text:
Doing a PhD with significant external time obligations (e.g., marriage)
Graduate school has a reputation for being a tremendous time-sink. I'm currently married with kids, and I have a fairly busy extracurricular schedule. Is it common for married people - or anyone, actually, with significant external time constraints - to not finish their graduate work, specifically due to conflicting obligations?

I hope it's possible: I'm finishing my PhD, I'm married , have a little daughter and have to work on another full-time job for a living. (and this begs the question: what am I doing on the internet right now?). :P

I've seen it work both ways: some people realize that they have a limited amount of time to work as a result of their external commitments, and therefore make themselves super-productive during the hours they are able to do research. I think, to some extent, that most of the people with severe external obligations fall into this class.
For a sizable minority, however, the balancing act proves too difficult—although this is often a function of a mismatch in expectations between the advisor and the graduate student. If you believe this could be a problem for you, you should definitely talk with your advisor; if the outcome is unsatisfactory, you should also consider speaking with your thesis committee and the "graduate officer" of your department.
In general, I think that if you are a productive graduate student, your advisor would be willing to work out suitable accommodations for your schedule.

The people who I've seen with considerable external commitments who have still gotten through in a reasonable amount of time all boil down to one thing: They treat grad-school like a job. From 9 to 5 (or 10 to 6, 11 to 7, whatever works for their schedule) they're working. No, they're not available for the infinitely many distractions of life, any more than someone at an office is. They pack a tremendous amount of productivity into that time, and then when they need to be with their family, they're with their family.
Those at least are the people who got through it sane. I think the other major trait is to recognize that, because you have a life, this might take a little longer, and not burn yourself out trying to hammer things through to the point of exhaustion.

I like this outlook. However, does it work? I know many advisors that don't treat graduate students like 9-5 shift workers :)

@eykanal Does it work depends, I suspect, on the field and the advisor. It does mean choosing your advisor carefully, but I've known several who are alright with it. And my field isn't particularly lab-based, so there's less call to come in at 4AM and change the cell cultures. So it'll probably narrow your options, but I've seen it done with success.

I had a similar dilemma (mine was whether to become a parent during grad school), and what solved it for me is the realization that, if all goes according to plan, my post-PhD life won't be too different from my grad student life. I'd like to stay in academia, and all the current difficulties will remain (e.g. short-term contracts/grants, traveling, unevenly distributed workload throughout the year, etc.). This realization was one of those: "Aha!" moments for me. If it doesn't work out now, it won't be a viable option for the future either. That being said, I do try to keep a 9-5 schedule, and I don't think it would have worked out well if my partner wasn't as involved in parenting as I am.
Perhaps working in industry is different, and it really is easier to have kids. In any case it might be an idea to ask yourself whether you think your obligations in grad school would really be all that different from what they are at your current job.

That's an interesting approach, and probably pretty true. Grad students tend to lament their workload, but the truth is many professors work just as hard if not more so, writing grant after grant after grant, trying to get funding.

I agree with previous answers: graduate school is a full-time job, and should be treated as such. I think it is possible to do so while keeping a healthy marriage life, though it might take more time than usual.
Just to complete the perspective, let me give my personal experience. I have completed my M.Sc. in parallel of working a full-time job (which was really a 24/7 kind of work). Although it was M.Sc and not PhD, it was research-based rather than classes-based and same rules apply: school is a full-time job. Graduating took me 6 years rather than the common 2-year program, but I did it! Don't get me wrong - it wasn't easy at all: I was working on weekdays and studying on weekends, with very little time to do other stuff (if at all). However, I know quite a few people who did the same. The key to success is only to have a strong will. Kids and marriage are a large time-consuming, but certainly not as much as another job.

"Kids and marriage are a large time-consuming, but certainly not as much as another job." [citation needed]


text:
How to handle multiple versions of a paper (e.g. conference and journal version)
A usual flow of a project (in my field) commonly looks like this:

having a result -> (1) writing a paper (with all the proofs) -> (2) making a conference version -> (3) uploading a full version to eprint -> (4) journal version

Usually, (2) is a shorter version of (1); and (3)
 is almost the same as (1) up to some changes that came up during the process of making (2); Yet, the work on (2) and (3) happens almost at the same time.
The question is how to deal with maintaining both versions (full + short) of the same paper.
So far I have been keeping two separate "papers", but this solutions has its problems: if you make a change to one (say, fixing a typo), you need to remember making the same change in the other one (which you usually forget).
What is the best strategy?

I'd like to hear of a solution to this: I have yet to find one. Having said that, one trick is to delay creating the "conference" version to as late as possible in the writing process.

If someone had the experience of keeping a single file, and using latex's \if command to make two versions out of it -- I'd really like to hear about that as well!

Ugh. I've used that in the past. it's terrible to maintain and debug.

@Suresh would you like to expand a bit? what are the main problems, etc?

I have tried the single file approach (using all kinds of Latex tricks), and it is indeed a pain. In practice, whenever you make a change, you will have to recompile all possible versions of your document and check that all of them look good; otherwise you easily break one version accidentally. Another problem is that many edits are also related to the layout, not content (e.g., fine-tuning the placement of figures, page breaks, line breaks, etc. for the camera-ready version), and trying to produce a single Latex document with all version-specific layout tweaks results in messy & tricky code.

You can change your workflow slightly:

Write a paper with full proofs, polish it, and upload to arxiv.
Prepare the conference version (fairly late). You will use version 1 as your starting point, but you can edit it freely. You can remove proofs and refer to the arxiv version. You can polish the story, introduction, etc. You may spot typos in the arxiv version, but do not worry about those too much. There is no need to revise the arxiv version yet if the typos are minor.
Prepare the journal version. The key thing is that you will use version 2 as the starting point, not version 1. Of course you will now copy-and-paste the full proofs from version 1, but the rest of the text comes from the conference version. Therefore the main matter has already automatically gone through all the revisions that were related to the preparation of the conference submission(s), addressing conference reviews, preparing the camera-ready conference paper, etc.

Now you can simply revise your arxiv submission by replacing it with the journal version, whenever the journal version is ready.
If you follow this approach, there is never need to maintain parallel versions. You will never need to worry about updating version x when you fix typos in version y. People interested in your work can read the first arxiv version early, and your final arxiv version is as well polished as the journal version.
Note that you can start phase 3 as soon as you have prepared the final camera-ready version of the conference paper. When the conference version finally appears, you can already have a preliminary draft of the journal version written, and you can use it to revise your arxiv submission if it seems to be a good idea.

If you are using latex. I use following approach. I define three variables. ArticleTypeAll , ArticleTypeJournal and ArticleTypeConference . I use ArticleTypeAll for parts which is same for all parts (Conference and Journal). In my example authors information. I use ArticleTypeJournal for only journal part. For example introduction to journal may be different than conference one. Same goes for ArticleTypeConference.
I split every part to different latex file to easily version control and compare them. If command allow me to conditionally include files. Here I use input instead of include since this is an article. I set variables as.

ArticleTypeAll = true
ArticleTypeJournal = true
ArticleTypeConference = false

\documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{article}
\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
\author{Atilla Ozgur}
\title{Conference Journal Together}

\newif\ifArticleTypeAll
\newif\ifArticleTypeJournal
\newif\ifArticleTypeConference

\ArticleTypeAlltrue
\ArticleTypeJournaltrue
\ArticleTypeConferencefalse

\begin{document}
\ifArticleTypeAll
    this place is included in all
\fi

\ifArticleTypeJournal
    this place is included in journal article only
\fi

\ifArticleTypeConference
    this place is included in Conference article only
\fi

\ifArticleTypeAll
\input{Authors}
\fi

\ifArticleTypeJournal
\input{IntroductionJournal}
\fi

\ifArticleTypeConference
\input{IntroductionConference}
\fi

\end{document}

Output of this document like below.
this place is included in all
this place is included in journal article only
Authors
IntroductionJournal

I would use git with branches and selective merging. You can selectively merge your typo fixes and stuff between one branch and the other, in whichever direction you choose.

how does it deal with moving proofs/sections to appendices etc?

You'd make sure to separately commit such moves, so you could reverse them later on.

@RanG. move them in one branch. commit change. Just don't merge that change to the other branch.

thanks, I'll read more about branching (hopefully the same goes with SVN)

I don't think SVN allows the selective merging that git does that would benefit the original question. It can probably work, but I don't think it would work as well.

I would not try to do this with svn; use git (or other modern version control systems). I think this approach might work if you have a full control of everything, but if you have any coauthors (especially senior coauthors), someone will definitely mess it up, sooner or later.

making (senior) coauthors work with SVN is already a challenge. Moving to git seems impossible. (Well, that's not fair, I myself have no idea how to work with git, while I fairly understand the basics of svn). If I understand correctly, that flow should work if only one person performs the merges, while all co-authors work on both "branches" (assuming this is even possible, that is, if branches are not private).

One of my git experts tells me that the "cherry-pick" option when merging can be used to merge things like typos from a different branch, without all the "moving things to appendices" coming into play

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to invite potential collaborators for personal visit?
No starting point for scientific collaboration is better than face-to-face conversation. Conferences are good places to meet potential collaborator, but another way is to invite them to visit your institute/group and negotiate for possible collaborations.
However, when inviting a colleague from long distance (e.g. crossing the Atlantic), it is difficult to cover the cost of the flight (particularly as it significantly varies and hard to justify its necessity). Sometimes, the visitors has better access to available fund to cover his/her trip. Of course, it is easier to cover the cost of accommodation.
How do you invite a potential collaborator to visit your institute when you cannot cover his/her flight cost? Isn't it rude to invite someone and quote you must come on your own expenses as we cannot cover it? Note that the relationship is quite formal with least personal acquaintance (no joint work yet).

Related question http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/588/546

Some schools do offer certain amount of money to help in invited speakers' expenses.
If you do not have any sufficient fund to cover this, you can ask your
colleagues (i.e. other faculty members) to help you out. Note that if they won't benefit from the speaker then most likely they will not participate in this.
Meet him/her in a conference; this seems to be a very realistic option. Actually, I think it is a better idea to meet him/her in the conference even if you are able to cover the expenses. Meet over cup of coffee and discuss the potential contribution and if needed settle another appointment at the hotel lobby.

+1 for the suggestion to ask your school or department chair about helping with funding.

payment for an invited lecture is far less than the cost of an international flight. I believe visit at one of the institute is much better, as it will give chance to visit other group members and facilities.

With apologies, and a firm understanding that lack of funding may be a dealbreaker.
It would certainly help if you can cover part of the expenses: "If you are ever in [Country X], I hope you will also visit [my institution] and we would be happy to pay for your hotel [or else do you have a couch?] and pay for around [small number] towards your travel expenses. You are of course very welcome to make a special trip but I regret that funding is tight and we would be unable to pay your international travel expenses."
... or something like that.

Try to arrange their visit close to a conference in your field that is held on your continent (domestic or intra-European flights are cheap, so you can probably cover that). Either have the visit just before or just after a big conference which the visitor will attend anyway means easier funding and easier scheduling for them (most people can only schedule so many around-the-world business trips per year). I have used that “trick” a lot, both when inviting people and when visiting other groups.
Also, look for binational grant programs that may be awarded for such purposes, there are some (but it obviously depends on the countries involved).

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


text:
Why a certain period of time is needed for promotion of qualified applicants?
The main criteria for academic promotion to associate/full professor includes, research projects, publications, grants, administrative services, and such things. These are achievements that one can obtain regardless of timeframe. Logically, one with required achievements must be able to be promoted. However, most of universities need a certain period of time before promotion application (usually 5 years).
Why one must wait for promotion, when he is already qualified?
One who is associate professor for two years but qualified for full professorship must wait another 3 years to send application for promotion. Strangely, if that person apply for a full professor position in other university, he will be appointed as a full professor (if qualified) without waiting for another 3 years.
NOTE: the only criterion which seems to need time is teaching, but I think a strong/outstanding teaching records for different courses over 2 years is comparable with teaching the exact same courses over 5 years.

Why one must wait for promotion, when he is already qualified? — Because one is probably not already qualified.  Faculty deserving of early promotion certainly exist, but they are exceedingly rare.

@All I like your system-contesting approach :). Take a look at https://gist.github.com/stared/4540942 or an un-university post in https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/what-to-do-part-2/. Or even better - mail me, if you want to go beyond the discussion.

Exceptions are generally possibly, and there are many examples of people who have been promoted faster than the usual timeframes at their universities.  Often the easiest way to achieve this is via a counteroffer to an offer from another university, but that's not always necessary.
On the other hand, standardizing the process with an expected timeframe makes some sense.  Implicit in your question is the assumption that the required achievements for promotion can be judged objectively, but that's not always the case.  For example, it's not easy to quantify the difference in scholarly perspective and experience between an associate professor and a full professor, and there's no way to measure this objectively without distorting it.  One approximation is to say "for most people, the difference amounts to seven years of experience."  This is far from perfect, but it's not clearly worse than the alternatives.  Ultimately, any workable policy is going to be a patchwork of several approximations, and a sensible department will allow exceptions in cases where the approximations are clearly inappropriate.

First of all, in all places I worked so far you could apply for "early promotion" if you felt like you were strong enough to qualify for higher rank before the official consideration time and some people were even encouraged to do so.
Second, it takes two things to be a good scientist: brilliance and persistence. If someone is in my field, I can usually estimate the former pretty accurately after looking at just one paper of his. However, to estimate the latter, I would need at least a 5 year record, which is pretty close to the standard "probation period" before promotion.
Third, the university administration, like any other management, wants to keep us on our toes for a while before loosening the reins. Whether that is beneficial or detrimental varies from case to case but one can hardly deny that it is more or less universally accepted management policy used almost everywhere from WalMart to NASA, so you'll need to put together quite a convincing argument to explain "why not in academia".
Fourth, even if one is a good scientist (according to the above definition), one still has to prove that he is a "good department citizen". In 5 years, you will actually face all "reasonable" situations and take most "normal" roles in the department except some extreme cases when one cannot predict anything about anybody anyway and establish stable (whether good, or bad) relationships with most other department members, so you'll become a "known evil" rather than "a cat in the sack" at the very least.
The only remaining question is "Why a cleverer person who is just hired has much lower salary than a less clever person who's been there 20 years?". In the European system, it is, indeed, almost always so but I should say that the US contract negotiating system is quite flexible here and I've been in the situation when the chairman recommended to several full professors on the hiring committee not to tell the (unusually high) salary that would be offered to a coming assistant professor not only to other department members but even to their colleagues on the committee itself with lower salaries to avoid unnecessary frictions, so the life is not so bad here as well.
These are the arguments "in favor" of the waiting period. I realize that there are ones against it too and can bring up a few myself but since the question was "Why is it there?" rather then "List all pros and contras", I'll hold the other half of my 2 cents in the pocket for now :).

In regard to salary, in the Netherlands salary is coupled mainly to your experience. That being said, the more experience one has, the more room there is for negotiations. Also, having a good scientific reputation helps greatly, especially when multiple institutes are vying for your attention.


text:
How to address a professor in letter?
When writing letter to an academic professor (not necessarily from student to professor), what is the appropriate way to address his/her title?
I have seen in letters using
Dear Prof. X even when the addressee is not a full professor
Dear Dr. X though, knowing that the addressee is a full professor
Dear Mr/Mrs X though, knowing that s/he has an academic title

All faculty (in the US) can be properly addressed as "Prof. X".  We faculty are all professors, even though we are not all Professors.

I used to have an instructor who specifically didn't want to be addressed as "professor" because he wasn't a professor. He asked us to just call him by his first name. Though clearly I wouldn't suggest doing that unless they explicitly tell you to.

It also depends on the campus culture -- I went to St. John's in Annapolis, and the faculty were all called Tutors, and the only one we called Dr. was also a cardiologist.  Everyone else (including students) was Mr./Ms.

For this question to be useful you need to specify what country you're in.

The appropriate way to address someone is with their proper title. In your question, it seems you know what the title should/should not be. If you know, use it. If you don't know, it's generally safer to err on the side of formality.
While I personally prefer (and request) everyone to refer to me by my given name, I do feel it a little strange when someone I do not know / have never met addresses me in writing by my given name. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I expect introductions to be formal (and better to be too formal than too familiar) and then quickly get to preferred ways of addressing (i.e., to use my given name).
When corresponding (in writing or electronically) I would look to the signature. If they wrote:
Dear Professor Schmoe:

Blah blah blah

Sincerely,
John

-----
Dr. John Doe
Agri-science Department
University of Whatchamacallit

Then I would write back
Dear John:

Thank you for your letter. Blah blah blah.

Sincerely,
Joe

I follow exactly the same rules. The only liberty I allow myself sometimes is to write "Prof. Schmoe" instead of "Professor Schmoe" in the very first letter if I am sure that he knows of me and wouldn't mind to communicate with me informally. However, I never start with "Dear John" or abbreviate in any way in an "official" message (like job application, etc.) that may be filed with the office rather than read in private even if the addressee is among my personal friends. Also it is better to make an error of addressing a secretary as Prof. than that of addressing a professor as Mr.

@earhling, at this point (i.e. after the original email and your reply, where you used a more informal Dear John) would you consider appropriate if John wrote back starting with Dear Joe, thanks for... or it's still better to use again Dear Professor Schmoe, thanks for...?

@andrea In the example in my answer, where I signed my letter "Joe" then I consider it completely acceptable for him to respond "Dear Joe" - however, to be even more clear, I could add "Please call me Joe." However, since I've signed the letter "Joe" I would expect him to interpret that as an invitation to use my first name from here forward. If he continues to use "Professor Schmoe" I would think either he was a bit too formal or he didn't read the signal (my signature) clearly enough.

FWIW this is the convention I go by as well. If someone signs a letter or email with their first name only, that is an implicit invitation to address them by their first name in any future written communication. If they sign it with their first and last name, or their title and last name, that indicates you should stick to formal forms of address. I think this convention is widely known about.

This is a sticky question.  Preferences for academic titles varies between countries, institutions and individuals.
In the US, any individual employed in an instructional capacity by an institution of higher education can be properly addressed as "Professor Smith", even if his or her official title is "Assistant Professor", "Lecturer", "Adjunct Instructor", etc.  Moreover, any individual holding a doctoral degree can be addressed as "Dr. Smith".
Of course, these two cases often overlap, and you are left to decide whether to use "Professor" or "Dr.".  The pattern I've observed is that at institutions where only some of the faculty have doctorates, those who do are more likely to prefer "Dr."; whereas at places where almost everyone has a doctorate, they will all prefer "Professor".
I think the safest default, and the one I most commonly see, is

Dear Professor Smith,

I would not abbreviate "Professor" as "Prof.".  It sounds too much like an annoying student saying "Hiya, prof!"

Note that in Germany (and possibly elsewhere) it is common practice to address someone with their full title (sometimes even in speech). For example, Professor Doktor Zweistein...

This depends on a number of factors, not limited to the country the professor is in, the actual title, the type of correspondence (formal/informal), and the professor's personal preference. In the U.S. in computer science, for instance, virtually everyone goes by first names, almost regardless of university affiliation or rank.
I would avoid Mr./Ms. if you know there is an academic title (and these days, unless you have demonstrable evidence that the person prefers it, never Mrs.). I happen to prefer people use my first name, but I have to admit that it does tweak me a little bit if someone who should know better calls me "Mr." instead of "Dr." ("I didn't spend six years in evil medical school to be called 'Mister', thank you very much!") I shake my head whenever I get an email from my PhD alma matter when they refer to me as "Mr." -- of all the places or people in the world that should get this right, they don't!
If you're in a country where it seems to matter (Germany comes to mind), call the person's office and ask explicitly (or figure it out by going to the professor's web site or the school site). Otherwise, I suggest that for a formal never-been-introduced letter you should use either "Dr." (if applicable) or "Professor" (for all ranks of professor), or if you're in a field where first names are standard, go with that. For unofficial correspondence, you will be safe with the formal titles, but shouldn't have a problem with a first name.

The only caveat I would have is unless you're in a field where the first name is the universal default, don't address somebody by the first name until invited! (The "Du/Sie" issue in Germany is still a big thing in Germany, for instance—and violating that kind of protocol can get you into a lot of trouble!)

I am from Russian culture where the word "professor" is only used with PhDs. Many years ago (in 1998), in USA, I was hired at a community college as an Adjunct Instructor to teach a class. I had only a Bachelor's degree at the time. Every time, when I had college correspondence where they addressed me "Professor", I felt that I did not deserve that title. Later, I knew that it was quite a common way to address college instructors.
Now, I have had Master's degree for 18 years. It still doesn't feel right if they call me Professor. I don't think it is a commonly used title anymore, though. When it is appropriate, in correspondence, I would put "M.Ed." after my name, like when writing to a university with an inquiry.
I am not very excited with being addressed Ms., however there is no other way, so it is as it is. When I address someone, and I know he or she has a PhD, I will always address them Dr. (last name). PhD is the highest educational degree and a big personal merit - it has to be recognized and observed in a title.
As for the "du/Sie" in German, or "ты/Вы" in Russian - there are no guesses, grey areas, or "maybe". You call du/ты  only your husband, wife, close friend or a child. All other unknown people in formal environment, business people you call only the polite Sie/Вы.

Before writing be aware about: the context- formal vs informal (friend or someone you have been in touch long ago vs cover letter for a journal); In the latter context you always should address the person in cause by the academic position: Professor (be sure about his/her position- in the web - it is not difficult).

I will address Dr. X (if I know that my professor is holds a doctoral degree) and
I will address Professor X (if I am not sure that he is holding doctoral degree).
Not all professors hold doctoral degree I guess.

This is the start of a good answer, but perhaps if you can find a style guide to support this, or recommend HOW someone researches whether or not someone is a PhD?

In the UK this almost works the other way around - you know that most staff hold doctorates, but you may not know if they are professors, and indeed the odds may be low (that title is used really differently on the two sides of the atlantic). So I tend to default to "Dr X" as the least likely to offend.

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


text:
How to inform/attract more candidates for a postdoctoral position?
When having fund for hiring postdoctoral fellow, it is tricky to find highly qualified applicants, since they can get aware of the opening position by chance. For almost any postdoctoral position (it should apply for any position, but more severe for post-doc), there are better candidates who were also interested, but did not hear about the opening.
Possible approaches are not very effective.

Spreading by word of mouth through colleagues is very limited.
A few applicants may browse research group websites for checking
opening positions. Moreover, search engines do not index and rank
them quickly to reach the deadline.
Posting on academic job websites is good, but most of them are paid
websites. For faculty positions, universities have enough fund to pay
for advertisement, but it is difficult to cover the advertisement cost
by the limited fund of a postdoctoral position.
Free job websites are not very common for academic positions.

How to find more effective ways to inform and encourage more potentials candidates to apply for a postdoctoral positions to have a better chance to select a highly qualified applicant?

Possible outlets I can think of include:

Field-specific e-mail lists
Department email-list forwarded through collegues at other departments
Adverts inserted in talks/presentations held by people at your department (e.g. at invited talks, conferences etc.)
Job ad websites (national and global)
Advert at research-focused web communities/forums, such as Researchgate and Academia.edu, as well as LinkedIn.

+1 for ads in talks. Another approach not yet mentioned is to put ads at conferences.

@Memming good point and I was actually thinking about that as well. Adding it to the answer.

There are sometimes subject-specific mailing lists available on which one can post job advertisements. Examples that I am currently subscribed to are  All-Acad.com (mailing@all-acad.com) and allstat (allstat@JISCMAIL.AC.UK).
I can't say whether this is a more effective way to advertise, though.
ADDENDUM: Actually, I think it would be useful to expand the question in the following way, that would be useful for both prospective employers and job-seekers. This could be a community-wiki style question. So, the question could be: what resources are available for job advertising? And each answer could be for one subject, and divided into free and non-free sections, and within each could be web sites, mailing lists etc. I don't know whether such a question would fall within the scope of this site. I do know the SE sites vary in their policy wrt such "list" questions.

it's seems to be a good option, but if finding a list of mailing lists, since each mailing list usually include people in a limited community.

I second both Faheem and Bitwise's options of mailing list, in two different manners:

Each field (and subfield) has its own “go to” places for vacancies advertisements. In my field, people typically subscribe to CCP5 and CCL mailing-lists (the first one offers a choice of UK-only, Europe-only or worldwide postings). Some of these mailing-lists include a fee, but it may be reasonable (shelling out $50 is not much compared to 12 months of salary).
You can send it to group-, department or institution-level mailing lists in places where you know people who will act as a local relay. I personally find that this is the best way to advertise a position, and I got great candidates this way in the past.

Other options available, both of which can have good efficiency:

Some countries have national website, such as jobs.ac.uk (UK) or ABG (France). Sometimes, advertising through them is even mandated by your funding agency or institution!
Post it to job sections of high-level journals, such as Nature Jobs or some highly-read journal in your field.

In some departments it is common practice to publish available postdoc positions in other institutions via the departmental mailing list. You can try mailing administrators/faculty in relevant departments.


text:
Fiscal data of university budgets
When comparing different universities, various factors are common to be reported such as number of students (undergraduate, graduate), student-to-staff ratio, number of staff, physical spaces, etc.
However, when it comes to financial data, the amount of endowment is reported (e.g. in Wikipedia).
Is there any reference for comparing financial data of universities (mainly in the United States)? Total budget, tuition fee, funds spent on education, research, campus life, etc!
I mean a comparative database, not attempting to find such diverse data from each university website.

So there is Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, the from the National Center for Education Statistics. One of the many variables you can ran institutions on is in fact percent of budget spent on research expenses. That was just the first one I looked for. I don't know how deeply this will go into anything about campus life beyond how much money is spent on housing and student services. But this seems to be the place to go for raw data.


text:
How to get a research professor position?
Since universities do not normally pay the salary of a research professor, and salary along with research funding comes from external resources, this not a paid position. On the other hand, a few people are interested in a job without a secured salary (or a few researchers are confident enough to get enough funding to secure their salary too).
As a result, universities do not advertise for hiring research professors (at least, I do not see in job websites). Therefore, it should be based on private negotiation. Logically, universities should not have limitation for the number of research professors, as they do not pay their salaries. If they can obtain fund, it is good for them, if not, the university loses nothing.
In the aforementioned circumstances, I guess, potential researchers should start this negotiation. If yes, how this negotiation is normally started? A potential research professor contacts the university President, Vice President for Research, Dean, Department Chair with a proposal?
What is the procedure for hiring a research professor?

Logically, universities should not have limitation for the number of research professors, as they do not pay their salaries. -- keep in mind there are other reasons not to hire just anyone who "has the funds." There are space requirements (lab and office space), and you don't want someone doing shoddy research under the university's name, so there is a necessary vetting process.

The first thing to realize is that within the same department a tenure track/tenured position is usually more desirable than a soft money position (what you are calling a research professor). Soft money positions tend to have less responsibilities (e.g., teaching and service) but at many research oriented universities TT staff can use grant money to buy out of teaching and service. In fact those on soft money positions often pick up the residual work thereby making their grant money go further.
Also realize that most departments do not want lots of soft money staff. There are often physical space constraints. Soft money staff can potentially push a department in a direction it is not interested in which can lead to social and political issues. There is also the issue of graduate students. Most people on soft money positions want to have access to graduate students but this can syphon off students and funds from TT staff and provide less security for the students (e.g., when the soft money runs out).
Finally, realize that most departments actually care about their staff. When soft money positions have a gap in funding, the members of a department often try and cover the shortfall. The ability to attract the best soft money candidates depends on the past history of how soft money staff have been treated.
Now to answer you question, at the highest I would contact the Department Chair. No Department Chair wants to hear from the Dean that they should consider someone. No Dean has the time to read CVs of candidates that are not good enough for a TT position. Even better is to contact a TT staff member in the department that you would like to work with. the best soft money positions are ones in which the individual is not isolated from the rest of the department.

nice subtle points, very true!

very brief and to the point answer..

Different institutions will have different procedures. Some of them handle it case-by-case, but in other places there are actual formal recruiting procedures and call for applications. See, for example, Texas A&M’s guidelines on hiring research professors.


text:
How do people manage recommendation letters?
A good academic job normally needs excellent recommendation. Due to the rapid growth of higher education, there are too many vacancies (in new or expanding universities) and too many applicants (growing number of graduates). As a result, each vacancy receives many applications, and each applicant need to apply for many positions.
This is how the matchmaking system works: keeps submitting applications.
Although, online systems are replacing hardcopy applications, still many universities prefer application by mail, and more often, they ask for recommendation letters to be submitted by mail. I have seen this very common in Europe.
Thus, each job-seeking scholar must ask his/her colleagues, professors, etc to submit tens of recommendation letters by mail. Owing to the fact that every famous scholar has/had many students/colleagues. Therefore, a part of this schedule must be devoted to writing recommendation letters for others.
Considering that people need recommendation for other purposes such as grant proposal, admission application, fellowship, etc; this matter must be more serious.
Even in online systems, a busy scholar may receive emails for completing recommendations on a regular basis.
My questions are:

From the applicant part: isn't it bad/rude/harsh to ask a colleague/professor to write tens of recommendations for you to find an academic position. And keep asking for recommendations for prospective proposals?
From the reference part: isn't it annoying to deal with repeatedly recommendation requests? Ignoring a recommendation request may have bad consequences for the applicant, but it is not easy to see recommendation request every day checking the emails, as an old student/colleague is strongly seeking a new position.

No it is not rude but there is a matter of fatigue in the end. the professor might just say "enough" at some point. Usually the letters will also be fairly similar so that each is largely composed of the same text but with smaller alterations tailored to the specific job application. Another trick is to ask the applicant to write a basic text covering what the applicant wishes the letter to cover. It is then easier to use that text and make modifications as one pleases.
Hopefully the applicant has more than one person to ask for references. Writing such letters is, at least in my sphere, something you are supposed to do, unless it inflicts severe effects on other activities. Yes, it is annoying at times,particularly if the request is such that one needs to complete the letter "yesterday". Hence providing some time will alleviate the discomfort.

if the request is such that one needs to complete the letter "yesterday" — What's so annoying about just saying no?


text:
How much is the teaching duty of university administrators?
Due to the time-consuming nature of administrative jobs, university administrators normally reduce their teaching duties. This reduction is normally proportional to the level of administrative job: Chair/Dean/Vice President/Provost/President.
I am curious if it is only matter of personal preference or there is institutional regulations for minimum and maximum teaching tasks?
In general, how university administrators are involved in classroom teaching, supervising graduate students, and academic research projects?

In my university system an administrator does not in general teach. A teacher/researcher may do some admin though. Admin personnel are admin specialists (e.g. finance) and typically not familiar with the department subject.

@PeterJansson the administrators I named Chair, Dean, Provost are always academicians.

They are not considered administrators in my system, those positions are still academic; but your comment clarifies your question.

You are right that professors in various administrative positions typically have a reduced teaching load. However, this is hard to quantify and depends mostly on the institution's policy and maybe even the specific agreement (or contract) negotiated. The full range is possible: from no reduction in teaching load (position with little time requirement) to full “exemption” from teaching (e.g., dean or university president).

Not only it vary by institution it can vary by department for Chairs depending on how large the department is.

For people who come into administrative positions from faculty positions, it's quite common for the administrator to retain their professorial title and to retain the right to return to their tenured faculty position if they ever step down (or are force out of) their administrative position.  In some cases an incoming administrator will negotiate a tenured faculty appointment in addition to their administrative appointment as part of the contract.


text:
Does a student need official permission to publish an independent research article with university affiliation?
When a junior student is doing research independently (for example theoretical), does s/he need official permission to publish a research article? In the article, s/he needs to introduce his/her affiliation. Normally, this affiliation is connected with the research funding.
Does studentship qualify him/her to use the university name as his own official affiliation, even if this affiliation has no connection with this independent research project?

Which error are you afraid to make: to list an affiliation you shouldn't or not to list the one you should?

@fedja the former one!

The first error will put you in trouble only if you publish either total junk or something highly controversial, i.e., something the university would prefer to disassociate from. Normally, the universities will be excited if they could demonstrate that their undegraduates are doing quality research whether within their programs or independently. Anyway, when in doubt about something like that, go straight to the department secretary and ask her if she knows the answer or, if not, whom you should contact to find out. The policy may depend on the institution, indeed.

First, check if your university has rules/policies/guidelines in place. If so, follow them.
Otherwise, use your university name as affiliation. No need to ask them. (Trust me, they are much more worried about people forgetting to use the affiliation, than the other way around!)

Basically affiliation is valid for employes to an organisation. Graduate students will belong to that category as well since their degree depends on producing publishable materials. Undergraduate students are not automatically entitled to use an affiliation. I do not think this introduces any majpor hurdles. You need to talk to the department chair or have some faculty member do so to get the permission to use the affiliation. I am assuming such affiliaiton will not need decisions higher up in the university bureaucracy; you need to find out, of course.
Affiliation will make publication easier than using a private address so getting to use an affiliation provides a stamp of approval with it which may work to your advantage. So, if I understand your final question right, there does not have to be any connection between the research you do and the affiliation. The affiliation simply means that the department/university supports your publication and thereby your efforts in research.
In this  example it is evident that there is a responsibility associated with using the university name (for example as affiliation). It is clear that the affiliation cannot be used "as you wish" without possible repercusions, hence asking for permission is a natural first step. Particularly when the work is not done at the university.
Universities have been very relaxed about "brandinG" but trust me, they are becoming increasingly watchful. This is evident by studying the visual identity and similar branding policies of many respectable universities.

“Undergraduate students are not automatically entitled to use an affiliation” — can you quote something on that? I think having a formal link, whether it's being employee or student, is typically considered an affiliation by academic standards…


text:
Any book/guide for university managers?
Academic scholars have written many books guiding managers at different business/industry positions. I wondered that I was unable to find any noticeable book describing the roles of a department head, dean, vice presidents, etc.
Academic scholars always guide managers in different sectors to use academic (scientific) methods for managing an organization; then, why there is no academic advancement to classify the role of university managers/administrators?
The main resources, as I searched, are few scholarly journals devoted to higher education in general.
If you know any book/resource on this matter, feel free to share.
My question is: if someone is just appointed as a department chair or decided to implement changes to his management system, where he can find books/guides on this matter?

There are extensive works in the journals, in edited collections and in monograph criticising New Public Management in the UK system; and an equivalent volume criticising post-Dawkins University management in Australia.

Mathematician John B. Conway has written a book: On Being a Department Head, a Personal View.

Thanks this should be an interesting book in this subject, but as the title suggests it is a personal view. I am curious why it is not popular among university managers to read management books about their positions; then, there are a few general books in this subject.

Of course it's a personal view. Every book is a personal view.

Not every book, most of books are personal views, as concluding different opinions to achieved the most acceptable ideas. Are textbooks personal views of the authors? Their personal views are how they collect  the topics, which are well developed by others. However, the above-mentioned book is personal experiences of one person in a role.

How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment might be very helpful for you although it does not answer your question directly. However, it generally critiques the thought and decision processes in academia.

This books focus on professors, not academic management positions such as department chairs.

I would argue that department chairs are professors.

when someone is appointed as a department chair, s/he is already a professor. S/he might be interested to learn about the role of chair, its problems, duties, tricks of management, etc.

I think that professors in such academic positions are bothered with other things like tenure process, departmental funding, their own research etc. In its very essence academic administrative positions are very different from similar organizational positions. The power structures and hierarchies are very different. Besides, you can't learn management from a book, merely personal opinions which were already offered as answers here. I am perfectly sure that none of the best organizational managers read management books.

Then, by your last point, you mean the academic discipline of management is useless?!?!

You are over inferring my point. Managers don't have to read managerial books to be good managers and that certain doesn't mean that management science is a useless discipline.

I am not sure if this is helpful since I don't know for which academic system you are asking. Anyway, this question may also be found by other people searching for an answer to the same question, here is an answer for the German academic system:
There is the book "In Forschung und Lehre professionell agieren" by Lioba Werth and Klaus Sedlbauer. A German description is available here. I haven't read the book myself, but it has got a few good reviews here.

I understand that education system is different in various countries, but there are basic rules of management which are constant in all countries, for a department chair, a business manager, or other positions. It is useful to read something about German academic system, but definitely in English :)


text:
Historical impact factors of journals
Is there any database/resource/website providing the full historical impact factors of a journal?
Scimago gives graphs of citations (kinda IF), but it only backs to 1999. I look for a database having older IFs.

I would suggest exaly over JCR for two reasons:

It is completely free and you can reuse both data and graphs.
It provides historic impact factors for all journals from their first day (as old as 1665).

For example, this is a graph for Chemical Reviews

Source: https://exaly.com/journal/14022/chemical-reviews
or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Source: https://exaly.com/journal/12356/proceedings-of-the-national-academy-of-sciences-of-the-united-states-of-america

However I would have to ding them for their choice of graph

@AzorAhai-him- what's the difference with the bar chart of JCR? If drawing a bar chart over a wide range, the bars merge to get the same effect.

I love how Chemical Reviews is somehow >3x "better" than it was 20 years ago.

Yes, check Journal Citation Reports (JCR), published by the company that calculates impact factors (Clarivate). Unfortunately, this is not a free service.
Here's the historical impact factor of Nature.

Wow, that 3dp accuracy in the axis is a joke.

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


text:
When and why did conferences pick up the habit of giving out conference bags to attendees?
I wonder when and why conferences picked up the habit of giving out conference bags to attendees.

I strongly suspect the "tradition" originates way outside of academia - cf. seminars and trade shows.

When sponsors started to pay conferences to give out buts with their name on it......

For the why part: One reason is to make registration at the conference as smooth as possible. Imagine the first morning of a conference and all the attendees at the registration desk lining up and for each and every participant the guy at the desk hands over the program, the book of abstracts, the badge, the ticket for the conference dinner, the ticket for the prebooked tour (if there is any), the receipt of attendance, the receipt of payment, the complimentary notebook and pen and, of course, the stuff from sponsors. Takes much longer than pre-packed bags. (And even with all things pre-packed, there are always queues during the rush hour.
As for the when part, I have no idea. But if you have ever sat at  a conference desk you'll agree that it must have been no later than the first time one guy organized a conference with more than 100 people for the second time.

@dan1111 allow me to note that bag reusability isn't mentioned in the question.

I am currently using cloth bags from conferences at least four years ago for my shopping on a regular basis. Very grateful it's become a thing :-)

Some conferences' bags are much sturdier than others'.

@dan1111 the same reason banks give you pens:  To give you something with their name on it that you will keep and use.

One conference I attend regularly gave out a semi-decent backpack a few years ago, and tons of people I know or see are still using it as their every day bag.

For the at least the first few conferences I attended, the bags had a clear function.
The attendee packet included a lot of paper, often more than could be tucked into whatever bag one was carrying. There could be several separate documents, such as a schedule grid and the printed proceedings. Carrying them around loose was inconvenient and risked losing some.
Providing a bag big enough for the attendee packet contents was a thoughtful gesture.

At the last national meeting I went to, I think I made use of the tote bag for various things, including the program and papers given out by the conference itself as well as "samples" given out by vendors.

The bag gives attendees a place to store all the advertising and marketing materials (such as coffee cups and notepads stamped with the company's logo) that are handed out by vendors at conferences vying for attention.
These marketing materials are often referred to as swag, and the bag for carrying all of it is called a swag bag.
Having the conference hand them out to everyone at the entrance saves vendors from the cost and effort of having to each make their own bags to hand out to attendees.
The bag also makes it more likely you will take the stack of promotional items home with you, rather than discarding them due to having your hands constantly full of loose items.

There are vendors at academic conferences? (Other than booksellers who, in my experience, have no freebies other than catalogues.)

@DavidRicherby, booksellers and makers, and software and hardware vendors at a conference like Supercomputing, which is the main academic conference in my field. Also, I'd say that having all the advertising in a swag bag makes it easier to either refuse to accept or dump directly into a refuse bin.

@BillBarth Ah. I'm too theoretical for anything but books and giving those away would be like giving away gold bars. *sigh*

@DavidRicherby Yes, there are vendors too. For instance, in my field there are instrumentation manufacturers (e.g. Keysight, Fluke etc.). Frequently they can buy a booth to exhibit their products.

@MassimoOrtolano, yeah, most of the vendors have a booth at Supercomputing, but they also may want to give out a card pointing people at white papers, their party later in the week, etc. Millions of dollars are involved in buying one of these systems, so they put a lot into their marketing budgets and don't assume that everyone will come to the right place on the exhibit floor. In fact, much of the paper in the bag is intended to entice you to come to their booth on the floor.

@DavidRicherby booksellers at the conferences I attend often give out USB sticks, pens and stickers. I've seen one give out beer during a poster session. A friend in chemistry says the equipment vendors are more generous with their swag and they get all sorts of things.

Besides vendors, there may be recruiters from companies that wish to hire new graduates and others on the job market. They'll have swag to attract people to their booths as well.

Ah! I was just at an expo where they only gave out plastic bags (which is super rare these days). I can tell you what I did with it.
I looked inside it, quickly flipped through some of the junk marketing materials, found a little toy, pocketed the toy, and then I immediately placed the bag still full of junk marketing materials in a large box where dozens of attendees had already left their plastic bag.
If it had been a tote bag, I definitely wouldn't have thrown it away. Usually with a tote bag, I wait until I am sitting down somewhere before I start sifting through its content. And I only start throwing away some of its content if I happen to be sitting next to a trash can, or what usually ends up happening is that I bring the tote bag back home, and I do the triage there.

Nice anecdote, but this isn't an answer to the question.

This may answer the question of why conferences picked up the habit of giving out conference (tote) bags to attendees, but not when. I have no idea when.


text:
Do conference attendees care about conference bags?
Is there any research/study/survey that looked at whether conference attendees care about conference bags? I.e., would they be ok not receiving anything aside from their badges when they check in?

I'm going to ignore your "reference-request" tag because I think this is a question that can be answered from observation rather than scientific study.

I find it hard to imagine anyone seriously undertaking such a study.

@AndreasBlass I wouldn't put anything past marketing researches/analysts.  Also on the survey, "What are the first three words that come to mind when you think of academic conferences?"  "Have you ever attended [insert conference]?"  "What do you consider most when deciding between two conferences occurring on similar dates? [location, food, prestige, hotel, conference swag]"

@user0721090601 Better add a couple more options, like "topics" and "repeat attendee," both of which have been a reason for me to attend a conference.

Having gone to quite a number of scientific conferences, my observation is that the degree to which attendees care about conference swag (both bags and otherwise) is inversely correlated to the number of conferences that they have attended.
Bags and other conference swag is wonderful, magical, and exciting when you haven't gone to many conferences.  It's a visible sign of scientific merit that you can even plop onto  the counter at the grocery store!  Forget bags, I've known people who have even saved their name badges as keepsakes.  For graduate students or occasional attendees, for those who go to only one or two conferences per year, these things can be very personally significant markers of acceptance and belonging.
As the saying goes, however, familiarity breeds contempt.  At this point in my career, I have a cupboard full of canvas bags.  When I go to a conference, I mostly just ignore the swag, and most of my close colleagues do as well.  But their graduate students, bright-eyed and so excited to be giving their first poster presentation ever, are likely to feel quite differently.
So, would people be OK receiving nothing but their badges? In many cases, it's just fine to give people nothing but their badges, and for more specialized meetings, that's just what they do.  But if people are paying a hefty fee to be there and there's a lot of graduate students or occasional attendees, why not give the little bit of extra to let the people who want to feel special are able to feel special?  A decent custom tote bag can cost as little as $1, so it's a remarkably small cost for the conference (far less than the leaden afternoon brownies mandated by the contract with the conference venue).  It will make some of the attendees very happy, and the people who really don't care can simply shove it in the back of their bag closet like I do.

You can take this as a confession of immaturity, but, after 45 years of attending conferences, I still like getting a bag if it's a good one.  I also like getting a pad of paper for taking notes, especially if I've forgotten to bring a pad with me.

It was a sad day for me when my very first conference canvas bag started getting holes.  I suspect my next conference attendance will be in no small part decided by the availability of a new bag.

In my experience, having organized a couple of conferences, decent bags cost a bit more than 1$, around 4-5$. But it was 10 years ago, maybe prices have now dropped.

Organizers could try what happens if they allowed to opt-out of all/most swag for a reduction of the conference fee.

@Raphael The reduction would be really minimal, of the order of 10$ at most: the main costs, especially for large conferences, come from the venue (this is really expensive), lunches and coffee breaks. And support for invited speakers and young scientists, where given.

@MassimoOrtolano I was under the impression that sizable amounts went to people organizing things (via big operations like SIAM), so it may be more than that. Even if it's only a little, it may be worth a try. There's little sense to producing 500 swag bags if X% go directly to the landfill. The fee reduction would be just to add an inclination to only get it if you want it.

@Raphael I don't know about SIAM, but societies, usually, don't organize conferences but sponsor or endorse them (the organizers might have to pay for an endorsement, but I can't recall exactly how it works). Of course, if the organizers hire a conference management agency, which, nowadays, is typically the case form medium-large conferences, there will be an additional significant cost.

@Raphael Having been involved in organizing a number of scientific conferences, most good conferences are organized on a non-profit basis (beware any for-profit conference!).  For all but the largest, the organizers are volunteers who either receive nothing or get to attend for free (a few of the largest are organized by paid staffers from a society).  The high cost of conferences is often largely due to the exorbitant charges for venue and catering.  Moreover, this is difficult to reduce because many venues put "X dollars of catering" as part of the contract.


text:
Do academics get paid when they give interview (or other form of appearance) in the media?
Which factors determine whether academics get paid when they give interviews in the media (or other kind of media appearances, e.g. debates)?
I am mostly interested in the field of computer science, and English-speaking venues.
I am also interested any statistics giving some insights on how frequently academics get paid for media appearances, and how much.

This is probably more about the policies of the media organization than anything having to do with academia.  For instance, mainstream US news outlets generally make it a policy never to pay for interviews but in the UK it seems to be fairly common.

@NateEldredge I'd be surprised by news organizations paying for interviews, but there's a whole lot more on the TV than just news.

Not sure if that helps, but some big research projects have budgets for media outreaches, creating materials (videos, websites, articles), etc.

US media organizations may not pay for interviews...but they do have "consultants" which they pay, and in return can interview whenever a relevant subject comes up.  (And perhaps competing media organizations cannot interview them?)

Almost never. I have done interviews for local, national and international news and other programmes (and know many others who have done this as well); I've never heard of anyone being paid anything for it. After one interview I asked a the reporter why they always invited a certain scientist as an 'expert' even on fields fairly distant from his actual expertise, the three reasons I was given were (1) he 'looks like a scientist' (that's a whole separate issue), (2) he lives near the studio, and (3) he doesn't ask for money.
The exception would be if you are filming a series as a presenter, in which case arguably you're not being paid as an academic at all but as a presenter. I know a few people who have made a partial or complete move into presenting scientific television series and of course they get paid just like any other presenter.

Generally speaking, academics do not get paid to be interviewed by the mainstream media. The interview is often regarded as a chance to promote one's research, expertise and increase one's reputation and fame. Also ego may play a role (which might be exploited by the media).
Things might be different when one already has received a fair amount of exposure in the mainstream media, and is regarded and recognized as an expert on a certain matter. In those cases you might even be in the rolodex of the media agencies and journalists (which leads them to you when anything pops up in your domain). Also it makes sense to have an agent represent you when you have reached this status, because the agent can negotiate the payments and relief you from the communication overhead.
But for the vast majority of the academics that is not the case.

As I've said below, I've never heard of the situation you describe in the second paragraph (I'm not particularly high-profile but I know scientists who are, and they've never been offered money for interviews). The exception is if you're actually employed as a presenter, but that's a separate issue.

authors: Николай Кошец


text:
Why do some universities not publish the list of persons who obtained a degree from their institution?
Some universities do not publish the list of persons who obtained a degree from their institution. In order to verify whether an individual obtained a degree there, one needs to call them, for instance.
Example:

Contact the Registrar's Office of the appropriate school to request degree certification or enrollment verification.

Why do some universities not publish the list of persons who obtained a degree from their institution? Among other advantages, this would allow to check claim of degrees more easily.

Is the degree obtained and enrollment status considered private personal data of a person? It might require permission of the student to publish this data in some jurisdictions.

"this would allow to check claim of degrees more easily": would it? How could the casual reader of the list check for homonymy, without access to further information? Moreover, someone might not be willing to publicly disclose that they graduated from a certain university, and probably law consider this as rightful.

@MassimoOrtolano Sure, such a check may not be 100% proof, depending on what the list contains.

Which jurisdictions ban such lists?

In the US, a university publishing such a list would have to also create a way for students to opt out. (Per FERPA, students must be able to opt out of disclosure of directory information.)

@ff524 Don't they face the same issue when creating the directory to look up when people call the registrar?

@FranckDernoncourt: To answer your last question, yes they do.

The wording ("Why do some universities...") suggests that other universities do publish such lists.  I doubt there are any examples in the U.S., for the reason ff524 gives.  Are there examples in other countries?

@AnonymousMathematician Example in France (with GPA): https://1953.polytechnique.org/VieEcole/NotesService/Classement.html it's a bit old, unsure about current pratices.

I've been at several US universities where everyone attending the graduation ceremony got a paper program listing all the degree recipients for that year.  They didn't post it online, however.

Could you please post an example of a university who does makes this info public?

@Geremia see my previous comment

@FranckDernoncourt reminds me of "Les agrégés de l'enseignement secondaire. Répertoire 1809-1950"

Because a list of names is almost useless for verification. I'm very probably the only David Richerby in the world, but there were two Andrew Smiths in my cohort of about 150 at university; there are about 290,000 Wei Zhangs in China, and another 280,000 Wei Wangs; or try to figure out how many different Xi Chens are presented as one person in the DBLP computer science bibliography. I've never changed my name, but a large proportion of people in the west do (most of them are called "married women"). I would never change my name to agree with the name on some university's degree list, but some people would (even though it would be fraud).
And, if you give more identifying information than names, there are huge privacy issues.

This would generate a false sense of security and potentially violate students' privacy and would be controlled by data protection (so they would need to opt in).
The way you verify whether someone has obtained a degree from an institution is to look at a hard copy of their certificate and/or transcript or verified electronic equivalent.
If you have questions then you ask the university's registrar.
A list of names on a website is just a list of names.  What if a student's name changed because they got married?  Or what if I changed my name so I suddenly got a degree from Oxford?  Also, I'd be pretty unhappy if my name was up on a website somewhere saying I got a 3rd from some second rate institution.


text:
Impact of the quality of a presentation in a conference on the number of citations the corresponding article receives
Is there any research/study that looked at the impact of the quality of a presentation in a conference on the number of citations the corresponding article receives? (quality in terms of form, not the content itself)
I am most interested in the United States and the field of computer science.

What do you mean by the quality of the form?

How well the content was delivered.

If there are such studies, how do you suppose the "quality" of a presentation is quantified?

Polling the crowd, video analysis if recorded, etc

You'd need thousands of samples and have no controls. It'd be a very hard study and to what end?

Amongst other things, help understand the usefulness of conferences in academia.

You could simplify that question to "Does giving a presentation about a paper at a conference increase the number of citations the papers gets?", but -- given all the things that affects the number of citations a paper gets, from publication venue to quality of writing to all the other papers published at the same time -- it will be close to impossible to identify the effect a particular conference appearance had. Still, if anybody has researched this -- maybe something as simple as "do audiences look up papers if the talk was good" -- I would be interested in reading about that!

I would guess that no such data does or ever will exist. (I did look, though.) The reason is simple: nobody will submit to a process where they will be judged on their presentation skills ("What a bunch of subjective BS! I'll just go to the other conference!"). Vain? Maybe. However - and more substantially - such a process would distract from the point of the conference. Some references I dug up on attitudes towards recordings: CS and linguistics.

Go to a few conferences, and you'll find out that the important part of the conference is the "aisle discussions", not the "papers delivered". Those are more window dressing, to have justification for expenses.

@vonbrand It's always nice to quantify.

nobody will submit to a process where they will be judged on their presentation skills — [citation needed] My main conference has a Best Student Presentation award.

In my view, impact of the quality of a presentation in a conference, is relative. There are many factors that model "perception" of "quality". It draws down to the researcher or presenter. If we assume the audience understand the topic under discussion. Generally, the presenter models the impacts that a presentation will have, meaning the concept "impact of the quality of presentation" is socially constructed domain and therefore has many dimensions of causality

My apologies, but how does this actually answer the question, which is about number of citations?

Impact of the quality of a presentation in a conference will not reflect on the number of citations the papers gets. by definition "citation" is a reference to a published or unpublished source (not always the original source) or "citation" is the way you tell your readers that certain material in your work came from another source.

Number of citation depends on relevance of the material presented in the conference towards explaining observations in other ongoing studies/researches. Unless there are researchers who are doing studies within your domain of research (who could cite your presentation within context of personal Communication and cite the date of your presentation or conference;

I am afraid, quality of presentation in a conference may fail to translate into higher number of citations. presentation can be acknowledged if a researcher, doing thematic analysis uses your presentation content to identify relationship with his data (in support of emergent themes in his data)


text:
Does citing reviewers' papers significantly increase the chance of the submitted paper to be accepted?
A paper submitted to some peer-reviewed venue might cite some of the reviewer's papers.
Is there any research/study that looked whether citing reviewers' papers significantly increase the chance of a submitted paper to be accepted?
I am most interested in the field of computer science, and English-speaking venues.

Gosh I hope this effect isn't large, though anecdotally I know that people do think about it. I doubt that there could be any formal study due to reviewer anonymity though.

It would be difficult to distinguish this effect from the impact of making a good choice of venue. If a paper is sent to an appropriate venue, it is more likely to be reviewed by writers of relevant papers.

A reviewer might reject your paper because it doesn't cite relevant work. And there is a good chance that much of that relevant work is by the reviewer.

I would not accept a paper just because it cited my paper(s).  First and foremost is the quality of the paper and whether it is at the level I expect for a given journal.  Having said that, I know of colleagues who accept or are more lenient simply because he/she knows an author or that an author's reputation precedes him/her.

I do not know whether citing the reviewer helps, but I know that the obsession with impact factors has lead journals to ask for citing articles which appeared in the same journal. I had two rejections for "not enough citations", and a friend had an article rejected because "the topic is not within the scope of this journal, which can be seen by the fact that none of the citations appeared in this journal".

I highly doubt there can be any study on this, because statistics on something that's suppose to be anonymous will be hard to come by.
I can say anecdotally that:

If the reviewer says "you should cite these papers" (which are written by him), and the author does it, then indeed the reviewer is more likely to recommend acceptance. However few reviewers are so blatant as to return a review that's simply "you should cite these papers". They'll usually recommend other things as well, and it's reasonable that with those other things done the paper is acceptable anyway.
There are also reviewers who recommend rejection even though they're cited. I know this because I've searched for reviewers from the references cited before, and some of them recommend rejection anyway. Of course when this happens the authors never know about it.
I remember reading about a paper where the referee said "my group's work was cited but I still don't understand what the authors are saying", which was actually a fair report since the paper was nonsense (I don't remember if it was generated by SCIgen or was a very badly written theoretical physics paper with no real content); however I can't find it now.

I was thinking of the same question. I experienced submitting a paper in the Journal X and later on was recommended by the editor to submit the paper on Journal Y (because it doesn't fit to the scope of the journal), where he is the subject editor. I cited most of his recent work on the paper knowing he is the editor in chief of Journal X. Later on, the paper was reviewed and accepted with minor revisions in Journal Y. The review was rigorous but 'soft'. However, the chance of getting accepted larly relies on the paper's quality but citing the reviewer's or editor's work means you know who are the people working on your field, you know what knowledge is exist, hence, your paper is reliable


text:
How much effort do researchers take to publish their source code?
When publishing a paper, some researchers publish the source code used for the paper.
Is there any research/study/survey/... that looked at how much effort do researchers take to publish their source code? I.e. how many hours do researchers take to publish the source code for a given paper?

possible duplicate of Reference on availability of source code used in computer science research articles?

For those thinking the question is too broad, let me know what I should clarify.

This isn't a peer-reviewed article, but nonetheless it's worth linking to because it specifically addresses your question, albeit as an n=1 case:
Bruna, E. 2014 THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF MY #OPENSCIENCE WAS 36 HOURS + $690
In this blog post, a biologist Emilio Bruna states it took about 25 hours of his time to appropriately document his code (associated with a research paper) to make it good enough for open source release on github.

Amount of money is not for code, but for an open science publication ($600) and data storage ($90).

And you can archive your data and code for free (e.g., Figshare) and you can share source code and data without publishing in a journal that requires payment to publish.

Documentation is commendable, but probably not strictly necessary to qualify for the "open" label. May depend on the code.

I fail to find the problem with undocumented code in research, and not having code documented should not be a barrier to releasing it for others. Sure, if your research is building a large sophisticated model that you plan on continuing to develop (especially if you have others working on it), then it should be documented. But some R code for analysis of bioinformatics probably doesn't need sophisticated documentation. That said, there is no requirement for code to be documented in order to be open-source. It's really just a courtesy for others, if it's not being developed in industry.

This is a study that analyzes whether computer science papers include source code that makes it easy to reproduce their results.
http://reproducibility.cs.arizona.edu/
The study found that out of 601 papers analyzed, 139 included source code that could be obtained without contacting the authors, and the study's researchers were able to email authors to get the source code for an additional 87 papers.
Of the 226 papers the authors obtained source code for, they were able to configure and run the source code within half an hour on 130 papers, without contacting the authors on an additional 64 papers, and after contacting the authors on a further 23 papers. For 9 papers, the study's researchers could not run the source code at all.
These results don't show how much time researchers spend on making their source code available, but it does show how frequently papers are published with accompanying source code and what quality that source code tends to be.
PLL made an excellent comment. I'd like to add it to my answer in case it disappears later:

Just to summarise: the overall success rate should be seen as 217 out of 402. Of the full sample of 608, 206 were excluded for some reason or another --- e.g. their results weren't based on code in the first place. 402 were left that should have contained code.

Just to summarise: the overall success rate should be seen as 217 out of 402.   Of the full sample of 608, 206 were excluded for some reason or another --- e.g. their results weren't based on code in the first place.  402 were left that should have contained code.

Means that half of the papers that do rely on code should not have been published according to scientific standards. Go figure.

A more recent article, focused on Zenodo: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2017.00013/full

I have a significant number of papers where we make the (nontrivial) code available through various means. Examples are here:

https://www.dealii.org/8.2.1/doxygen/deal.II/step_42.html
https://www.dealii.org/8.2.1/doxygen/deal.II/step_43.html
http://aspect.dealii.org
As well as individual algorithms and data structures used in deal.II that are discussed in a few of the papers referenced here: http://dealii.org/publications.html#details .

In all of these cases, documenting the code adequately to make it suitable for publication along with the paper was part of writing the code (like for all significant code, documenting should be part of writing it) and would likely have taken at least 2 days in the case of the tutorials, and maybe 4-8 hours in the case of some of the specific codes and algorithms. It's something one should do anyway, but even if one doesn't, doing it is not usually an overwhelming effort.
Of course, this would not apply to a code like ASPECT for which writing the documentation (such as the 230 page manual) is an effort that likely represents month of work.

I disagree with your premise that it actually takes any effort at all.
Version control is needed anyways for collaboration with your coauthors, as backup and for version history, which GitHub, BitBucket and SourceForge offer for free.
Writing good code is necessary so hat your colleagues can understand what you are doing and even if it is a one-person project you need to understand it half a year later.
There are even additional benefits:

increased acceptance chance of publications
bug reports through issue tracking help with development
increased exposure and more citations

So you only hurt yourself if you don't publish your source code which means there is actually negative effort, all things considered.

"Version control is needed anyways for collaboration with your coauthors" -- I wish. Some refuse to use such, leaving some member to incorporate diffs, or do all the work on their own. "Writing good code is necessary [...]" -- should be; oftentimes you see "that's future us' problem". I don't think anybody would disagree with you on that versioning and good code hygiene would be preferable, but many make do without. For better or worse.


text:
Learning efficiency of sitting in first rows of the lecture hall
I have often heard and read the advice of sitting in the first rows of the lecture hall to learn more efficiently. Is there any research/study that looked at the effect of sitting in first rows of the lecture hall on the learning efficiency?

Interesting question. I guess it would be hard to study, since there is also a bit of a correlation between sitting in the front row and actually wanting to learn.

Considering the huge number of possible combinations of various factors, such as disciplines, subjects, lecturer's styles, student's preferences and individual traits, I would be very surprised, if such studies, even if exist, be considered generalizable enough to be useful.

It doesn't matter. Even if you start sitting in the front row, you will still learn only at the rate corresponding to wherever you were sitting before.

I think the only relevant mechanism is that the professor can see you unhindered, so you will be noticed if you are visibly distracted, and thus have to (pretend to) pay attention. If that would work for you, depends very much on your situation.

That depends on the lecture hall (sometimes you see even better if you are not in the front row), you, the people sitting around you, the lecturer, the type of lecture, near- or farsightedness,... wow. I could go on endless.

@Davidmh: Possibly, this even works the other way round, as well. Some students who sit in the front row might pay more attention to pretending to paying attention, which in turn gives the lecturer the impression that the front row students are generally more attentive than those further away.

This article(The Effect of Seat Location on Exam Grades and Student Perceptions in an Introductory Biology Class By Steven Kalinowski and Mark L. Taper) examined the seat location during lectures and its effects on exams. It details the results of some prior studies and their own.
They assigned seating in the following way;

On the first day of class, we randomly divided students into groups of
three, and assigned each group to a row. Two groups were assigned per
row—except for the front row, which we left empty (because we believed
some students might be uncomfortable sitting in the very front). We
did not tell the class that we were studying the effect of seat
location on their learning

They used exam scores to measure student learning during lectures. Five exams were given to the class: four midterms and a final.
Their main finding was that there was no effect of seat location on exam scores
in the class.
They report that they obtained two noteworthy results.

First, we found no evidence that grades or student attitudes were
affected by seat location ...
Our second noteworthy result was that students who chose to sit in the
front of the lecture hall on the first class had significantly higher
GPAs than students in the back (P = 0.009, R2 = 0.18) (Figure 2). The
slope of the regression line was –0.10, indicating that, on average,
GPAs decreased by 0.1 point (on a 4-point scale) per row. This
represents a substantial difference in GPA between students in the
front and back (the regression line dropped from 3.9 in the front of
the lecture hall to 2.7 in the back).

The statistical work of the article is sloppy. For example, in the regression, they have two leverage points (one at the front and another at the back) that dominate the effect.


text:
The effect of a PhD on a student's interest in pursuing a career in academia
Is there any research/study that looked at the effect of a PhD on students' interest in pursuing a career in academia?
E.g. it could survey students before entering the PhD program and survey the same students on their last year of their PhD program to analyze how interest in pursuing a career in academia has changed.
I am mostly interested in the field of computer science (machine learning / natural language processing), in the United States, but I am curious about other countries and other fields as well.

The psychological theory of cognitive dissonance may be of interest to you.

I don't have an answer to this question, but as a comment, I thought I wanted to be in academia until I actually did a PhD---where I learned that I in fact did not want to be in academia. So, I surely am a case study heh.

In my PhD program, we always compared the process to that of dealing with the news of a terminal illness ...denial  ...anger ...bargaining ...depression...and acceptance.

@erwin so I guess the question  is whether a terminal illness tends to increase patients' appreciation towards hospitals.

If I am understanding the question correctly, I did this, but with PHD's in a corporate research environment to find out for myself if I wanted to pursue a higher degree. Almost in unison, they told me to stay where I was in corporate and stay out of the PHD program because they said that the politics were worse and more petty than in corporate life. A few of them considered it a loss of the years they spent on the effort and felt that they could have gotten more by staying where they began with in corporate research and development.

There have been some studies to examine whether graduate students’ career aspirations change over time.
Gemme & Gingras (2012) surveyed 294 students in the sciences (including health sciences) and engineering at French-speaking universities in Quebec regarding career preferences. Students were surveyed in 2003-2004, and again 2006. They were asked if they would like a career at a university (academia) or in a range of non-academic settings (industry, government, etc). They found that 30.3% of students desired a university position at both time points, and 17.3% of the sample initially expressed interest in a non-academic career, but wanted an academic career by 2006. Thus, a total of 48% expressed an interest in an academic career by 2006. In contrast, 43.9% expressed a consistent interest in non-academic work, and 6.8% shifted from academic to non-academic career interests. The authors noted that those students who shifted towards academia also were more likely to have received scholarships from their institution by 2006. They suggest this may have encouraged those students to consider pursuing a career in academia.
Another study surveyed 469 basic biomedical science graduate students at UCSF regarding career choices (Fuhrmann, Halme, O’Sullivan, & Lindstaedt, 2011). They compared responses of first year students to those in their second and third years, looking at overall trends for career preferences, rather than looking at the same sample at multiple time points. They noted that early in graduate training students indicated a marked drop in interest in pursuing research careers, but this applied to only specific types of careers. Interest in being a PI in academic (research/teaching) or “other” reseach careers (government, industry, or non-PI in academia) did not change significantly. However, there was a steep and significant drop in those students who wanted to be a PI at a research-intensive university: 41.7% of first year students, 35% of second year students, and only 25% of third year students. The authors note that at by their third year, the students would have spent 8-10 months in a single, research-intensive lab and would be better able to evaluate that career path. Congruent with this drop in interest in being a research-intensive PI, there was increased interest in non-research career paths related to science (e.g. business, law, writing, consulting, etc).
Fuhrmann and colleagues (2011) also found that when students were asked about their top career choice, 75% of second years wanted a research intensive PI position, while only 55.2% wanted it by their third year. Interest in PI positions with a mix of research/teaching had a smaller drop in that time (56.3% to 44.8%). Also, while women showed less interest in research-intensive PI positions initially compared to men (21.3% compared to 39.5%, respectively), both sexes lost interest in research-intensive PI positions at an equal rate as time progressed. Of those students who indicated a move away from a research-intensive PI track, 91% identified at least 1 negative perception or reason for the shift. This included negative beliefs about work-life balance, career competition, research funding, length of training, and salary for the research-intensive PI track. In contrast, only 24% of students identified at least 1 positive reason for picking a new career path, such as developing new interests or skills.
Golde & Dore (2001) conducted a survey of several thousand doctoral students across 12 disciplines. In one analysis of 4,114 students, they found 35.4% of respondents reported a decline in interest in becoming a university professor since starting their program, while 21.1% reported an increase in interest;  47.9% still listed it as a strong current interest. In contrast, 39.8% of students reported increased interest in conducting research in the private sector, 34.8% reported an increased interest in conducting research at non-profits or for the government, and 39.4% reported an increase in working independently as a consultant or writer. A subanalysis (n = 2505) found that concerns about the tenure and promotion process, academic job market, work load, needing to obtain research funding, and salary levels all decreased interest in pursuing an academic career. Individuals who enjoyed many aspects of university/graduate work were more likely to be interested. The authors also found many quality of life variables (such as work life balance) had an ambiguous influence on academic career aspirations.
The largest study I identified surveyed over 8,000 graduate students on 9 of 10 UC campuses (Mason, Goulden, & Frasch, 2009). The authors specifically asked about students’ interests in the “academic fast track,” defined as tenure track positions in research-intensive universities, not in academia more broadly. They observed a decreased interest in the fast track over time. While 45% of men and 39% of women reported they had been interested in  the fast track when they began their program, only 35% and 27%, respectively, expressed interest at the point of the survey (this corresponded to 1-7 years later in the program, depending on the student). As with the study by Furhmann and colleagues (2011), Mason and colleagues (2009) found little decline in the percent of students interested in academic careers that focused on teaching, and saw increases in students looking to careers in industry or government.
When Mason and colleagues (2009) restricted their analyses to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields, they found an even sharper drop. While 40% of men and 31% of women in STEM initially intended to pursue a fast track career, this dropped to 28% and 20 % respectively at the point of the survey. Across disciplines, both men and women reported concerns related to having other life interests and negative experiences as a graduate student as reasons for moving away from the fast track. Women also mentioned concerns about having children, geographic re-location, and issues with their spouses/partners. Men moving away from the fast track also indicted that the career path was “too time consuming” and placed a greater emphasis/concern on compensation and promotion than women.
Overall, most of the studies found decreases in the percentage of students considering research-intensive academic careers, with less of a shift for those interested in teaching. All of the articles indicate that despite these shifts, and despite the fact that only half of individuals with PhDs are in tenure-track positions five years after graduation (Golde & Dore, 2001), few graduate programs educate students about opportunities outside academia. Most of the articles express two concerns: 1) that there are not enough academic positions for the students who want them, and 2) in some cases talented students who could make important contributions in research are leaving it entirely because of the quality of life issues inherent in the current academic structure.

Fuhrmann, C. N., Halme, D. G., O’Sullivan, P. S., & Lindstaedt, B.
(2011). Improving graduate education to support a branching career
pipeline: recommendations based on a survey of doctoral students in
the basic biomedical sciences. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(3),
239-249.
Gemme, B., & Gingras, Y. (2012). Academic careers for graduate
students: a strong attractor in a changed environment. Higher
Education, 63(6), 667-683.
Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At Cross Purposes: What the
Experiences of Today's Doctoral Students Reveal about Doctoral
Education. http://www.phd-survey.org/report%20final.pdf
Mason, M. A., Goulden, M., & Frasch, K. (2009). Why graduate students
reject the fast track. Academe, 95(1), 11-16.