this plan would not work after the third or fourth post-doc: I would become too expensive to hire due to accumulated degrees, and people would only find hiring me advantageous if I were extremely good. The point is that he himself went for 5 post-docs, and I know people who went even further. They quit because were offered a fixed position and took it... But can I live like that "forever"?

Very risky. Some people do this, and they can cling from position to position. But unless you are so good that you can expect this to sustain you until retirement (which will not be that glorious, either - postdocs do not earn so much, in general), you need to be prepared to end up jobless in your 50s.

I'm on my fourth. At some point, you hit a limit (FAPESP with 36-48 months, Canadian institutions can only hire you before the 5 year anniversary of your defence, etc). There's always a limit because long-term postdocs are sometimes viewed as "exploitation jobs". From my experience in France, I would expect Europe to be even more regulated in this sense, but I don't really know.

In addition to the above points, there is the possibility that ageing may reduce how much/often you climb; it may not be as big a priority some years down.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/61880/in-astronomy-would-it-be-possible-to-continue-doing-postdocs-for-up-to-15-years

You don't accumulate degrees during a postdoc position. After a while on a chain of postdocs, you might even be perceived as slightly less competent, as hiring committees may wonder why you haven't landed a tenured or tenure-track position yet.

It isn't necessarily true that "this plan would not work after the third or fourth post-doc: I would become too expansive to hire due to accumulated degrees" because there's typically a cap on postdoc salaries.

Germany has a 12-year total limitation, I think (possibly including PhD position, even).

There are also research-only positions here and there, which don't come with the teaching and admin that you want to avoid. I've known a few middle-aged "senior researchers" in the UK, and France has a research agency (CNRS) that employs researchers on permanent contracts with no teaching duties (in theory at least).

@user3780968 are those positions usually available, or just exceptions for top notch researchers that have already proven their "value"? What I mean by this is: would they hire a "young researcher"?

@QuantumBrick I've been looking into research-only permanent options myself (I don't want to be on endless fixed-term positions). These positions are rare, either exceptional ("senior researchers" in the UK I have heard of got those offers on a case-to-case basis), or very competitive (France research-only positions). But my impression is that they would consider an early-career academic as seriously as anybody else and hire based on a past research record and potential for future career. So, if you have a profile looking first-class, your "academic age" should not stop you.

@QuantumBrick In the past year 2 of my friends got permanent research-only positions, one in the UK (after 4 years postdoc experience), the other in France, with 2 years postdoc experience. Their CVs were good but not super-star quality.

It will be very difficult to do so. Several European countries have rules about how long someone can be employed in "government" positions without a permanent contract. For instance, in Germany, if you do not have a unbefristete (permanent) contract after a given time, you are required to leave university employment. Other countries almost certainly have similar rules, as mentioned in the comments.
Now, there are positions above the postdoc level where one can remain indefinitely. For instance, in Germany, there are positions like the Akademischer Rat or Oberingenieur or außerplanmäßige Professor, who act in a secondary role supporting the head of an institute. Such positions involve substantially more administrative work than a postdoc normally encounters, but are also not subject to the time limitations. In other countries, such as the US, you can have "soft-money" positions that go by titles such as "research assistant professor" that are not formal tenure-track positions, and are dependent on the supervising faculty and the RAP raising sufficient funds to "pay for itself." I know multiple people who have had careers in such positions.

if you don't have a (permanent) contract after a given time, you are required to leave university employment - technically, the uni would have to give you a permanent (entfristete) position, which they don't want to. The law was supposed to protect employees from a chain of precarious temporary contracts, but its effect is the opposite.

@henning: Thanks for the reminder. That's why they effectively force you out.

I think OP cannot hold that post, you need C2 german language fluency for that professions

Not necessarily, and usually for qualified applicants there's a grace period to establish such skills. But the point is to mention that there are options; whether the OP actually qualifies is a different issue altogether.

@SSimon Are you asserting that it is common to require C2 German language proficiency to work at a German university? That highly surprises me due to the number of people at American universities who don't even have C1 proficiency in English.

@StellaBiderman: Most permanent positions have a C2 requirement. It doesn’t apply to TV-L positions students or post docs. But most ads for such positions allow a few years in which to obtain qualifications.

@aeismail That’s really interesting, and would be a disaster for US schools.

@StellaBiderman It’s because of the need to teach undergraduate courses in German.

@aeismail American undergraduate courses are taught in English by non-tenured employees all the time, so I don’t see how that’s a significantly different use-case unless I’m misunderstanding you.

@StellaBiderman those administrative positions in Germany yes!

@StellaBiderman: In the German system, teaching obligations are often only levied against and counted for the permanent faculty. (It’s related to the funding formula for German universities.) And only the main lectures which the permanent faculty teach count as “teaching.”

This is the most helpful answer so far. Even though it's becoming more and more clear the fact that post-docing up to infinity is probably impossible, the existence of other positions with less administrative work than a tenure one is very interesting. I'm starting to consider them my best bet.

Can I live off post-docs?

I disagree with the other answers, based on my own experience my answer is yes. However it's unusual and it has some negative sides.
I have been a postdoc in France and Ireland for 12 years, working in three different academic institutions.
Let's not kid ourselves: the other answers are correct in saying that this is a bad career path (assuming you want a real academic career), and the uncertainty about still having a job next year is not ideal in everyday life. Additionally, usually the salary scale for a postdoc will not progress a lot (I assume that this depends on the country).
However there is a strong need for skilled researchers on a temporary basis in many places. It is true that many countries in Europe have limits on the number of years you can stay on a temporary contract, but (1) not all of them and (2) some institutions simply turn a blind eye on the legislation. Since you seem to be ok with regularly moving from one place to another, it looks like this wouldn't be an obstacle in your case.
Research wise, it's hard to have your own long term research plan and make it progress this way. On the other hand, you have less administrative and teaching duties, so more time to do actual research.
And in case you are bored with this one day, normally it wouldn't be too hard to have job offers from the private sector.

"some institutions simply turn a blind eye on the legislation. " That seems a bit remarkable. At least in Germany, it's quite common that employees sue their employers to have their fixed-term employment turned into a permanent one. An institution couldn't really "turn a blind eye" to that.

@lighthousekeeper I can't go into details obviously but I know of somebody who indeed successfully sued their institution. The institution was forced to give them a permanent position but gave them some position unrelated to their academic skills, it was clearly meant to discourage them and coerce them into quitting. So they can't escape it when they are sued, but they have ways to make things difficult for people who do.

‘[N]ormally it wouldn't be too hard to have job offers from the private sector.’ I suggest @QuantumBrick tests this proposal periodically. No need to accept a position, simply to learn first hand along the way.

No, please don't even think about it.
Some fields do need and have longer median postdoctoral times and stints (e.g. 2 postdocs are common in the biological sciences), but it is essentially career destroying if you're shuffling around from one postdoc to the other.
There are many reasons.
(I) Depreciation of one's academic worth with time when one lingers on in a postdoctoral role is very real.
(II) Any cool work that you do as a postdoc, or great papers that you write (with the rare exception of pure math, where authorship works differently) is invariably credited to the PI of the research group you're postdocing with.
(III) If you want a pure "scientist" job without the rest of the hassle that  being a faculty member entails, how about applying for permanent positions at research institutions? That would be the equivalent of places like NIST, GFDL or Brookhaven or other National Labs in the US. It also pays way better than a postdoc.
(IV) Lastly, anecdotes about "career" postdocs are none too encouraging.
Here is one: A brilliant researcher "X" worked with a famous PI, Prof. "Y" as a postdoc. "X" was technically amazing, and could set up certain difficult experiments and measurements like no one else.
It was very useful for "Y" to have "X" around, so he did. "X" had a great time, stayed on with "Y" as a postdoc, and got co-authorship on papers written in top journals. Unfortunately, "X" got so comfortable in her position that she did not realize the clock was ticking away.
Until one fine day, when Prof. "Y" decided to switch research areas completely, and told a rather middle-aged "X" to find a new position elsewhere.

(II) is not necessarily true.  (I) does not make sense, except in humanities fields where permanent positions are typically offered only to new PhDs.  I don't see how (IV) is different from any other non-tenured job.

Another reason that hasn't been stated, probably because its something a potential employer is not supposed to take into account...
Some profs only want to hire people who want to be profs because those people will be "hungry for success", and will be willing to put in substantially more hours of work than their contract requires them to.
On the other hand, having a right-hand man/woman around can be very attractive - someone reliable who is willing to do the leg work without needing to be intellectually in charge. Trouble is that arrangement works well when a relationship builds up between two people. But the fact that positions are generally only funded for a max of 3 years means that you can never guarantee such an arrangement will continue indefinitely.

probably because its something a potential employer is not supposed to take into account... Is that true?  Considering time since PhD is not the same as considering age, so I don't see why it would be illegal say.

by not supposed to take into account I didn't mean considering time since PhD, I meant considering how "exploitable" the candidate would be. How will would they be to go beyond what you are allowed to ask for in their contract.

To answer the general question: No, it is very unlikely you can live off post-docs indefinitely. The reasons are many. Among them:

It pays very little
Job security can be iffy
The retirement benefits are lackluster
Employers will expect you to find a faculty position soon (or equivalent)
Post-docs with 10+ years experience may be seen negatively when applying to new post-doc positions

Also, in your particular case the motivation for post-docs seems to be a dearth of funding. I don't think a post-doc is in a much better position than a faculty member as far as obtaining funding. So your solution doesn't really follow from your premise.
That said, if you actually attempt to be a post-doc indefinitely, I don't think the result will necessarily be unemployment. Assuming you perform reasonably well, and your lab is nice, etc. you will probably be offered a position at some point which is basically a souped-up post-doc with less expectation of moving on to a faculty job.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
How to write my project contribution in graduate application essay?
I am applying for PhD position in the USA. In the application, I have to write a essay on my research experience. Its not a SOP, rather how I worked there, why, findings, what were my contributions, techniques I learned etc.
I have few publications and some of them were entirely done by me. My supervisor guided and when the manuscript was written, it was checked by other post docs or professors and that how their name is also in my paper.
My question is how to write it in the essay?

Simply describe the nature of each project and a title, perhaps the title of a publication if possible. and note that the work was done as part of coursework. The implication will be that the work is yours and also that there was some feedback on it.
If the others are co-authors you can describe your work/role as "principal investigator", but make sure that the others agree with that characterization.

Actually none of them were done as a part of coursework, I work as a research assistant. All of them where independent work. I asked the graduate coordinator who suggested to write my research experiences like an abstract of a research article.

That is fine. Just tell it like it is.

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


text:
Can I ask the graduate office (US) if I can submit transcript without WES?
I want to apply for a Ph.D. position in a US university and I already wrote the program director with my CV and he encouraged me to apply. Now, this university needs World Education Services evaluation as I am an international student. But my university where I did my bachelor's, had followed the US grading system.
Due to covid, I am tight on budget. My question is- can I ask the graduate office if they can accept my transcript without WES or if they can waive it? I know it's kind of weird as it's a major criterion to evaluate an applicant but still, I want to know if I can ask it or not?

Yes, you can ask. But they will probably say no if they require/request it. Someone has to give a meaningful analysis of your transcript and they are probably deferring this to WES so as not to have to have people do it themselves.
It is a fairly large problem for a large institution and maybe a difficult one for a small institution.
But, in general, there is no prohibition about asking for what you want. Just be prepared for a "no". You won't avoid an evaluation in any case, and one from WES might actually be more useful, since they are organized for that.


text:
How long should the wait be for with editor status after submission?
I submitted paper to a journal of Elsevier. Now it has been 1 month from submission with status: "with editor".
Is this normal? And should I contact the journal to ask about the long time of that status?

You can certainly email the editor. However, keep in mind that most editorial board members (except the editor-in-chief) are volunteers. As an editor myself, I can tell you that journal submission systems often send reminder emails to editors automatically. Also, it is not clearly defined what the "with editor" status even means. Perhaps the editor has invited multiple reviewers, but is waiting for enough reviewers to accept the paper review.
In summary, your main choices are to 1) wait; 2) bug the editor; or 3) withdraw the paper and submit to a different journal. It is common for the first round of review to take 3-4 months, so with only 1 month of delay my advice would be to wait patiently.

My recommendation is that you contact directly with editor via email. The processing time is depend by journals.


text:
Can I write my thesis supervisor to complete my thesis?
I had worked in a lab for my master's thesis. But I could not complete a course from the previous semester so I could not register for defense at X University. This university asked me to transfer my credits.  Now I am trying to transfer my credits at Y University. Their response is positive and they asked if my thesis was completed or not. If yes, I don't have to do it again. If not, maybe I have to repeat. My question is what should I write them? I have worked and wrote the introduction and method. Then I left the lab and could not continue. If I want to complete my writing, then I have to contact my thesis supervisor again? Is it possible that he will cooperate?

DO NOT LIE.

Yes, it is possible that he will cooperate. But it is also possible that he won't. You have to ask. But the rules may get in your way if you can't register for a defense. Find someone local to tell you those rules.

no no I don't intend to lie. I was confused about what should I tell them. But its clear now. @JeffE

1) you have to say your thesis is not complete.
2) you need to contact your thesis supervisor for a plan of action to finish.
Of course if you decide not to finish the thesis at your old institution, then the new one may still accept you, while expecting you to complete perhaps with them. But they have to know whare you are - see 1...


text:
Who will be more suitable as recommender?
I want to apply for Ph.D. positions next year. I have research experience of more than five years, so I am considering applying for research-based universities mostly. Now I am confused about who I should ask for recommendation letters? I already arranged one LOR from my department head,
I am confused about whom should I choose from these four? All of them know me and they all will write good things I believe.

There is an adjunct professor who taught a course
during my studies. He is now the head of a reputed university in my
country.

There is an assistant professor from another university, under
whom I did a project. She is affiliated with my current lab, a collaborator mainly. But I had to perform some experimental
work for her project (published now, I am 2nd author), so I worked in
her lab for six months, which is out of the city and I worked there
as a guest researcher.

A third is a postdoc, mainly my collaborator or co-author and we published four articles, including one in the top journal in our field. He is doing his second postdoc (a research fellow) in a reputed US university.

Another one was my course instructor during my bachelor's,
an assistant professor. I learned a few experiments from her (she
was not my thesis supervisor but she was well versed in some
experimental tests so she taught me).

I reformatted your list to make it more readable - please correct if it I made any mistakes (e.g. you mixed A/B/3/4 so I wasn't 100% sure).

Thanks for the correction

Pick the people who know you and your work best and can give the most detailed reports of their observations.  Unless your reference is a famous individual, it's less important who writes your LOR than what they say about why they recommend you.


text:
Whom should I take recommendation letter from?
I am applying for a Ph.D. position in US universities. I am confused about whom should I use as one of my recommenders? One of them is from the school from which I graduated and he is the department head, had been a postdoc in one of the US's top universities. I took one of his courses and he was my course advisor at that time.
On the other hand, another one had been my supervisor for two projects (in my workplace) and is very young (doing his first or second postdoc). We did not publish any articles yet but they are under review. So basically she can write better about my research experience and so on.
I am confused because I attended a webinar from a US school lately where the department head said they prefer LORs from someone who had been my supervisor or knows me via research, not someone who knows me via one or two courses.
Whom should I choose as one of my recommenders?

Normally going with the person who has helped you with research is better but in this case that person is still in the post-doc stage so it is better to go ahead with the department head.

First, you usually need multiple recommendations.  Second it sounds like you already got an answer but don't like it/aren't convinced?  Third, a number of such questions have already been answered here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/171662/19607 https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/85215/19607 https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/13691/19607

yeah the rest two are already decided. I was confused between these two.

If you are seeking entry in a research degree, then pick the researcher.  A good reference letter will often complement a transcript, especially if the referee can add to context beyond what the transcript does.  In your case the researcher can provide this additional context.


text:
What should I do when my LORs are submitted for a previous application?
I want to apply for a Ph.D. position in a US university  (X) this year. Last year I started the application but did not finish and submit it. But my recommenders already sent their LORs and its already in the portal.
Now this year as I want to apply again, I want to change one of my recommenders (A) because  I think the new one (B) knows me better and can write a better one for me.  Also, I heard A always writes a general LOR so it will not add much value to my application.
What can I do now? I hope the recommendation letters are in the portal but as the application was not submitted so the admission committee did not go through it?
Should I use my alternative email for the new application? Will it work?

Have you contacted the university to ask?

Have you logged in to the account you made to see if any of the information you entered was retained? If so, then the same is probably true of the recommendations, and if not, they were also probably dumped.

Actually, I wanted to create a new account( as I totally forgot I had one last year), and then I realized I already had an account and as the referees can be late to submit the LORs, so I sent the requests at first. Last time I was late and could not manage a supervisor, so I didn't complete the application.

I can't guarantee this, but expect that most places will start each cycle with a "clean slate", ignoring information that came in from previous application cycles. If that is the case you need a complete application for this cycle.
But this might not be the case everywhere, so you should ask the individual department this question: Are old materials discarded, including LoRs, and should you submit new ones. You can even say that you prefer new ones when you make the inquiry so that they don't get the idea that you prefer them to carry the old material forward.
I would avoid using a different email, lest it confuse them about who you are.


text:
How to tell a supervisor that I got a PhD position without his recommendation letter?
I was applying for a Ph.D. position and my supervisor wanted me to apply to a few of his collaborator's labs which subjects or work never attracted me. Also, he always wanted all his students to apply to a specific country. He was like he will only write LOR if his students apply to that country.
So when I applied I did not recommend his name and took LOR from other professors (who are big shots) and I secured a Ph.D. position.
Now how can I tell him that I got a Ph.D. position where I did not use his name as a recommender? Is there any polite way so that he doesn't feel bad?

It seems you want to do something impolite, for impolite reasons. At least, that how your post comes accross: "Look, I didn't need your letter!"

Don't worry about his feelings too much. If he is a decent person he will want to congratulate you on your success. If he isn't then how he "feels" is the least of your problems. But "I was lucky enough to obtain a position at xyz" is the message to send. Not "I was lucky enough to obtain a position at xyz without your help". And thanking him for support in earning your degree is always a positive message.
It should be a minor matter, though he may reply that he wished you'd applied in the "preferred" country.


text:
Can a PhD student write recommendation letter for me under whom I worked?
A few years ago I did a month lab rotation in a lab. At that time I was doing my masters and I was directly supervised by the Ph.D. student (X) of that lab. He taught me all the techniques and corrected my lab report. Then I sent it to the group leader. So basically I worked closely with the Ph.D. student and also the work I did during this one month, X used them in his further test and analysis. So that year, he published the paper and acknowledged me in that article.
Now I want to apply for a Ph.D. position and I wrote to that group leader who did not reply to me. So is it ok if I ask X to write one for me? (He completed his Ph.D. that year and I think he's a postdoc somewhere). we were not connected after that lab rotation but I got no choice except to ask X or that group leader who did not reply to me yet.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/18062/68109, but maybe not a duplicate since you have tagged this as Germany.

No my situation is different @GoodDeeds

Everyone can write a recommendation letter for you. So the answer is an absolute yes. Nevertheless, the question now becomes: how strong can a recommendation letter written by a Ph.D. student be in order to have a strong application in order to get accepted? But this is a different story.
You may want to send it in addition to the other recommendation letters.

"You" shouldn't send the letter. Letters should be sent directly be the recommender.

It was an abuse of language: of course you write the email of the Professor in the application website and she or he uploads the letter to the provided link.

Fair enough. I still feel this is important to point out. Otherwise people might think that both types of letters have the same weight, which they often don't.

I definitely agree :)

Letters from postdocs are definitely fine. Letters from people who have worked closely with you are definitely better than letters from people who have only met you two times or only experienced you in a lecture.
Then again, the issue with a only-just-now postdoc is that he/she has little, if any, experience in writing recommendation letters - and, in fact, even in reading recommendation letters. So it will likely be difficult for whoever receives the letter to judge you properly - either because the letter is not written in the usual way, or because whoever reads it knows that the writer did not have experience with recommendation letters. And finally, it will be hard for a PhD/postdoc to make meaningful comparison over a large sample ("best intern in the last 10 years").
The ideal situation would be a joint letter of the group leader and the PhD student/postdoc (whoever actually writes it). Ideally this would be sent by the group leader, stating that it was written with significant input from the postdoc. Then again, there's nothing wrong to ask the postdoc if they could ask the group leader to write a joint letter.


text:
What should I do when the references are not replying?
I have worked in Y for 2 years as a research assistant and then I moved to my home country and worked here for almost 4 years and published papers in reputed journals. Logically I think I should include the names of my current supervisors or the supervisors I have published works with.
But  Professor X (I am applying for a Ph.D. position) is originally from Y, currently residing in Canada. He asked me to include three references from Y. So I wrote the supervisors I have worked under.
So basically I wrote three of my supervisors two days ago and asked for their permission if I can include their name in my application and none of them replied yet. Maybe things are difficult due to this pandemic.
In this situation what should I do? Should I write Professor X that I could not reach them? Or just send  Professor X the list of names? what if Professor X contacts them and they don't reply?
(I am restless because Professor X is waiting for my reply too)

You probably mean "references" instead of "referees."

Thanks. I have edited it.

@JoelReyesNoche actually, referees is the correct word (in British English).

If they don't respond soon you could try calling them on the telephone.

People get loads of emails and it is very natural that some take a few days to reply. Also some emails may be missed or overlooked, so you can write again and say it's urgent. Normally such things should be done with a few weeks time if at all possible because answering to such requests is not the first thing on people's list.
If all else fails, try to contact somebody else. I'd avoid to give Professor X the list of names without having an answer from them. It doesn't look good to pass on such information without being authorised. You can ask Professor X for advice what to do without telling them names. Surely if Professor X is responsible for the tight time frame, they should have some understanding.

@Lewian- Maybe I can write Professor X that I have written my referees and waiting for their permission?

Sure, although that may not make much of a difference... ultimately it depends on how urgent it really is.

@Lewian- It's been a week I did not hear from any of my ex supervisors. I decided to write professor X that  I could not reach them. But don't you think it will have a negative impact on my image too? that out of 3, no one replied. But it is also a fact that we were not in touch for all these years.

I have no idea what Professor X thinks. Rather than agonising about what went wrong, try to remind them and/or find others. Note that emails can get lost or ignored because there are always so many. You may want to remind them, maybe even try to call them. Some do stuff with more than a week delay.


text:
Does a decision usually take this long after submitting for peer review? It's been over a week and the editor was assigned within a day of submission
I am a newbie to the peer review process, but the first journal I submitted to responded with a decision from the editor in chief within about 5 days after i resubmitted after It was initially sent back for revision (formatting errors). "We are sorry to inform you that your manuscript was rejected for publication blah blah blah, while we appreciate your contributions, the manuscript does not closely align with the scope of the journal, and the reason for the rapid decision is to allow you to submit your manuscript  to other journals in a timely fashion" (your manuscript sucks, so no dice). That wasn't that big of a surprise given that the first journal is pretty prestigious and has an average acceptance rate of 5 to 10%, vs an estimated 15 to 35% for the journal I recently submitted to. The current journals scope is more in line with my research interests and has a few publications covering my topic in other aspects. I honestly expected to have to go through a few rejections from multiple reputable journals, given that I have never submitted for peer review and my only experience with research/ scholarly communication is presenting at my institutions annual research symposium and a research conference up state focused on undergraduate scholarship earlier this year. So maybe this means it won't be outright rejected?
I would have expected a decision or update from the editor by now, I know the peer review process isn't quick and usually takes months, but it was my understanding that the editor in chief or senior editor sends out a decision or comments fairly quickly (within about 12 days), especially considering that the editor was assigned within about 30 hours of submission, alongside the fact that this journal publishes often. My current status is "under review" and has been that way since the second day of my submission
Should I contact the journal If I don't get any update within 4 weeks or so? Do editors ever just forget about a manuscript/ ignore them? I know I'm being a bit too eager/ impatient, but I was hoping to share this accomplishment with my college peers and my supervisor/ mentors back at college before I start my next degree in the fall of 2025 and we lose contact.
I'd appreciate some insight, thanks in advance.

"I know I'm being a bit too eager" It seems like you already know the answer.

@morxa fair enough.

The editor will only filter out "obviously bad" papers. All others go for review. Reviewers often get told a >=6 weeks deadline, which many reviewers miss, sometimes by months. "Under review" is the status you are hoping for 12 days after submission. Depending on the field, it can easily take 6 months before you hear back. The editor will often send a decision quite quickly (after less than a month) after receiving the reviews.

6 weeks sounds like a dream to me. I have a paper that recently celebrated 2 years since submission, still under review.


text:
ACM Computing Surveys review time
I submitted a survey paper to ACM Computing Surveys over four months ago. When I contacted the journal, they told me they had difficulty securing reviewers. I'm okay with that, but I am curious if that is a typical experience for this journal. I tried looking online but couldn't find reliable sources on how long the journal usually takes to review submissions.

How did it take for you to receive a review from ACM Computing Surveys?
Is that indicative of my chances of being accepted for submission?

How did it take for you to receive a review from ACM Computing Surveys?

I have not submitted to this journal in a long time, but I have reviewed for them on occasion.
ACM Computing Surveys publishes (typically long and intricate) survey papers. Consequently, they give the authors (for computer science) relatively long time to review (by default 8 weeks I believe). Additionally, it's not a stretch to believe that finding reviewers for such papers is even more difficult than for normal research articles.
In general, 4 - 6 months until first decision is fairly normal for a high-profile computer science journal. I don't see anything out of the expected in what you describe.

Is that indicative of my chances of being accepted for submission?

No. Review time is not indicative of your chances to get accepted (outside of the obvious case of a quick desk reject). Weak papers take approximately as long to review as very strong ones, and the main driver of delays is anyway how long it takes the editor to herd together a sufficient number of reviewers.
If anything, a long review time is indicative that your topic is sufficiently niche (or you have enough conflicts of interest) that the editor is struggling more than usual to find reviewers. But the Editor-in-Chief already told you as much.


text:
Can I share my recent published article to my prospective supervisor?
I am applying for Ph.D. in US universities and for that I already wrote a professor with my CV, asking if he has any vacancy in this lab or not. His reply was positive and encouraged me to apply. So I applied via GradCAS.
Now one of my articles has been published in a reputed journal(which could have been enriched my CV). So is it ok if I send the prospective supervisor my article to read? Will it enhance my chance to get accepted?

What is the application deadline? Is this for Fall 2022? Seems quite early for the typical US timeline.

The deadline is Dec 1. Though I have applied for Fall 2022, I have already submitted my application. After submission, it's not possible to make any changes.

What degree(s) will you hold when you enter the doctoral program? A bachelors or also a masters? Admissions are very different in Germany and US.

You probably submitted far too early. Typically, the way admissions work in the US is that a committee reviews the applications and meets to discuss them shortly after the deadline. There's really no reason to apply 5 months before the deadline, your application will sit there unread. There's no bonus for submitting early, and no decisions will be made until the deadline in fairness to all applicants. As you've encountered, your application materials can change between now and the deadline, with new publications to add to CVs, hopefully additional research experience between now and then to report on, etc.
Additionally, although you can converse with a potential supervisor, at this point the admissions process is probably being done at the program level. A potential supervisor might be able to put in a good word for you, but they are likely not the ones making any final decision about you being admitted.
I'd update your CV nearer the deadline and ask the program if you can change it then. Even if the online portal won't let you update it, I think they'd probably accept. It's fine to send a paper to a potential supervisor if you think they'd be interested, but that won't be an effective way to get it added to consideration of your application. Probably it will sit in the professor's inbox and they may or may not look at the paper.

This is valuable information because in some countries deadlines are more "flexible". I remember my PhD interview was a week before the official deadline. (I also admit to start scanning applications early, though I read all applications.)

There's really no reason to apply 5 months before the deadline, your application will sit there unread. Are you sure? I distinctly remember reading in an admissions guide that for the most competitive programs, one should apply as soon as possible, well before the deadline, and this goes for both undergraduate and graduate admissions.

@Allure But why? That advice makes no sense for US grad admissions the way I am familiar with them, except maybe as a short-sighted time management strategy.

@BryanKrause I don't remember clearly. I think part of it was you can motivate late recommendation letter-writers, and the other part is that most people submit just before the deadline, leading to a pileup of work, and applying early means your application can be read sooner by fresh eyes and therefore stand out more.

@Allure Got it. Definitely getting your applications in order in advance is a good idea, including asking and preparing your references. Submitting a month or 6 weeks early or something seems completely reasonable. 5 months is unnecessary. Start the process, sure, but no need to submit then.


text:
What should I do if a professor is not writing the recommendation letter whom I already suggested?
I have applied for a Ph.D. position and I had to suggest two referees who will write a letter for me. Previously one of my professors had written one for me so I write her name again. The system is you need to meet her in person and then she will write one in front of you and send it to the university.
After applying I came to know she had taken sick leave for the whole week and she asked me to meet next week. But the last day of letter submission is this week (Friday). I had written her mail about my problem and urgency but she did not reply. In this case, what can I do? I had some other referees too but she is a big shot that's why I put her name in the submission form.
Should I write the Ph.D. coordinator regarding this?

Update: I wrote the program coordinator and she replied that one recommendation letter is enough to make a decision.

The strict rules should be relevant to the recipient not really to the candidate and his her referee. In this case it seems ethical enough to work just remotely. I did not get that rule anyway, it seems to protect the candidate....

Use a different referee, time is now not on your side and she did not plan to be sick.
If she is not capable of replying to emails she might be very sick so have some respect.
You might consider sending her reference late with a note of explanation but I suggest you send the initial application fully complete. Many times the first stage of the sorting process is « is it complete » and only those that are get to the next round.

I already submitted the application (the last date was 3rd January) and for referees its 10th January. And she never replies back to any mail. So I always have to contact the assistant when she is available and when we can meet.


text:
How to write a research proposal for a PhD position?
I want to apply for a Ph.D. position in a group where there is only their research summary written on the homepage. An applicant should write a research proposal and if the PI likes it then they will offer a position. I have gone through their publications and tried to figure out what can be done more. This is a very big research group so the number of publications is huge too and they work on so many topics. Every time I came up with an idea I found that it's already done or other groups are working on that. Now I am wondering if I write the same thing, they might think I copied the idea when it is not the case. Also, some of the techniques I have done earlier and some never. Now while writing the proposal can I write some methods I never did? Can they ask questions like if you have never did it before how can you do it during Ph.D.?

Keep searching, of course. But maybe think about what they have done that might be extended.

You might consider reaching out to the PI directly to discuss possible research avenues, and if the PI has no time, then to one of the grad students in the group. They will have a much better idea of where the research can be taken, and can even brainstorm with you a bit about merging your interests & experiences with the group’s previous work & expertise. Granted, some PIs won’t entertain such conversations before you apply, but if you can build a personal connection with the PI, you’ll have a better chance of getting admitted and definitely you can be sure you’re proposing something relevant

I want to apply for a Ph.D. position in a group where there is only
their research summary written on the homepage.

A good starting point is the rationale for wanting to join this group. Is it the prestige of the institute/group leader, the topics they work on, or something else? If it is the first (possibly not ideal), then you can narrow the search by identifying a specific sub-topic that is currently active. This would help because you can identify specific researchers (currently active), who can give you some sharp insights into the current requirements of the research area.
On the other hand, if you want to join the group because their area of work resonates with you, then the problem reduces to making a deeper and more exhaustive search. That brings up:

I have gone through their publications and tried to figure out what
can be done more.

This is absolutely on the right track. While its not trivial, being able to assess a research area to find a niche is key to being a good researcher. This skill may well be on their assessment rubric. The only suggestion I can share here is to be systematic with your survey, assiduously document your findings and spend enough time analyzing what you've found.

Every time I came up with an idea I found that it's already done or
other groups are working on that.

That's alright. A lot of research does happen concurrently. What you should be able to demonstrate is that you have an understanding of what is happening already, and ideally propose some addition/extension to it. This may be incremental, but it still shows that you've done your homework and put in some critical thought.

Now I am wondering if I write the same thing, they might think I
copied the idea when it is not the case.

This won't be a problem if you include the existing/ongoing work in your proposal.

Also, some of the techniques I have done earlier and some never. Now
while writing the proposal can I write some methods I never did? Can
they ask questions like if you have never did it before how can you do
it during Ph.D.?

No, that may be a concern for a post-doctoral position, certainly not here. You're not really expected to have a full-fledged plan and the entire skill set required, just the appropriate understanding and some idea about what you'd like to achieve.


text:
Professor refuses letter of recommendation request
The application for TA fellowship, one normally takes recommedations from previous professors one has TAed under.
What he replied when I messaged him asking for a letter of recommendation:

If you remember I had major difficulties with the group of TAs of last
  year: the group behaved as if its internships were the most important
  jobs and only if it had time and in marginal hours, it would do its
  job. I rarely got an answer from my emails, I had to send the same
  email several times. The group rarely answered students' emails and
  their assignments' questions.   I asked for the group's support to
  proctor the exam, and at the beginning, nobody was willing to help.
  You were more collaborative than the rest. However, I still had to
  invest a significant amount of time to compensate for the complete
  lack of support of the TA group. So, in these conditions is very
  difficult for me to write the very positive letter that you need to
  win the scholarship. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful at this
  time.

All of the things he says are not valid for me.
I didn't have internships, students sent me thank you after attending office hours and I went out of the way several times to accommodate his requests. Although, I can remember I replied him a few times the next day due to other work. He also did several things like threatening TAs for complaints which very out of the line at my University and unheard of.
Can I dispute his claims? I don't want a letter of recommendation anymore, I feel under-appreciated for the work I put in. I feel like I should reply to him, but I feel a bit angry for

dealing with him with through the course for this
trying to go the extra mile for a future recommendation.

Background info:
The professor is not from my University and was hired to teach to a summer course.
Possible reply:
Attach a thank you email I received from one of students taking the course, and mention two times I went over the line to co-operate with him.

Is there any chance his assessment would make it onto your record in your department, either officially or unofficially?

@ElizabethHenning he most likely won't teach again in my University. His assessment can in no way reflect in my record in any circumstances.

Dispute his claims? To whom and why? His negative complaints are all against the group, his positive statement is in reference to you.  What do you wish to achieve.

At least he didn't agree and then write you a negative letter.

"All of the things he says are not valid for me." So his statement that "You were more collaborative than the rest" is false?

When you ask for a letter of recommendation, first ask yourself if that letter may help you stand out. A professor must be sincere in his letter. He is asked about your ranking, about your implication in the course, about what makes you stand out. If he can't say something special, it's not worth it. Refusing to write an average letter is the right answer from this professor... Do not try to convince him to do it. You'll just get an average letter with no added value to your application.

I am sorry for your situation, no one likes to feel under-appreciated. That being said, it is important to know which battles are worth picking. Your professor was very clear in his answer, and I can't see how can you (or anyone, for what's it worth) gain something pursuing this matter further. It would only create an unnecessary and tense atmosphere. You also said yourself that you do not want his LOR anymore. Let it go, and best of luck in the future.

Picking a fight would be stupid, but it might also be stupid to let false information go uncontested.

I fully agree with you. But if this is the case, all the TA's would be in the same situation, surely other people in the department would notice something was off? I can't guess much more without knowing if this is happening for the first time, or if the professor already had trouble with past TA's.

The professor only taught an one-off course in the summer. And, one other TA complained against him in the department, that he threatens students to get his work done.

I can't agree that he was polite in his answer. Using an LOR request to gripe at length about the other TAs is childish and unprofessional.

In my head there was a subtle difference between "polite" and "respectful". In hindsight, maybe I should have used "respectful" instead. But English is not my first language, and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, but ok. :-)

@ElizabethHenning I think he meant which battles are worth picking and not to pick fights. ;)

@mathreadler Yes! I edited it for more clarity :)

Can I dispute his claims?

Not really, because he doesn't actually say outright that you did something wrong. His bottom line is that he doesn't have a positive impression of you.
However, if your relations with this Professor are important to you, you might consider having a chat with him about what had happened that semester so as to clear the air, possibly even apologize / make excuses for the group - even though you're not the one who was responsible.

Why apologize for something that you think you are not responsible?

@optimalcontrol: Ah, this is non-trivial (and part of the reason I wrote this answer). It can be more beneficial to assuage the Professor's disapproval of the group's behavior than to insist on your individual non-culpability. In fact, even for the very purpose of convincing the Professor you are not to blame, or are excusable, or trustworthy, the taking of responsibility and an apology might be better than insisting you weren't in the wrong.

From a pragmatic point of view, I would also prefer to apologize in order to not create other possible tension but it would be also difficult from a personal side to apologize, just not to be in trouble.

There are times to apologize for a group. Most importantly, if you are responsible for the group, also if you feel you were part of it when it did its misbehaviour, even if you didn't. I find it however strangely disturbing to apologize for something one has no part in, as in an apparent disparate collection of individuals. Not only for the person who apologizes, but also for the person being apologized to. It appears strangely insincere. An apology, in my opinion, is always about taking responsibility. There is no indication that OP had any whatsoever for what went on.

Have you had any significant interaction with the professor other than in your role as TA?
If not, then he is probably right in declining to write your LoR. While LoRs tend to include lots of praise and nice words, they need some concrete experiences and successes to justify these words; otherwise the writer risks being taken for a windbag. So, for "the very positive letter that you need" (I am taking your professor literally -- yes, usually LoRs have to be really outstanding to be of any use due to the loudness war of recommendations), you need to have collaborated with him on a successful project. If the only thing you have collaborated on with him was a failure, at least in his view, then it will be very hard for him to use it as a basis of a positive assessment of you, at least without slamming the other TAs in the same report (which would open its own can of worms -- I perfectly understand his unwillingness).
On the good side, this has been a summer TAship; you can probably find other reference writers who know you just as well or better.

I think you should show your maturity and reply to the professor with a rather neutral e-mail. If you don't want a letter of recommendation anymore why would you want to dispute his claims because he generalized the group behaviour and projected it in some way on you? It's understandable that you are angry because you put in time to do the job the best way you could and yet don't get the 'reward' of a Letter of Recommendation. He probably feels the same way about the TA group because he had to spend more time of his own than he would have liked to.
In my opinion the best way to handle this situation is to reply to the professor and thank him for the opportunity to be a TA for his course. Tell him that you understand his frustration about the TA group and if it's important to you, tell him that you have done the job the best way you could. I would not recommend to send him the e-mail of a student who thanked you. You will not convince him to change his opinion, the damage is already done.
Take it as a learning experience. If you expect someone to do you a favor like writing a Letter of Recommendation, complete the work successfully and make sure that the person who you want to do you a favor takes notice of your work.
I don't know how the TA group was organized but maybe you could have tried to support the professor a little bit more by calling out other TA members whose commitment lacked.

Yeah you are right, I should have asked him right after the course ended. I think now that it has 6 months since the course, he doesn't remember my contributions well enough to recommend me.

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


text:
Reasons a paper may be open for revision after the majority of reviewers recommended rejection
Two out of three reviewers rejected the paper I had submitted saying that it is not of high scientific content. But the third reviewer suggested "publish after minor revision."
The paper is open for revisions. Does my paper stand a chance of acceptance after revision?
Why is it open for revisions when majority 2/3 of the reviewers had rejected it?

Does my paper stand a chance of acceptance after revision?

Yes. If it didn't, it would have been rejected. Now how good of a chance it has is another question entirely.

Why is it open for revisions when majority 2/3 of the reviewers had rejected it?

Because peer review is not voting. Perhaps the editor disagrees with the other reviewers. Or found the third reviewer's arguments particularly compelling. Or is in a generous mood today, and wants to leave the paper open for a "Hail Mary" revision that dramatically improves the paper.

Sometimes conference management software has glitches, or it might be human error, or - indeed, it may very well be the case that your paper might still be considered after revision.
What you should really do is just ask the program committee chair or contact people. Tell them: "XYZ happened and now my paper is open for revision. Is this a technical glitch or will it be considered after revision?" - and they'll give you the definite answer.
(of course, until they've answered, assume you should submit a revision so as not to waste time.)

I believe your paper has substantial chances of getting finally accepted, if you can address adequately all the three reviewers' concerns.
Regarding the reason for the apparent discrepancy between two reviewers and one reviewer and the editor, I think it has to do mainly with priority and the actual reasons provided by the reviewers.
If your paper is not that perfect but perceived by the editor (and reviewers) as being scientifically hot, it may be deemed suitable for publication, even if only to foster scholarly discussion.
In addition, if the reasons accounting for the rejection recommendations are addressable, at least in the eyes of the editor, then such recommendations may seem less stringent.
Furthermore, it might be that the two rejecting reviewers are seen as less competent or independent than the other one.
In any case, this scenario tells you that this editor likes to manage the journal with some subjectivity, which is not a bad thing in itself.
One question though: did he ask for a de novo resubmission?

There is no really a systematic way or standard reasons for acceptance or rejection. Actually, it's all about the personal judgment of the editor-in-chief. Myself, I had once 3 reviewers who said accept as it is and one said it should be rejected because his colleague in the math department told him mathematically the  approach is wrong. So the editor-in-chief decided to reject not even a major review.
I have seen more crazy cases where papers were rejected because of only one reviewer. One reviewer for instance said literally "sorry for wasting your time. I don't like your work" and this was enough for the editor-in-chief to reject the paper. Then the paper was accepted in a way better and very prestigious IEEE transactions journal.
To summarize what I said, unfortunately this process is not and will never be fair, however, the scientific community is doing its best to make it as fair as possible. On the other hand, there is a bright side in this story which is wherever you publish your work even in a low quality journal or conference it should stand for itself and it will attract too much attention if the work is of a good quality.

The reason that it was not rejected is, that the reviewers are advising a decision. They don't make the decision per se. Apparently the editor likes your paper and think it is significant, therefore try to revise the paper and adress the issues the reviewers raised. Also include or adress the issues by the reviewers who rejected the paper. This is vital but sometimes tedious because the reviewers usuallaly critize things you think are not important to the paper, but this is part of the process...


text:
Is it rude to remind an editor about a manuscript submission still waiting for an invitee after 2 months?
An original work has been submitted about 2 months ago to a journal thru their online interface and its status is still locked into "editor invited".
Would it be rude to remind them about this?
Oddly I've talked to the editor sometimes before sending my manuscript and she was always quick to reply, so I guess this status has to do with looking for another editor specialized in that field or for reviewers?
I fear this may cut down chances for paper to get published.
Thank you
Edit: I've seen that similar topic about 3 months but I believe it's different since it refers to a larger timeframe and a different, more advanced status in the peer-review process.

I am almost in a similar situation, but the status is 'with editor' since last 3 months. I don't know what to do. I have reminded the editorial office about it once.

Back in my day, and in my field (mathematics), I would never contact the journal about a paper until a year after submission...

Related: Is it okay to inquire about the status of a paper when the online submission system shows no update three months after submission?.

No, it's not rude if it is a neutral question.

That's both sad and scary stuff, I never expected the world to revolve around me but neither for things to take long enough to impair and slow down my career, since I guess that's something obvious if an author's writing/elaborating/publishing speed is > or even worst >> than peer-reviewed journals' elaborating speed. It's like being outward-bound to reap results from 1 paper/year while being able yourself to publish 5 papers/year.


text:
Chevening scholarships
Chevening funded scholarships have a 'two years rule' which means you have to return to your home country for two years after finishing your masters degree in the UK. For anyone who has experience with this scholarship, or knows someone that has, I have a couple of questions:

Does the two year rule means you have to be in your home country, or just outside of UK for two years?
I put more emphasis on autonomy as a person. Could a Chevening scholarship affect your autonomy in the future (meaning you are obliged to go to gatherings, embassies etc)?

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you could go anywhere you want outside of the UK, although perhaps it might have to be outside of the EU. As for the personal autonomy point, it shouldn't affect that at all. Let me emphasise this point though, I am not a lawyer.


text:
Exemption from language requirements for MSc?
My friend found a MSc program in Germany whose professors guaranteed to him full English courses plus they would let him write his thesis in English. However, the admission office at the University asks for a high level (C1) of German language proficiency.
Up until now he did not have any luck in explaining this to the people in the Admission office. My question is - is it possible for an exemption of the language requirements to happen, or would you advice that this sounds like a time wasted? Have you heard of any case that this was a obstacle, but it got solved?

"... they would let him write my thesis in English." Sounds suspicious to me.

Mistake. Fixed.

@BirdMars I'm not sure what you expect with your bounty. The answer of Arno is really accurate and quite optimistic to my opinion. For context: I have spent almost 5 years in german universities until now and met a fair amount of students coming from abroad in order to complete their MSc.

Based on my experience with German universities, your friend attempting to convince the admissions office will be near hopeless. One of the professors he has been in touch with could have a decent chance though.


text:
Leaving a conference immediately after presenting a paper?
I work as a full-time employee in industry. Recently, I've been invited to present at a conference in an area not closely related to my degree. My employer approved me being absent for two-three hours and I accepted the conference invitation.
However, I'm not sure how will this look in the eyes of the conference attendees and other presenters since I will have to leave immediately after my 20 minutes talk. Therefore, I will miss their talks.
Is there an etiquette regarding this? Should someone accept a presentation on a conference if they won't be able to be present for the whole duration?

As noted in existing answers, a conference is ostensibly about conferring with other people. Ask your employer for more time off, either paid or unpaid as needed, if you're interested enough in going and rubbing shoulders with others in the field. If you're not interested enough to spend a few hours there learning or making connections, why go at all? They can find other presenters.

Why not just ask whoever is hosting the conference for guidance. Different conferences have different cultures. They likely accepted you as a speaker because they want to hear you speak. Given this, they are probably happier to have you speak and leave than they are to have you not attend. Just ask the host and not a bunch of random people online.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

If you personally know any of the speakers whose talks you have to miss, it would be good to talk to them beforehand, explain the situation, and apologize for missing their talks.

No one can force you to attend the whole conference, but usually the purpose of conferences is to spread new ideas, discuss them and make connections.
You can certainly accept the invitation, deliver your presentation and disappear soon afterward. It's certainly not unheard of. Your presentation might be useful to others anyway, but you will miss part of the purpose of going to conferences.

Absolutely, people leave early for many reasons, family, medical etc etc It happens and you have done the best bit : presenting your paper and answering some questions possibly.

Since the OP is an industry worker who normally works outside of the conference's field, I don't think it's correct to say their main reason for attending is to bump shoulders with other researchers. It's to share their ideas and improve their own and their company's reputation.

Is there an etiquette regarding this? Should someone accept a presentation on a conference if they won't be able to be present for the whole duration?

There aren’t really any universally agreed-upon rules for such things, but as a general rule:

If the conference organizers are paying any expenses for your attendance (such as travel or accommodation), it is considered good manners to be present for at least a good chunk of the conference other than your own talk.
If the organizers are not paying your expenses, I don’t think they have either a moral claim or much of an expectation that you do anything other than show up and deliver the talk they invited you to deliver.

If you are in doubt about what the organizers are expecting from you, it is perfectly acceptable to let them know about your constraints and ask them if it’s okay to accept the invitation even though you won’t be able to stay after your talk. If it bothers them, I‘m sure they will have no trouble telling you.

I'd add that in a very lightly attended conference session it's generally polite to at least stay for all of the talks in the session where you're presenting.  It's also polite to have a question or two for the the other speakers in the session.

It's certainly not viewed as odd to leave a conference straight after your presentation, plenty of people do it if they are super busy. However you will unfortunately have to skip the value of hearing other presentations, feedback on your own work and of course networking.

One practical issue not addressed in the other answers is the size of the conference. If this is a large conference with multiple concurrent sessions and hundreds of attendees, there will be so much moving about between talks that no one will even notice when you leave. Even if someone is actively seeking you out for a one-on-one discussion they may simply assume they missed you in the throng.
On the other hand, if all talks follow one another in a single location and there are a few dozen attendees, you are more likely to be missed if you leave early. In that case, I doubt many would regard it as rude, but it's certainly possible that other attendees might feel disappointed if they had been hoping to have a discussion with you.
One practical tip: (particularly) if you are forced to leave early, make sure that your contact details are prominently included in your talk and easy to find via your company's website or on social media. Then if people would like to follow up anything from your talk they have the means to do so even if they can't speak to you at the conference.

Don't leave the conference right after presenting the paper, and don't arrive right before you need to present it. At least come for the day.
Some answers tell you "oh, there's no obligation if they're not paying your expenses etc."  ... well, nobody's going to hang you for it, but still: It's a conference. Attend the conference. Mingle. Talk to people. It's important for the scientific community and probably beneficial for you as well. You won't regret it.
What about your employer, then? Well, tell him you are expected to show up for the full day, and you had made a mistake only asking for part of the day off. And if you're working someplace which can't give you a day off to attend a scientific conference - well, you have bigger problems than leaving a session early.


text:
My legal/moral rights against editors
And no, it is not ok as it works. One year to review a 10 pages paper is not ok. The process is just not working and authors should have legal rights against editors/journals.
I submitted a paper to a reputable journal and after 4 months and after 2 unanswered e-mails, a secretary responded and told me that the editor has not found available reviewers yet and I should wait.
First, I do not buy it. Second, let's say that I buy it: can't you tell me at the time of submission that "hey, look, we have no people available, it will take 4 months to find someone, are you ok?" Is that too difficult? Can't you hire a person to do it? You are a (tr-?)billion dollar industry!
I submitted my work - intellectual property - to these people in good faith, I acknowledge that this has to  take time, but "searching for referees" 4 months is simply unacceptable. I, as an author, should have legal rights against them. Literally, they are withholding my property (I have no right to resubmit elsewhere etc.) but there is no law protecting me.
I would like to ask: are there other people like me who believe that enough with these ridiculous 1-2 year periods to get a response on a 10 page paper and that editors/journals should be legally bounded to do their work correctly (as we authors are legally bounded to freeze our work on this paper during the submission process?) There are pages long about "Ethical responsibilities for authors" in the journal pages, but what are "editors' ethical responsibilities?"

Sounds more like a rant than a question...Second, I highly doubt that at the time of the submission the editors knew how long it will take to find reviewers, as far as I know the editor asks some reviewers, if they say no they ask other people and so on. And, with the explosion in submissions over the last few years, especially in small fields, finding reviewers can be a pain...

@NickS I agree and apologize for the "rant tone" in the text. The explosion is not a valid excuse because it came with an explosion in revenue and an explosion of people working in the industry. Some (also top) journals keep reasonable times "of first decision" and have publicly available metrics that they keep. Or conferences with proceedings give clear dates for author notification. It is just that some journals do not respect authors, and no, it is not ok to pretend that it is ok to wait 1 year in complete darkness. It is not ok to be silent about it.

I think you are missing the point: we didn't have an explosion in the number of reviewers. With journals (and especially top journals) receiving much more submissions as before, and having probably similar pool of reviewers, it is normal that review time is longer, and that is is much harder to find reviewers (especially if the first choice says no).. Actually, if you go a bit deeper, the explosion in the number of papers is a direct result of the "publish or perish" system, which had another side effect: people have less time to review...

Yes, the process is not perfect, and I had papers in the loop for (much) more than 1 year, I was not too happy about it... But unless mathematicians are willing to spend more time on reviews, and maybe take control of the journals, things are only going to get worse....

Also: ask yourself one question: are you really unhappy because finding reviewers took soo long, because the review took over 1 year, or because (and I am just taking a guess based on the tone of your answer) your paper got rejected?

It used to be the case that reviewers would (and could) take 2 years to review papers. Then, the conference-publishing tradition of computer science seemed to have seeped into other fields and much shorter review periods were introduced. Now, I get review request with 10-14 days turnaround time - sorry, only Science and Nature can take the liberty of such short periods. Plus the explosion in (low-quality) papers. No wonder it is very hard to find reviewers.

Concerning legal rights and resubmission: You do have the right (legally and morally) to withdraw your paper from the journal that you believe has mishandled it and then to submit the paper elsewhere.

You answered your own question:

there is no law protecting me.

Therefore, your "legal rights against editors" are zero, at least in regards to the conduct you describe.

I would like to ask: are there other people like me who believe that enough with these ridiculous 1-2 year periods to get a response on a 10 year paper and that editors/journals should be legally bounded to do their work correctly (as we authors are legally bounded to freeze our work on this paper during the submission process?)

Are authors really "legally bound" not to dual-submit? I thought it was just a convention, enforced by rejecting your dual-submitted papers and possibly black-listing you from submitting again.
Anyway, of course many people feel that publishing is inefficient -- both in terms of the time-to-decision and access-to-information -- but I'm not aware of any real alternatives at the moment. Passing a law to make editing go faster is a thorny issue, and likely off-topic here.

No, authors are not legally bound not to dual submit.


text:
2 majors with average grades or 1 major with excellent grades?
Is it incentivised to pursuit two (related) majors (eg. Math and Aero- Space Engineering) or a single major (eg. Math)?
The question is asked with the premise that if one chose a single major, one would have more time and thus achieve better grades (assume top 5 or 10 percentile), whereas with a double major, one would only be able to achieve slightly above average grades, but have a broader scope and be better prepared for industry (at least that was my line of thought).
I guess that the answer is very different for someone who wants to go into academia, as opposed to someone who goes into private industry, so I would appreciate a split answer regarding the two cases.
Thank you very much in advance.
Edit: With "double major" I mean two separate (masters) degrees. At least in Germany, that means much more work load: 1,5 times is an optimistic guess. This supports the premise that grades would suffer by doing a double major.

I don't believe your premise that a double major will result in significantly lower grades.

How so? I think that is a resonable assumption. Consider that (in Germany) a single major is designed to consume about 40 hrs/week. With 2 majors, that amounts to 60+ hours, considering that there will be overlap.

I didn't consider that that might be different in the US. In central europe (Austria and Germany are the only countries I can really speak on), a double major is literally two subjects (maybe there's a different name for that in the US). If those majors are "related", one might be able to skip some courses. Eg. Math I, II, III in the engineering subject, since it is covered by math. Hence, 1,5 times the work load is actually a pretty optimistic estimate. Again, that might be very different in the US.

I see. My experience is that a double major is the same number of courses as a single major.

Also possibly a difference in the US vs Germany, but in the US it's not too uncommon for double-majors to take an additional year to finish if they are not extremely overlapped, so the added work is not nearly as much per semester as you are estimating. However, there is also a major missing assumption which is that you only have 40 hours in the week to work. Personally, as an undergraduate I also worked about 30 hours a week. With that work, an extra 50% credits would probably not have been possible. Without it? Probably less of an issue. It's too individual to give a broad answer.

Maybe the correct english terminology is "two degrees" e.g. a masters in math and a masters in aero- space engineering. Considering all the answers and comments are to the question with a "double major", there is no sense in editing the question now. Maybe I'll ask a separate question.

@G.Chiusole If you get "a masters in math and a masters in aero-space engineering" simultaneously, the "double major" terminology is correct, this is what a double major is. There may be less overlap if they are graduate degrees than for a US undergraduate double-major, because in the latter situation many of the courses are general requirements and prereqs taken in the first couple years; the divergence is going to be strongest in senior electives, which might be more similar to what you see in a European masters.

You are making the assumption that the calendar time to complete the double major is the same. Often people take the same number of credits per semester and just complete the degrees in more semesters.

I actually have doubts that those two majors are "related". It sounds like a statement from someone who knows only a little about either. The thought patterns and insights are very different. It isn't a question about accumulating things, but about how the things fit together.
Note that academia is about specialization - more and more the farther you go. But at the beginning it is natural (and good) to be undecided and hence flexible.
You can do well (most places) with a double major but you have to work a lot (a lot) harder. Mathematics itself is a flexible position from which to go forward, as it is applied in many fields. The most flexible field (IMO) is actually philosophy, but that is a different discussion.
I'll note that you don't have to decide early to accept one field and reject another (or others). If you develop a career you can branch out into other things that interest you. But you need to start from a solid base.
But if you want to establish a solid base for doctoral study, a single subject with great grades would seem to be the best choice, by far.
I don't know the rules in Germany for doing two MS degrees simultaneously. The thing I would suggest you be very careful about, however, is how much "double credit" you get for overlapping courses. If this is a common thing to do, then a given course may "count" in both degrees. Otherwise, you may actually be required to repeat things, or, more likely, to substitute elective courses for those you have taken in another degree. Just be sure of the rules and be wary about 25% "overlap".

That is useful, general advice, and I appreciate it, but I fail to see how that answers my question.

It is specialization that is "incentivized" as you go deeper into academia. Generalization is only valued at the very beginning (HS and undergrad) and at the very end of a career (nearing or after retirement).  There are some exceptions, of course, but that is the general plan of it.

Ah I see. Thank you

I somewhat disagree that the specialization of academia correlates to major specialization. In many fields it is desirable to cross the boundaries of academic majors. You can specialize an awful lot without doing research that is bounded neatly by an academic major.

Although a double major makes a candidate more interesting I would say it’s better to have high grades for graduate school.
I don’t think most industries care about grades as much.
The main advantage of a double major is to keep your options open. But I think math majors can pretty easily jump into other fields (biology, neuroscience, psychology).


text:
Student number indicates when you started – what to do about the ensuing prejudice?
I come from a university where the first two digits of your student number represents when you started in the university. As such people often use this to judge age, whether the person is repeating or changed course, or is an incoming postgraduate. Student numbers are the identifier for students, and are consequently used in all official capacities, but also in terms of clubs and societies. Attempting to join a club without the right two digits can often be difficult; generally lower digits are a serious social no-no. A student number can never be changed, under any circumstances. If someone starts a course with a hiatus of twenty years, they will still be using their original number. There is also the issue of semi-anonymized information being easy to identify if results are given out using people’s student numbers (if someone doesn’t have the same first two digits as the rest of his peers).
Naturally a unique identifier is a positive thing for managing information. Also having consistency in relation to the manner in which information is recorded is also good. So what sort of action could be performed at the level of the institution to remove this bizarre social stigma, and increase campus social integration, without potentially damaging the integrity in the way in which information is managed (and incurring additional costs of implementation).

If "student numbers can never be changed under any circumstances", and all student's numbers are available on demand, or even publicly displayed to faculty and students, then nothing, by definition. Which of these two constraints do you think it's more realistic to relax? Bear in mind drastic change to one or the other isn't necessary; only changing the barrier of entry for one or the other from "nonexistent" to "inconvenient" will suffice to check most quotidian abuse. Multiplying the student number by 7 for display purposes, for example.

@DanBron: Why don’t you post that as an answer?

So what sort of action could be performed at the level of the institution to remove this bizarre social stigma I am not sure I understand your question. If the first two digits is the problem, then it seems to me not use the first two digits would solve the problem. I still receive credit card paper bills from my bank, they only display the last four digits of my card.

Don't post grades publicly (long prohibited at my institution). Use an online learning management system with a private login for each student.

If you are talking about Austria, the pragmatic answer is - nothing. All universities in the entire country use the same scheme, and the probability that you will get it changed within your study time are so close to 0 that you shouldn't bother. That is not to say that the problems you mention don't exist, they are just not perceived as nearly bad enough to warrant the concerted effort to roll out a new student ID system.

@DanBron the institution actually discourages ever printing people's names along with student numbers (manly due to IT security), but it is sometimes still done - particularly with sign-in sheets. Only people who run societies/clubs ordinarily would have access to that information also.

@NajibIdrissi entry strictly speaking cannot be refused - doing so would be to break university rules.

@scaaahu actually that makes a lot of sense

@Stumbler Then make it harder for clubs to see that information. Allow students to apply for clubs using their student number, but only ever display their real name when a club administrator assesses their application or otherwise investigates them. Surely club administrators cannot make an argument that they need to see he student number unless they use the embedded information to discriminate? Unless discrimination is permissible legally, ethically and socially? And even then you can just appeal to the same IT security concerns. Unless club admins need this number, don't give it to them.

@DanielR.Collins technically speaking it's illegal for someone's grades to be posted publicly, but some academics have felt that the data is safe enough if identified using student numbers.

Changing the student ID numbers will not help.  People will still know some students are older than others.  It's perfectly normal for some students to be older than others, and most universities cannot function without some older and also younger students.
People should just talk about the value that diversity brings to education - age is part of diversity.

It's been quite a while since I asked this question so I had totally forgotten about it. I guess the thing that I had noticed was that it was accepted that new students would join societies and clubs, and those who were not freshers were allowed to, but not expected to (which also has a feedback loop). Ultimately, students after the first year or two stop joining things, and largely stop engaging with extracurricular activities. For my part I was quite ashamed of joining things in third year undergrad. However with hindsight I tend to agree with you - there are more systematic things at play.


text:
Is it appropriate to reject a manuscript based on language (minor) issues after first review?
After 2nd round of review (R1) for almost 2 months, I received a sharp rejection letter for my manuscript (in biology) submitted in a certain journal for language-use concerns and formatting issues. Nearly 80% of the comments raised by reviewer #1 and the editor (I think they are one person in this case) are mainly the use of British-English and formatting, but the journal has no clear policy of the English-use as long as style and punctuation is consistent throughout. English is my second-language but we use it in universities and communications, however, I believe the language concern is not an issue as my co-author (my supervisor) is a native English speaker and we proofread the paper many times before resubmission. Our personal assessment based on experience with other journals, this concern should at least be major or minor revisions.

Were you asked to ch ange them in the first revision?

It is their journal: if they decide not to publish the paper, they can do. Some are of the opinion that English standard (however subjective) is enough reason to reject a paper.

There were comments on language and grammar but we revised them accordingly and carefully proofread.  None was raised for English-style in the first revision @Azor Ahai.

Then I think they are behaving poorly, but there is very little you can do. Poor English is certainly a reason for rejection, but if it wasn't brought up in the first round, and if your English is a good as this post, it seems like something else is going on. Unfortunate, but all you can do is submit someone else and tell your colleagues to avoid this journal.

"Nearly 80% of the comments ... are mainly the use of British-English and formatting" doesn't mean that the paper was rejected because of language issues. In reviews I write, a major issue might take up a small fraction of the space (but be clearly indicated as major), while a host of minor issues occupy the bulk of the space. Unless the editor said, "we're rejecting this because of language issues" you can't conclude that this was the case.

Actually, yes, reviewer #1 and the associate editor clearly stated that they are rejecting it because of the language use and issues @RaghuParthasarathy. To note that reviewer #2 has minor comments that requires quick fix. I also reviewed numerous papers but I focus on the science before language (unless if it is really needs a comprehensive redo)

@xavier Thanks. Given this, I would contact another, more senior editor at the journal, describing the situation and noting that your editor's decision is not based on scientific content. I'd do this before moving to another journal.

I've seen a paper that got rejected because the authors are of Chinese descent; in fact, one of them is a native speaker.  A reviewer rejected the paper and said the paper is not written in good English.  The paper was then accepted by a top journal with minor changes.

Unfortunately, us native English speakers often have the worst English of all.

I see that "ethics" has been removed from both the title and the tags. So what scale of "appropriate" are you interested in? I fear that the question has suddenly become opinion based, subject to closure. Often, here, appropriate simply means "polite".

It is hard to see how ethics enters in to it. Had you paid them something and they rejected it, keeping your money, then it is a different matter. But a submission is just an offer and it can be rejected for any reason. It may not represent the best policy in general, but it isn't unethical.
And, perhaps there are other issues as well and they all piled up to indicate a reject. That is impossible to judge without more information that only you and the editor might possess. It might be as simple as not wanting to do a third round.

I don't agree that a submission "can be rejected for any reason". Accepting an article for publication is not like agreeing to display a sign on my lawn! Journals serve an important function in science, and there are ethics and accepted rules for their conduct.

And there are ethical issues if an article was rejected on a pretext (if that is really what happened here).

@alexis, I would agree only if the rejection was for things not in the paper itself or buried in the history of interaction, such as, for example the race or origin of the author. But that is a much wider issue. If they don't like that you write "colour" rather than "color" and you insist on it, then they can certainly reject, since they are unlikely to change it without your consent.

This would be pretty inappropriate. If they are objecting on language-based issues, unless you inserted all the issues during revision (unlikely), they could have rejected immediately, before even inviting a reviewer. If they didn't they could certainly have asked you for corrections during the first revision. As it is, they've simply wasted time and reviewer resources.
A few caveats:

As Raghu Parthasarathy pointed out in a comment, based on your description, you don't actually know if your manuscript was rejected because of language issues. Taking up 80% of the review doesn't mean it was 80% of the reason your manuscript was rejected.
In the same vein, even if the remaining 20% of the review was not bad, you can't tell if there are confidential comments the editor isn't sharing.
If the reviewer pointed out language problems in the first review which you didn't amend, they could be annoyed enough to recommend rejection (see gnometorule's comment).

Having said the above, you write in a comment that the editor did say they are rejecting because of language issues. In this case, I think there's a fairly good chance that an appeal will be successful. You could try filing one, pointing out that the objection is not for scientific reasons and the paper's language is already fairly good.


text:
I got my MS online - How do I ask profs for a LoR?
I got my MS not too long ago (Aug 2016) from an online program at University of Cincinnati. I am planning on applying to PhD programs this winter, and I am trying to figure out the best way to ask for letters of recommendation. I am attending a conference in November where I am hoping I can finally meet my professors face to face. I am planning on sending them an email in early October to ask if they are attending the conference (which I'm betting they are because it's a huge conference), and that I would love to talk to them about what I'm interested in/why I want to pursue a PhD. I've been thinking about getting my personal statement written beforehand and possibly attaching previous papers I did well on. One of my professors wrote an amazing comment on my capstone research paper, but I'm not sure if I should bring that 16 page paper with me.
How should I approach these professors when asking for a LoR? It's awkward enough that I was an online student, so I am trying to make it as smooth of a process as possible. What should I bring with me?
I'm also going to be involved in a research project this fall at another university, and I'm thinking that will be another great source for a LoR. I am actually pretty excited about the project.

Given that every encounter you've had with your professors thus far has been online, I would suggest just biting the bullet and e-mailing asking for that letter of recommendation. I presume you built a rapport up with them during your masters programme? You could even say that you look forward to finally meeting them at the conference.
I don't think you need to worry about it particularly given, from what you said, you've done well in coursework and actually achieved the Masters. Don't worry about it, after all, the worst they can say is no, and that's very unlikely.
As for the research project: go and smash it and get yourself another recommendation so you can move confidently into a PhD programme!