text:
Supervisor in German Universities
I have sent many emails to lecturers within the nuclear field and at different German universities for the sake of supervision. I have attached my CV and complete detailed PhD proposal related to nuclear engineering. I already have a PhD in laser engineering and would like to develop my knowledge in application of high power lasers in nuclear reactors.
Unfortunately I did not receive any reply, even negative ones. I have re-checked my PhD proposal and reviewed my email text, where both seem very good and professional.
I will be very grateful if you could advise me regarding this issue and how can I get German supervisor for the sake of admission requirements.

Sidenote: Why would you do a second PhD for this? I strongly suggest that you browse the [tag:second-degree] tag. Also consider asking a question about possible ways to continue your career when you have a PhD and a research idea in an adjacent field.

Especially if you already have your PhD in laser engineering, and you want to work on high power lasers in nuclear reactors, I see even less reason to pursue a 2nd PhD, as both topics seem highly connected. A postdoc in said field could be a better idea. Additionally, there are only three operating research reactors in Germany (Berlin, Munich and Mainz) - in the case that you are not from Germany, why limit yourself to German universities?

Thank you very much 3kstc...i do appreciate your kind reply. Actually, with respect to the said topic..your  point of view about post doc is very logical but i am afraid that there are no corresponding announcements. In addition, i thought that phd chance is easier than postdoc since i have prepared the objectives of proposal time table to be finished within 3 years. German universities are free for phd.

Actually, i was surprised because my emails were hardly ignored. As Mr. Aeismail said, due to large number of recieved emails, people there are busy and could not reply every email. However, professionally we should answer any request in our inbox.

Thank you very much for your answer..i will try second degree and post doc.

A "cold" request sent to a faculty member—sent when there is either no announced opening for a position or no established cycle for admissions—is unlikely to generate a response. This is because of the sheer amount of email that German professors can receive, particularly if they run large research groups. (In many cases, the public email address may not be directly handled by the professor but be filtered by an administrative assistant.) In that case, there's not much you can do.
Your best bet is to look for groups that have announcements for open positions and apply to those. In such cases, you may get a response, but even then there is a possibility you might not hear anything back. It's basically saying "no" without sending a rejection email.

Thank you very much for your detailed answer. Actually, I sent to their personal official emails found in staff web page. In addition, it is difficult to find same topic of my phd research proposal in the announcements.

I wouldn’t expect that. Most open positions are tied to third-party funding so the topic likely won’t match yours.

I do appreciate your time and kind attention. Thank you very much Sir  for your answer.


text:
Changing fields during PhD
I’m three months into a PhD (in the UK) at a professional school exploring AI Ethics. My undergraduate background is in Philosophy and I jumped directly into my PhD (~3 years with no taught elements). I’ve not done any work on AI before, and am feeling quite overwhelmed with the underlying mathematics (eg: algorithmic fairness literature, working of deep learning systems etc). My interests and strengths are largely in qualitative research, I don’t have much of a quantitative background, and I feel like I’m trying to tip toe around the quantitative literature to find a question that I could actually attempt to answer. I also have strong interest in other areas of philosophy (especially aesthetics, epistemology and the philosophy of art) and am now wondering if I would have been better off having applied for a PhD within a Philosophy department instead, where I could have focused theoretical rather than applied philosophy. Would dropping out of my current program with an Mres in a year work against me in applying to other PhD programs in Philosophy in the UK/US? Would I be better off trying to endure the three years, getting a PhD and then applying to jobs in a philosophy department and then working on a different topic (is that practical given the competition for jobs in philosophy)? I applied to this PhD because I enjoyed doing philosophy, and had some experience with applied philosophy projects (business and environmental ethics) that I had previously enjoyed, but I have now come to despise AI and can’t bring myself to care about my thesis question. I’ve been told that my job prospects will be much better with a qualification in AI Ethics than in theoretical philosophy, but I’m scared I won’t have anything meaningful to contribute here and can’t really imagine working in AI ethics in the long term at this point…

To "endure the three years" does not sound very tempting, especially because you say I "can’t bring myself to care about my thesis question" and "I’m scared I won’t have anything meaningful to contribute". It is not given that you will get the degree after three years. Do you have any support and guidance by a person you trust and can discuss this with in sufficient detail? What about your scientific advisor?

From what you write, I think you have made a decision but just don't want to admit it yet, but it is hard to see a reason to stay. You are just beginning on this path and it would be difficult as you note. You also suggest it would be unsatisfying. Maybe you should look at all your options and see what is better.
Normally I wouldn't answer such a personal question, but you may just need a bit of a kick. Talk to your current advisor before you jump, however.
Changing institutions comes with a time cost, but you might be able to spend that time productively if you don't immediately quit while looking.
You don't get do-overs in life. Choose something that you truly want.
You can always take up AI and its philosophical implications later. The field is in flux at the moment. Too much hype. Too much promotion by commercial interests.
Note that you don't need a masters for US doctoral applications. And quitting with a masters won't hurt you, but in many places you would still need to do the necessary prep for comprehensive exams, assuming they are part of a program. That could add to the time required.

I'm from a highly multidisciplinary lab. Most of the PhD students in my lab work on ethics-related research. However, not all of them code or work directly with AI's mathematical background. One of the nice things about this era of AI we are currently leaving is that not all work has to be directly linked to these aspects. Some of the students have even finished their PhD without coding a single line of code, which shows how diverse PhD in Computer Science has become.
You mentioned that you went straight for a PhD from your bachelor's. That is fine, but one thing that I realised, talking to many students in the same scenario as you, is that as you progress in academia, you understand that knowing everything in your field is impossible. If you are really interested in philosophy, there are plenty of CS researchers that do just that.
I would suggest you take a broader look at the field and try to find topics you are interested in. Afterwards, you should read literature reviews for those problems and see how you can contribute. It is important to remember that the first AI paper from Turing was published in a psychology journal, so there is no reason to be overwhelmed by all the possible things out there.
Additionally, having researched ethics in AI, I see that the field is mostly looking for qualitative research. Many papers about fairness and ethics use only quantitative metrics that don't mean what the authors think they mean. In the past few conferences I attended, there were many calls to recruit people outside of Computer Science into AI research.
Lastly, don't push it if you don't think that is the game for you. Three years is a long time to swallow and get through. I'd consider talking to my supervisor to find a compromise, and if that doesn't work, I'd try to find new positions or even a supervisor.
Best of luck!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Supervised a PhD to 90% of completion; take credit for 100%; what could go wrong?
Let's say you had a doctoral student who you were main supervisor for {~advisor) throughout their data collection and most of their write-up, but just before they finished they changed to another main supervisor and you became deputy supervisor (you moved to a new institution in another country and they wanted someone close at hand). Let's say you then counted this student on your CV as supervised to completion as main supervisor because this is 90% true and because these CV points are important for things like promotion. The plan if anyone ever called you out on this would be to just explain the situation as it is and say that 90% of the work felt like it justified the claim. The student is in Sweden (where the regulations say students have the right to supervisor change without even having to make a case) and the supervisor is a Lecturer (~associate prof) at a UK university who wants to make Reader (~full prof) some day. Is this a bad idea? What is likely to go wrong?

Why not put something based in the first sentence of the question in the CV?

To clarify, are you saying that in your department they give different amounts of credit to different co-advisors?  In my department, while there is technically a section about what PhD committees you were chair of, in practice we look just look at the list of students supervised on the CV and don't typically assign different weights to different co-advisors unless we know personally how much that faculty member actually supervised.

BTW Lecturer is more like assistant professor, at least in my discipline

Dude. Do not lie in your CV.

Thanks for more answers ppl. I decided to go for the option which seems in line with most recommendations which is to include the student in the count of students supervised to completion but with a footnote explaining that with x% of their time remaining, the student changed main supervisor in order to graduate with main supervisor still at the institution. @YemonChoi - the reason I tend to think of Lecturer as associate prof is that as I understand it, assistant prof normally does not yet have tenure, whereas a UK lecturer has as much tenure as a UK full prof.

Not really worth an answer, but can you get a letter from the official supervisor that you did 90% of the actual advising? I am also in Sweden, and such letters are commonly written in my department as part of promotion packages. Then your CV would be "Main supervisor for XX from [date] until [date]. Supervision changed due to my relocation. (see Appendix Z)"

@Amorphia I think you would be better served to go by the much more widely accepted mapping of Lecturer -> Assistant, Sr. Lecturer -> Associate, Reader -> ?? (usually Professor, but I have also seen Senior Associate Professor), Professor -> Full Professor. If you put the aspect of tenure aside, all other Lecturer job characteristics map more closely to Assistant Professor than to Associate, in my opinion.

What if the other supervisor thinks your contribution only counted for 10%

@xLeitix thanks but one step ahead of you; already asked for such a letter. Strawberry: impossible; the other supervisor only became involved with the project when I left the country, prior to that I was close to being sole supervisor.

@xLeitix I am actually Senior Lecturer. One reason (apart from extra typing and it not being relevant for the main question) that I didn't both writing it is because at my UK university (and I assume many others) there is in practice no difference between Lecturer and Senior Lecturer in any "job characteristics", apart from a fairly minor pay difference. If you say another mapping is more common I'll take you word for it but in practice, objectively speaking, in this case Lecturer is like associate prof and what we actually call Associate Lecturer is like assistant prof (because no tenure).

@xLeitix I wonder when you talk about Lecturer to USA mappings you are more thinking in terms of Swedish lektor? Lektor in Sweden is not exactly like UK Lecturer: in my experience it's more common to not have tenure but be called Lektor in Sweden. I have been that myself in Sweden; but it's not even possible at my UK university (if you don't have tenure you are an associate lecturer known as AL).

On a generic CV, I would simply make a section of "Graduate students supervised and co-supervised", and include this student.  In this context it wouldn't be necessary to go into detail about whether the supervision was "to completion".
But for something like a promotion dossier, where you're asked to tick boxes, I would go to whoever is responsible for overseeing the evaluation process (department head, promotion committee chair, etc), explain the situation, and ask what you should do.  If at all possible, get an answer in writing. Then, when you fill out the form, attach a note saying something like:

One student was supervised by me for about 90% of their thesis work (stages X, Y, Z), and then changed supervisors for the last 10%; I am officially listed as their deputy supervisor.  I spoke with Department Head Smith on October 24, 2018, and she advised that it was appropriate to include this student as "supervised to completion".

If Smith says "no, don't count it", then you attach a similar note saying "Smith said not to include this student, but I believe that this is a similar accomplishment to supervising a student to completion".
Since academic achievement is generally self-reported and "honor system", this means that any attempt to "cheat" is seen as a serious ethical offense.  If someone on the evaluation committee is hostile to you, they could use something like this as ammunition to wreck your entire promotion case.  ("Candidate says supervised to completion, but student's dissertation shows someone else as supervisor.  Clear-cut fraud.")  So that's what could go wrong.  But if you disclose the situation, and get someone else to pre-approve the way you're filling the form, you eliminate the possibility; maybe it won't be counted in your favor, but at least you can't be accused of fraud.

If doesn't actually say to completion on list, then there might instead be coming questions of how many on the list did actually finish.

“I am officially listed as their deputy supervisor“ that kinda makes it sound like they changed because of you, but because you moved. Maybe something less defensive is appropriate.

@DonQuiKong: Okay, so add "then I left the institution and so they changed supervisors".

The fact that you ask, makes me think that you believe it would be at least a bit wrong. Anything that looks like dishonesty in an academic's statements or record can be very serious.
I suggest two things. One is to be completely honest about it as you have been here. But the other is to talk to the student in question and perhaps get a statement/recommendation from him/her about your helpfulness. A recommendation from a student for a professor might be a very powerful statement to a hiring committee.

Thanks for the suggestions. My univ administration runs very much on the box ticking model. Applying for promotion will involve ticking a box for x students or x+1. I don’t personally feel it’s wrong because x+1 is closest to the truth. But I don’t know if someone else might think it’s wrong. Maybe I could tick x+1 and put an asterisk with an explanation. Hmm...

@Amorphia Are they expecting these boxes to be checked at their institution, or for your whole career? I.e. would you treat it differently if this student graduated while you were still at the earlier institution?

What could go wrong:

You might not be given a chance to explain it.
Once someone realizes you fudged this detail a little, it might call all of the other details in your cv into question.

tl;dr: Just check the binding regulations.
You're asking the wrong people. Some of us think it's bad, some of us don't. In some universities the criteria are this way, in some - that way.
So just open the administrative/academic/promotion-related regulations for your university or department, and see what it says: What exactly is supposed to count for promotions? If the wording is not entirely clear, consult the head of your department.
Now, you might be wondering "Ah, but what if he tells me to change my CV, while in fact the promotion committee would have never looked into it?"
Well, maybe. But:

It's unethical to do so.
The expectation of benefit/damage over both cases is not high enough for this to be appealing even if you have no ethical scruples (or if you think the promotion process is otherwise unfair).

having said all of the above I must also tell you that: Look, you didn't supervise that PhD to completion. What can I say? You just didn't. You had planned to do it; you would have done it, had the circumstances allowed it; you put in most of the effort towards it - sure. But at the end of the day, that's not what happened.

There's an assumption here you probably haven't realised you've made, that turns out to be false. "Could have" supervised to completion; actually I can't. Although we had a productive working relationship (one good published paper and the student is close to finished overall) they dump me last minute because they think it will be better for them to have a supervisor close to home for the final steps. They are probably wrong about this because the new supervisor is much less familiar with the work. I regard this as a stupid betrayal and am not pleased but there is nothing I can do.

@Amorphia: Sorry, I meant "could have, had it not been for the circumstances". I'll remove that part.

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


text:
Citing an unpublished paper? plagiarism?
Here is the situation: I am working with 2 others on a paper A, and simultaneously by myself separately on a paper B (which is a thesis).

A and B are on very much similar topics.
I started with paper B slightly before we started working on paper A, but the ideas in paper B build upon the ideas in paper A.
Moreover, paper A will very likely be published sooner than paper B. My plan at first was to cite paper A in paper B.
However, my other 2 co-authors have now started to shift their idea about what domain of paper A should be, and they are shifting towards the topic of my paper B, and have even started to reinvent some of my ideas in paper B.
Therefore, I am very concerned that this will cause a plagiarism issue: If we decide that paper A should contain many of the ideas in paper B, then ideally, I would want A to cite B: I came up with these ideas independently and for a different paper, so if A wants to use them, paper B (i.e. myself) should get credit for the work (since I put in all the work and came up with it first, and we originally didn't plan to put it in paper A). But paper A will likely get published before paper B is handed in as a thesis.

Most importantly: I need to hand in paper B as a thesis, and I cannot afford not to hand it in, or to make a completely different thesis. Therefore I need to be sure that paper B does not commit (self?) plagiarism.

Is there a way for paper A to cite paper B (my thesis), even though paper A will be published before B?
If no, how to avoid (self?) plagiarism in this situation? (somehow integrate parts of B in A while still recognising B as the original work that is a separate thesis and gets credit as such?)
Is it generally stupid to work on two papers simultaneously like this? Did I make a big mistake...?

There is no particular problem with citing unpublished work. Just list it as such. There is no problem with citing work that will not ever be published in fact. Just name the author and list it as "private communication". Give a title if appropriate, or a description.
In the case at hand, it seems wiser to cite A within B as it is likely to be published first, but since you don't have the final version, it could be listed as "unpublished, in preparation".
Talk to your advisor, of course, about what he/she recommends here. I think in most cases the rules on a thesis can be, with permission of the advisor, a bit looser than for formally published work. You need to cite, in any case, but the fact that things are a bit tentative can be finessed.
As for plagiarism, cite your own work, whether joint or not, just as you would the work of another.

Thanks a lot for the help. A question: "In the case at hand, it seems wiser to cite A within B as it is likely to be published first". But let's say that my co-authors decide that A incorporates a large part of B, then if I don't cite B in A, it will mean that B essentially has less original work in it, which wouldn't reflect the work I put in B, and would make B less likely to pass as a thesis it seems. I am worried about this, and doubt whether it would be wise to not cite B in A.

Do you think it would be wise  and possible for A to cite parts of B that were original to B, and B to cite parts in A that were original to A?

I don't see any difficulty with that. But ask your advisor.

Ask your advisor is critical here.
You want a record that you have clarified this issue before submission. Ideally, formulate it by email so that you have a written mail trail, too.
The problem is not so much the quoting (your idea of mutual citation of the respective novelty very nicely sums up what is, in principle, the correct thing to do). The problem is the fact that:

your advisor and the academic board needs to believe your version of where material comes from and that's best clarified ahead of time;
your co-authors in A might claim originality and accuse you of plagiarism (despite you knowing where things come from) - this is a serious danger when ideas pop up simultaneously, and even more so if you collaborated. They may insist that things are differently from what you report here and had originated with them (The Leibniz/Newton or Hilbert/Einstein disputes come to mind as prominent examples of this; the first a particularly infamous case, in the second a major priority dispute was averted due to the soberer mindsets of Hilbert and Einstein, but, until today, it still fuels historians' debates). You are probably nowhere near the virulence of these cases, but it still can get ugly.

TL;DR: clarify the situation as soon as possible, with your advisor, and, ideally, with a decent email trail to avoid any nasty surprises by the academic board (or your co-authors) later on.

Thanks for the help! A question: How will point 2 be solved by sending an email to my advisor? That wouldn't prevent the credibility of my co-authors if they claimed the ideas were theirs would it?

@user99265: you do it right away, when things only have started to develop. In the end it will be claim vs. claim, but the earlier you inform your advisor, the earlier you can either establish your prior claims or discuss alternative options/strategies with the advisor. Leaving it for later will exacerbate the situation and only contribute to make it harder to reconstruct how things originally developed.

That makes sense. I presume it is wise to give a detailed account of the relation between the contents of the two papers, and what exactly I was original author of?

Talk to your advisor, there is no point in speculating which details are essential. If you have a list of the material split, you can bring it with you.


text:
Would a graduate program require a transcript from a past institution even if the transcript is empty?
I started a new graduate program in September. After a few weeks weeks, I chose to withdraw due to personal/health concerns.
One of the reasons I accepted the offer of admission was because it included a scholarship that covered tuition. After I withdrew, they took away the scholarship (expected) but they also charged me tuition for the first semester (unexpected). They did this because, technically, I withdrew a few days after the "last day to drop classes without financial penalty" deadline.
I am no longer a student, but they are still requiring me to pay ~$1500 to cover the tuition. I can't afford to pay this; I was not expecting this additional expense since the scholarship was supposed to cover it. If I don't pay it right away, they will charge interest.
Now the easiest option (but perhaps unethical) seems to be to just walk away without paying. But if I want to apply for another graduate program some time in the future, I will need a transcript from all past institutions. And if I want a transcript from this institution, they need me to pay the ~$1500.
This seems ridiculous; effectively, it will cost $1500 to get a transcript that does not contain any grades. It just says that I withdrew from all classes.
Would a graduate program generally require a transcript that does not contain any grades? Alternatively, is there any precedent for a situation where a scholarship is revoked but tuition is still required after withdrawing?
For context, this is a major Canadian university.
Update: Thanks for the responses. After reaching out to the department and explaining the situation, it was determined that financial services had made an error when they revoked the scholarship. Basically, the scholarship acted like a tuition waiver and it was not correct to cancel the tuition waiver (and thereby charge full tuition) when a student withdraws.

Sorry to say, but you did withdraw after the deadline. You may view this as a technicality, but the university sees it differently.

I remembered seeing a related question on here. I think it was Is omitting a school with blank transcript considered unethical in academia?, but that's concerned with withdrawing before the deadline. That technicality may indeed be important .

"Alternatively, is there any precedent for a situation where a scholarship is revoked but tuition is still required after withdrawing?" I think all of them? You owe tuition, and luckily you got a scholarship, but why would the scholarship pay out for you to not take classes? Most scholarships I know of require you to maintain some minimal enrollment.

They could require it. Probably they ask for all prior transcripts. But the only way to know is to read the application materials carefully. If one is required but won't be sent you will have to explain why. Your explanation may be acceptable or not, but that depends on the individual situation.  Just be honest. If it becomes a block, then you will need to deal with it directly.

As you consider everyone else's feedback here, also consider how it might look if, in response to the question of why you didn't provide a blank transcript for this university you have to answer "because I didn't pay them tuition I owed them" - might not look good to another university.

@BryanKrause "might not look good to another university" I cannot speak about other universities, but if I ever received an application from a student that I came to find out owed $1500 in tuition to another university, it would likely mean the application gets thrown in the fireplace.

@Vladhagen It must be nice to have a fireplace in your office

@AzorAhai If only, if only. I keep asking my department chair, but she reminds me that I have a third-floor office in a five-story building. I guess university maintenance is way behind on chimney installation work orders.

There are two issues at play here:

You received (or had opportunity to receive) goods or services at a cost and now you do not feel you should pay for said services.
You have asked if a graduate program would require a transcript from a school you attended but received no grades from.

My answer to these questions would be as follows:

If you did not withdraw from the university before the withdraw deadline, you indeed owe them tuition. This is how tuition works. You receive services from the university and you pay them for said services. Failure to attend class does not remit one's tuition obligations. That is the precedent. In essence, laborers came to your house and painted your living room. Originally you had agreed for them to paint your entire house, but you decided you no longer wanted the whole house painted. Do you still owe the painting company money for painting your living room? (Answer: Yes).
There may be several paths you can take in regards to the tuition charges. You can set up a payment plan with the university. This will allow you to pay back the tuition over time while also avoiding your credit being destroyed by your account being sent to a collections agency. Another approach you could attempt is to speak with the university and seek to have your tuition charges dropped because you could not attend class. Be prepared to prove that claim (if true). This would be a path you could take if you were hospitalized for the extent of the semester and you were incapacitated to a degree that rendered you unable to take the appropriate administrative actions and withdraw earlier. The university is extremely unlikely to remit tuition charged to a student who had claimed, yet unprovable, difficulties in attending class.
As for whether you need to provide transcripts for a university you never received any grades at, I would guess that it is rather unlikely that an admissions committee would require your transcripts if you sought prior direction from them on the matter. Simply email the graduate coordinator and say

"I attended the University of ABC123 during September 2018. Due to health issues, I withdrew from all of my classes before final grades were issued. As such, any transcript from U of ABC123 will be effectively blank and will not contain any grades. Will the admissions committee still be looking for this transcript?"

If I received an email like this from a student I would probably reply and tell him or her that we would place a note in his/her file mentioning the situation and that they should not worry about sending a transcript. (Although, if I knew that the student owed another university $1500 of tuition, he could send us whatever he wanted and I would probably still reject his application. There would be no way that I would go dancing with that type of baggage).

A lot of this question comes down to what you can do vs. what you should do.
You should pay the university, at least in installments over time. If you withdrew after the deadline to do so, then the university and teachers expended effort to put you into their system, and prepare for you to be a student. If you try to just blow them off, they could pretty easily take you to court and force you to pay, since you likely agreed to a set of terms and conditions upon signing up for classes. At the least, they could mess up your credit by giving you a delinquent account.
That said, graduate programs would want records from every institution you attended in general. The idea is that it is up to them to decide what is important and what is not, not up to you. Thus, it is academically dishonest to withhold the information from them. Further, the transcript likely is not blank. It will list the classes that you signed up for, and give you a "W" in each one most likely (that is what US institutions do), since you dropped after the deadline. Some schools count those against your GPA, some don't, so it could affect how they calculate your GPA coming into their program.
So that's what you should do. Could you not include the transcript? Yes, it is possible that they would fail to notice the missing transcript. It is also possible that you'd make it 1/2 way through the program, and then they'd figure it out, and you could get thrown out.
I'd talk to the university about setting up a payment plan so that they don't tank your credit or go to a collections agency, then include the transcript. $1500 isn't worth the danger that someone will find out and throw you out years later. As for precedent, I had a similar situation where I had to withdraw from a semester after the deadline because my sister became very ill, and I had to be an at-home caretaker. The university didn't refund me anything. From their perspective, they had reserved spots in the classes I was taking, and they couldn't let anyone else into those spots because the course was too far along. I was forced to eat that cost, and formed a payment plan with the university business office.

Also, if it is a public school, they may have expanded powers to retrieving their funds vs. a private college.


text:
I got the same referee report from two different journals
My coauthor and I submitted our article for publication to one of the best journals in our field. After a long time of review, we got a rejection decision by the editor based on the referee report which we received. After that we wrote to the editor and explained to him/her that the referee arguments to reject our paper are wrong and provided point by point evidence to support our conclusions.
However, the editor did not accept our arguments so we then sent our paper to another journal which is also among the best in our field. After waiting for considerable time, we got a rejection decision from the second journal and the same referee report as the first journal. I repeat the two reports which we received from two journals are completely identical! We have asked the editor of the second journal for explanations why we got the same report and so far we have not heard any reply.
Based on these facts, we believe that our paper is being rejected for some unknown personal reasons not clear to us rather than objective reasons connected with our work.  In between the two submissions, we have revised our paper based on the first journal referee report.
Have your ever experienced such a situation?
How should we behave in this case?
UPDATE:
Based on some comments below about this post, I want to express my opinion in more details about this issue. I am an expert in my working field and have reviewed several papers too. However, if somebody is asked to review the same paper more than once from two different journals, it is ethical that the referee rejects to review the paper and gives the possibility to another referee to do it. The referee can have an option to explain to the second journal editor the reasons why he/she rejected the paper initially and also point out the comments which he/she received back from the authors through the first journal (as in our case) that his/her conclusions might be wrong.

Related:  https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/52726/does-the-reviewer-ever-get-the-same-manuscript-twice/

If the reviewer misunderstood something about your paper, then other readers might as well. Is there a reason why you cannot edit the paper to clarify whatever part caused the misunderstanding?

So all reviewers (if this is one of the best journals in your field I'm assuming there are multiple reviewers) resubmitted the exact same review?

we believe that our paper is being rejected for some unknown personal reasons not technically impossible but statistically highly unlikely.

Simpler situation: The same reviewer works on both journals and was tasked with paper twice. If the referee report is the same word-by-word, this is just human behavior of minimizing effort. His ethical conduct maybe should have been to decline reviewing the same paper a second time, but who knows? I doubt there is actually a policy against this (because is highly unlikely) and maybe he has some productivity reward from his review tasks. Try a third and fourth journal if need be.

@Mefitico At least in my field, there's no concept of a reviewer "working on a journal". Editors send papers to whichever academics they think are most suitable to review it, and reviewers accept or decline whatever requests come their way.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/7200/1033

if somebody is asked to review the same paper more than once from two different journals, it is ethical that the referee rejects to review the paper and gives the possibility to another referee to do it Why? I don't find it out of line.

@DavidRicherby "no concept of a reviewer "working on a journal"" Agreed, but depending on the topic of the paper, and how specialised it is, the chances of two journals turning to the same reviewer could become quite high.

@TripeHound Yes, and two journals independently choosing the same reviewer is the exact opposite situation to reviewers working for specific journals. So you seem to be saying, "Agreed, but I agree."

People seem to be missing the fact that the authors actually revised the manuscript. Most of the answers below are inadequate for this reason.

@WetlabStudent That might be because the sentence in which they state that they revised the manuscript was inserted/edited later on according to the question's history. It is possible that most answers and comments were made before this edit, though it's hard to say as both the edit and the answers/comments were made '2 days ago'. The policies of stackexchange seems to allow rolling back edits which invalidate existing answers.

It seems kind of symmetric: authors submit the same paper at different journals and reviewers submit the same review at different journals. If journals would exchange reviews directly that may shorten the whole process.

As a reviewer, when I get asked to review a paper the second time I will see whether my comments from the initial review were addressed. If not, then I will submit the same review. Why should I update my review if the paper has not been updated?
Getting the same reviewer is a very common occurrence. Perhaps in your situation the reviewer is misguided. However, when re-submitting a paper you should make every effort to address previous reviews.  And, in any case, legitimate issues raised by the reviewer should be addressed. Even if you think the reviewer is confused, you should seek to clarify the confusing points. They may be confusing to others too.
In your position there is probably not much you can do other than write to the editor explaining the situation. The best argument you can put forth is to explain that all of the points in the review have already been addressed in the submission. That makes it look like the reviewer didn't read it, which means the editor may side with you.

As I wrote in details above, we are sure that the referee arguments are wrong. So, in this case there is not a priori reason to comment on the referee doubts. However, even though there is not a priori reason, we decided to address all comments which we received from the first referee in our revised version of the paper which we submitted to the second journal. But at the end the report is still the same!

@Felix even if you're sure the referee concerns are wrong, you should still try to see if you can address their concerns within the paper in some indirect way somewhere at the beginning of the paper, cutting corners here and there to get the necessary space for this discussion. This allows the reviewer to update their own review and, possibly, change judgement.

I think it’s far more useful and informative—for both author and editor—to write “This is the second time that I have been asked to referee this paper. The authors have not addressed any of the concerns raised in my previous report (attached). For that reason I cannot recommend acceptance.” Just submitting the previous review verbatim seems a bit passive-agressive. But of course, it has to be true that the authors didn’t adress any of my concerns, which doesn’t seem to be the case here.

@JeffE: More likely just plain lazy. Unless, of course, the issues brought up in the first review are actually unfixable...

@Thomas, I don't think it's ethical at all to resubmit the same or nearly the same report a second time, without informing the editors very clearly that you are doing so (whether you get paid for the report or not is still another matter). The ethical thing to do would be to write, "I have already refereed this paper and recommended rejection for the Journal of Pseudoscience (see the attached copy of my report). I do not believe I can referee this paper a second time and be objective. It goes against my scientific beliefs. I hope you understand. Yours scientifically. Thomas."

@JeffE Conventions vary. While spam should be flagged as such, there is nothing wrong with resubmitting a paper and some feel it is not right to tar a submission with the previous rejection. The convention in my area is not to note that one has reviewed a paper before.

@Thomas I’m aware that conventions vary, even among individuals in my field. But I find the idea of declining to review a paper merely because one has already recommended rejection extremely weird, if not unethical, especially if the manuscript is completely unchanged. Inform the editor, and let the editor (or the journal’s editorial policies) decide whether to seek another independent review.

That said, if the authors have generated enough ill will that I can’t be objective, then of course I should decline.

Exactly @JeffE it doesn't seem to be the case here, yet none of the answers seem to be addressing this critical point. For that reason, I added my own answer.

@PatrickTrentin But the question clearly states that the paper was revised to address the reviewers comments. The reviewer submitting the same report is inappropriate in this case unless it is just an honest mistake and they didn't realize the authors revised the manuscript. See my answer below for advice on this.

@WetlabStudent You are actually right, but that doesn't invalidate the suggestion. It is still the right thing to do, as it strengthens the author's position at the next round.

@PatrickT How do you know they didn't inform the editor? There is a private comment field "for the editor only" in most review forms.

Based on these facts, we believe that our paper is being rejected for some unknown personal reasons not clear to us rather than objective reasons connected with our work.

I see no justification at all for that conclusion.
In many cases, there is a fairly obvious person whom one would ask to review a particular paper – for example, if you write a paper extending my work, there's a good chance that I'll get asked to review that. As I recall, there's a paper that I was asked to review three times.
The reviewer rejected your paper the first time and you feel they were mistaken, but you couldn't convince the editor of this. You revised the paper and submitted to a new journal which, by chance, chose the same reviewer. In my opinion, the most likely thing is that the reviewer didn't notice you'd changed the paper to address their comments and they thought, “This hasn't changed, so my old review still applies.” They would not have seen the rebuttal that you sent to the first editor; all they have seen is what they mistakenly believed to be the same paper, twice.
You should email the editor and explain that you received this exact review the first time you submitted the paper and that you have already revised the paper to address the comments made. Ask them to ask the reviewer to re-read the paper.

Your edit to the question claims that there is an ethical requirement to decline to review a paper for the second time. As far as I'm aware, no such ethical obligation exists. Science is not a democracy. If a reviewer finds a genuine problem with a paper, it doesn't matter how many other reviewers vote "accept" because they missed that problem: the paper should not be accepted until the problem is fixed.
Your claimed ethical obligation would mean that the authors of a paper with a hard to spot error could just resubmit to another journal, knowing that the reviewer who saw the mistake can never review the paper again.
Your claimed ethical obligation also would give a perverse incentive to accept bad papers. A referee who recommends rejection knows they're disqualified from reviewing the paper again, and other reviewers might recommend acceptance. But a referee who recommends accepting with revisions will get to review those revisions and, hopefully, ensure that the problematic content is fixed.

I wonder, how can one really justify and prove that their work is assessed unfairly due to on non-academic reasons? There is never enough peer-reviewers for a statistically significant analysis.

@DmitrySavostyanov You'd never be able to prove it. But, in this case, I see no justification for even suspecting it.

I guess, a lot can be perceived from the tone of the reviewer's report. Some are harsh but constructive, and some are blatantly wrong, and literally blame authors for their existence. It's good if you never received such reports, though.

@DmitrySavostyanov But then hopefully the editor can tell apart a harsh but fair review from one that "blames authors for their existence", and weigh them appropriately.

@FedericoPoloni Well, it somewhat depends on the editor.

Yes, I have experienced the same situation. You can revise your paper explicitly explaining why the criticism of the reviewer is wrong. Then write a cover letter explaining all previous history of submissions and rejections and emphasise which changes have been made. Then submit the paper and the cover letter to another journal.

Based on your statement

In between the two submissions, we have revised our paper based on the first journal referee report.

It seems like there are only three possibilities

Your revisions did not address the reviewer's concerns adequately, and so the reviewer submitted the same referee report
The reviewer saw the same title, and perhaps skimmed the paper quickly and didn't realize you revised the manuscript.
The reviewer accidentally sent in an old review because the file names of their two reviews were similar on their computer

Many authors don't address reviewer concerns when switching to a new journal, so unless your paper clearly addresses the concerns in the exact place they'd expect to find the revisions, the reviewer might send the editor back the same review, even if you did revise the manuscript.
Solution: If you truly believe you substantially revised the manuscript to address the reviewers initial concerns, then write to the editor. Say something like the following.

We believe Reviewer 2 accidentally sent you a referee report for a completely different version of this manuscript submitted to another journal on XX/XX/XXXX. We believe this to be true because the review is an exact, verbatim duplicate of a review we received for the old version of this manuscript. In response to that review, we heavily revised that manuscript incorporating the vast majority of the reviewer's suggestions. As evidence of this point, note ________ and _________ in the review. These places in the review suggest that either the reviewer did not read the new version of the manuscript that already incorporated their suggestions or that they accidentally sent in the same referee report for our old version of the manuscript due to a file naming mixup on their computer.
We do hope that it is Journal _____'s policy that all referee reports are made by reviewers who actually read the paper, and gave it a fair evaluation. Can you please contact the reviewer to inquire why their review is identical to a review they made for a substantially different manuscript.

Surely if you did substantially modify your manuscript, there will be aspects of the reviewer's comments that make no sense. So it will be easy to fill in the above blanks. For example, it might be the case that the review indicates issues with phrases that don't match the new line numbering, or even phrases that no longer exist. Any reasonable journal would follow up on your request if you brought this type of evidence to the editor's attention.
However, if you only made minor changes that didn't address the reviewers comments, they are well within their ethical rights to send in the exact same review.

However, if somebody is asked to review the same paper more than once from two different journals, it is ethical that the referee rejects to review the paper and gives the possibility to another referee to do it.
Well, no. The person thinks: "This is the same d*** cr** I have seen before, I have spent time explaining what's wrong with it and why it should not be published, and I happily furnish this explanation once again."
You fundamentally fail to understand that the reviewer's report is a communication of from the reviewer to the editor, who has solicited the reviewer's opinion. The editor customarily shares it with the authors since they may benefit from the reviewer's insight, but this is by the by.
If the editor of Journal 2 decides to solicit the opinion from the same person as the editor of Journal 1, then that is perfectly fine, and if you did not improve your paper between 1 and 2, then that judgment will not have changed either.

Just ask editor for another reviewer, saying this is second journal you have had same individual block the paper.  If a new reviewer blocks it again (and you really think the review would weaken the paper), just drop to a lower prestige outlet or even Arxive.
It's a little strange that you don't mention how the other reviews went at first and second journal (how many were there and did they recommend publishing)?
While I think the reviewer should have notified editor that he had rejected paper before with identical review (for one thing editor might want a new opinion), I don't see any point in getting into this.  Just ask for a new review (is a reasonable request, especially if other reviews have been positive.)

This isn't a great suggestion, they are unlikely to grant your request asking for another reviewer unless you provide a reason beyond they've reviewed the manuscript before (see my answer for a potential reason), and they should address the reviewers concerns before going to another journal or arxiv


text:
Age discrimination in Academia and PhD completion age
In the recent years I have observed more often some existing limits on the age of a person pursuing an academic career and in the postdoc years spent after the PhD. For example, it is very common to read an academic job opening where the applicant must be under the age of 35 and at maximum must have spent 5 to 7 years of postdoc. It is well known for example that in China (maybe in all country or some part of it) that if you want to apply for an assistant professor position you must be under the age of 35 and not older.
What surprises and annoys me about these age limitations is that they seem to not take into account the academic structure of the country where the applicant got the PhD. For example, I got my PhD in Europe where in my country is valid the Bologna academic system (3+2+3) and I got my PhD regularly in time at the age of 27-28. Even if I wanted to finish my studies earlier, it was not possible to defend my PhD before the age 27-28 because the academic system in my country is structured in such a way that forbids you to end the studies before.
On the other hand, there are some countries like the UK, Russia, USA, France etc., where in general the age when you finish your PhD is between 22-25. In these countries, as I was told by some colleagues, the academic system allows the students to finish their PhD regularly in time between the ages of 22-25.
The problem with the situations that I described above is that they tend to create discrimination based on age for someone pursuing an academic career because in some countries you can finish your PhD much earlier than in some others. Supposing for example that someone finishes the PhD at 23 in UK while some other person finishes the PhD at 27 in Italy or Germany, this age gap of 4 years would give an advantage to someone getting the PhD earlier in those cases where exists starting tenure track age limitations. Also the person who finishes the PhD earlier might have an advantage because has more time available to produce scientific output. In addition, it is very common to hear people in academia saying something like: " this person finished the PhD at 23 so he/she must be a genius" without taking into account the academic structure of the country that awarded the PhD.
My questions are:

Have you already noticed in your academic career the situations that I described above?

Does the university/institute where you work takes into account the PhD completion age of the tenure track candidate and the academic structure of the PhD awarding country?

UPDATE NR1:
This is an update to my question based on some comments that people have written so far. In my question I considered China as a matter of example where official age limitations exist. I also know some universities in EU that have introduced some age limitations as well for an assistant professor entry. The point of my question is to make people aware that if these age limitations become officially in many countries, then it is obvious that those people who get the PhD earlier have more advantages. The ugly truth is that theses age discriminations happen unofficially during candidate selection by a tenure track committee, where the person who got the PhD earlier is more favoured. I know this information from people that took part in a tenure track selection committee.

This way to open-ended. Questions should be answerable.

Why are you using statements about the educational system in the US and Europe for time to degree and complaining that China has a different educational system? I don't know the typical age of a doctoral graduate in China, which would be a better comparison. Do you know? Moreover, how many US and European folk are seeking jobs in China? Small, I'd guess.

"there are some countries like the UK, Russia, USA, France etc., where in general the age when you finish your PhD is between 22-25" Can't say about all those countries, but in the US if you start undergrad at 18, PhD at 22, you'd expect to have the degree around 27. Yes, it's possible to shave some time off if you do an undergraduate degree in 3 years or a PhD in <5, or start college as a minor, but that's not the norm at all. I'd guess the median PhD age in the US is well over 30, but that would be somewhat skewed by people getting professional PhDs eg in ed or nursing.

At least in Germany (with old, non-structured PhD) and in Russia (at least in Soviet times), there were options to get your PhD earlier, if you were exceptional enough. I personally know someone, who got a PhD, like, in one year, but they are retired by now, so it's not a current thing. If you google the bios of quite some star mathematicians from the East Block, you'd see things like "got fast-tracked to PhD from school, omitting the university completely", "solved a famous problem XYZ as an undergrad, was immediately awarded a diploma and a PhD after its publication", and so on.

Thanks to @ Oleg Lobachev for at least bringing some example. Indeed, i know Russian students that got their PhD at 24 not because they were genius but simply because that is the normal time to end the PhD regularly.

I'll state the obvious (and vote to close): This is not a question, it is a rant. The underlying premise is also incorrect: overall there are fewer formal age restrictions on academic hiring than there have been in the past, and the trend is increasingly towards illegalizing age discrimination.

I originally thought there could be some merit here despite what I see as some poor/misled assumptions, but with the edit I'll echo Elizabeth Henning: this is a rant. "The point of my question is to make people aware" is not indicative of a good question for Academia.SE. The site is meant to be about targeted Q&A, where questions are questions that anyone could ask and answers are answers that help others that find the question.

As @Buffy says, in the U.S. (in math, my field), finishing a PhD is rarely achieved by age 22-25, but at a minimum something more like 27-28.
And, especially given the job market, there's no advantage to finish in 4 rather than 5, or rather than 6. For example, using a couple extra years of funding to get a couple papers out is far better than finishing as early as possible.
In principle, the only version of "age" that can be legally considered is "PhD age", meaning age since PhD. The idea is that senior people should not compete with new PhD's for postdocs. Yes, this does tend to create a situation in which there is a window in which to get/do a postdoc or two, after which it's tenure-track or nothing... more-or-less.
The U.S. system used to be less rigid, but that also did lend itself to various forms of abuse of junior people, stringing them along with some vague promise of maybe-tenure-someday... The rules that prohibit this do also accidentally create some other complications.
EDIT/ADDITION: In the U.S., there is no mandate to put one's birthdate on a CV, so one's chronological age is not immediately obvious. Probably, though, yes, date of B.S. gives a strong clue to chronological age (more, perhaps, than PhD date). Work-and-experience history would, too. And if people want to under-the-table determine chrono age, marital status, and all kinds of stuff, it is not possible to prevent it. ("Blind" applications would not succeed at this... though it's something to imagine, perhaps.)
For grad admissions, in fact, I am very interested in people who give evidence of being not-so-naive, a little more grown up. Sometimes this is correlated with other incidental experiences, etc., but not necessarily. (The joke is that "Sometimes age brings wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone".)

I wasn't able to start my postdoc because of Covid. What would PhD age would mean for me?

@Mehta, I myself would tend to count Covid Year as just a void in all our lives, ... But I don't know what conventions different places will make. Mercifully, we do not have recent precedents for the pandemic and its impacts... I suspect that some of the economic and structural ramifications will be permanent... and if people don't take it sufficiently seriously, the mess can/could linger for a long time. I have no idea...

@paulgarrett NIH, for example, has some relevant policies already baked in. For example, for "early stage investigator status" which is for new PIs, mostly pre-tenure: "Some researchers may have lapses in their research or research training, or have experienced periods of less than full-time effort. NIH will consider requests to extend the ESI status period for reasons that can include: medical concerns, disability, family care responsibilities, natural disasters, and active duty military service, determined on a case by case basis at the sole discretion of NIH"

@BryanKrause Good! I was not aware of that! At my own place, it's only been relatively recently that any sort of non-hostile accommodation was made for family leave at all, even for new kids, etc. Decades ago, there were tenure-denial cases that were thinly-veiled prejudicial rejections of "people who got pregnant and took time off"...

@paulgarrett Yeah, for sure. Of course the caveat is what NIH actually does in those circumstances vs when they say you can apply, which I know nothing about. And I'm guessing reduced productivity when kids are born might only count if you take the time off entirely. Alas.

Actually, you are making a logical error. It isn't that some people have an advantage, it is just that you compete with a different cohort. But the number of people in the pool is about the same as it would be otherwise.
And, getting a doctorate at 22 in the US, at least, is very rare. It would require some special set of circumstances, which are possible, but not common. I think that 27 is much more common than 22, for example. And many are older still since there isn't a maximum time for doctoral studies. (I was a few months short of 29).
Moreover, I don't know what your remedy would be. Not permit a person who earned a degree at 22 to get an academic job for five years because your educational system is different?
Generally, with a few exceptions, people get hired for the work that they have done and how people (letter writers, say) project their future accomplishments. Not their age.
If there is age discrimination it is more likely at the other end; those who earn a degree at 45 or so.

If you want to work in a system like that of China, that is your choice, not their discrimination. It certainly isn't a conspiracy against you managed by the evil academics in China and Europe. You need to follow their rules, as does everyone else.
Much of what is disadvantaging you now is the pandemic combined with a terrible marketplace for academics generally. But that isn't discrimination. No one planned it. If you want to thrive in hard times, you need to work harder and smarter than your peers.

Where is the logical error?! Suppose that you and me will get the PhD in 2021. You are 23 years old and I am 28 years old. In addition suppose we want to apply for a tenure track position in China where does exist the age limit of 35 for an assistant professor. Who do you think has more advantages? Me or you? You will have 12 years to apply before the age deadline while I will have 7 years

Why is China so important? If you study in one system and want to move to another you have to adapt. The whole world doesn't need to adapt because you think 7 years isn't enough.  If you want a job it China, maybe it is best to study there, actually, rather than in Germany.

@Felix In addition to being totally off on the ages at which it is expected to have a PhD in the US, I think you're really missing how research careers are assessed for faculty applicants. It's not like applying for a faculty job by one person after 12 and one person after 7 years means that one person got 5 extra years to add to their CV, the denominator of "years as a post doc" matters, too.


text:
Is Web of Science the same as ISI?
My institute requires us to publish our articles by ISI journals as the first priority, and Scopus as the second option. My question is: Is Web of Science the same as ISI?

They most likely indeed journals indexed in the Web of Science and having an impact factor published in their Journal Citation Reports. Be careful about fake impact factors claimed by various dubious journals on their websites. Some institutes even require only publishing in journals placed in the higher positions of the ranking.

While each index service works differently, depending on your field of interest, there may be considerable overlap of journals monitored by both Web of Science and Scopus.  Perhaps especially because Scopus is backed by Elsevier.

Web of Science is a product. ISI was an organisation that used to produce that product.
The Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) was bought by Thomson Reuters in 1992.
Web of Science is now produced by Clarivate Analytics, which bought the ISI intellectual property off Thomson in 2016.
Thus, in answer to your question, ISI as an organisation no longer exists, but when it did, being indexed by ISI probably meant being in the ISI Master Journal List (or in the Journal citation Report - JCR), which is a service that is part of the Web of Science website, and is now produced by Clarivate rather than ISI.

Thanks. So, if I published a paper in a journal indexed in Web of Science, then it is not necessary been accepted as  published in ISI. Is that correct?

@Alice - you are going to have to ask your institute about that. Logic may not be their prime motivation.

There is no such thing as "published in ISI" and there hasn't been for at least 5 years now. Being indexed in Web of Science is the closest thing to being being indexed by ISI that currently exists.

Is Web of Science the same as ISI?
It depends on what you mean by ISI.  If you mean "Institute for Scientific Information," then see the other answers here.
But ISI can also mean "International Scientific Indexing," which might look the same but isn't.  A nice discussion can be found here, which says "the International Scientific Indexing should be treated with extreme caution and it is probably best just to ignore it as its impact factor has no meaning."  (Many predatory journals claim to have an "ISI impact factor" but these are for the International Scientific Indexing, and not for the Web of Science.)

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Research activity conflicts with advisor
I've been in distress for the last several months because of this. My PhD advisor somehow decided to start her own field research in the same region where I have been working on for a few years now. Then when I was doing my fieldwork last time, she was there too and she used the same resources I have - contacts, measurement equipment and lab, etc. It became awkward for not only us but also for other researchers involved. Even worse, once I told her that I wouldn't be able to help 'her' project (I'm busy with mine!), she started cutting me off from my resources, withholding information, etc. She's still my advisor and I am wondering where I should go from here - too late to change advisor but this is getting too toxic. When I consulted other professor, he said it was pretty normal that multiple researchers do similar researches at the same time in the same region. But is it common between advisor and her student as well? Any advice will be appreciated.
PS: I have my research fund. Although my advisor wrote recommendation letters for me to get the funding, I've never been her research assistant.

How did your PhD advisor "start her own field research" where you "have been working on for a few years now"? Do you not collaborate with your advisor, making it both of yours? With both of you running projects on similar topics, it seems like a great way for you to get authorship on multiple papers.

@AustinHenley Thank you for your comment. My only guess is that while observing my project, she thought there was something she also could do. A problem is that she never consulted me beforehand and I found out when I got to the study site. It was just a surprise for me. Then she tried to change my study methods to satisfy her interests. It could also change the course of my dissertation. So I don't know ... I've been wondering whether this a way it is? If my advisor starts a similar research, am I supposed to throw away mine and help her?

"if my advisor starts a similar research"... again, distangling your research from your advisor's seems very different from anything I'm used to. In my experience, the research is both the student's and the advisor's work. If I don't contribute to my student's research, they should fire me and find a new advisor.

@AustinHenley Thank you. I hope it worked/it will work that way. I'm trying to figure out ... I think you are a professor :)  Would you not talk to your student before starting 'similar' research if you would like to collaborate with the student?

@AustinHenley your comment makes OP's advisor's behavior even more controversial IMO: if the student's research is an advisor's one too, then how can an advisor justify conducting an overlapping and simultaneous research on her own? Rather it seems to state the opposite, i.e., that a student's research is not shared by an advisor's (at least this advisor) in authorship. I fully understand OP's concern. OP feels potentially "bypassed" and, if it weren't enough, by someone who happens to be a superior. Please correct me, OP, if I went too far here.

My PhD advisor somehow decided to start her own field research in the same region where I have been working on for a few years now.

Which could have been a win-win situation for both of you, but it seems that you and her have a communication problem.

Even worse, once I told her that I wouldn't be able to help 'her' project (I'm busy with mine!), she started cutting me off from my resources, withholding information, etc.

So you did not have the idea to ask her how the two project can be aligned in a constructive way?

When I consulted other professor, he said it was pretty normal that multiple researchers do similar researches at the same time in the same region. But is it common between advisor and her student as well?

Yes it is common. And in the best case groups the supervisor and the PhD student will align the research and will co-author papers on the subject in question.

Thank you, @Sascha. I understand that we’ve had a communication problem. One particular problem is that field research usually has an already set timeframe and resources including budget. So it’s really hard to modify a research plan on the spot. I think, maybe because of that, when I consulted other professor, he said, ‘Go with your plan for your dissertation. It’s your research.’ Anyhow, I’ll try to find common grounds with her.

Communication may be an issue here, as @Sascha noted, for sure, but it's advisor's duty to conduct it in first place. And the lack of it is not a good sign, rather the opposite.
I'd go with the other professor's advice and work like a train going forward with your plan, your funds, your research. Remain polite and do not close yourself, but be ware. I have (unfortunately, but I have) seen more than once advisors compete with students.

Thank you, @ASR. The word, 'bypassed', you used in your reply probably represents my feeling properly. Or, maybe 'disregarded'. At this point, I'm trying to going like a train on my own. Maybe the silver lining in this situation is that I'm learning to be an independent researcher.


text:
Math PhD Applications: Is it better to show just my good GRE score, or should I also send my low initial score?
I am applying for mathematics PhD programs in the United States.
I did not major in mathematics as an undergrad and I did not do so well the first time around on the GRE Math subject test (about 60th percentile). I have since completed a Master's in mathematics and my score has improved to about 90th percentile.
I think it could benefit me to send both scores since it shows my progress. Will admissions committees in general view this in a positive light? Or should I just send my most recent good score.

Just send your best one. I can't see an advantage in documenting progress through comparing 2 scores. You'll apply at your current level, and that's what matters.

Depending upon how long ago you took it the first time, that score might not even be good any more anyway. Schools will typically only accept back a limited number of years.

Send your best one. GRE is typically used simply as a filter and including your lower score will probably hurt you more than it helps.

As I recall, in my day at least one could not choose which scores were sent. A complete history of scores was sent with a score report.

This is not the case anymore. You can choose which score report to send. Schools won't even know about any scores that you choose not to send to them. This incentivizes people to take the GRE as many times as possible so ETS can make that ca$$$$$$h

Please see this ETS GRE web page: The ScoreSelect® option lets you decide which test scores to send to the institutions you designate.

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


text:
What does a taught Master's admission board consider important?
I am currently in my last semester of BS degrees in Computer Science and Mathematics. I am in the middle of applying for a number of taught Master's programmes in both the US and in Asia, most of which are 1-year and full-time.
My grades are fairly good, with a cumulative GPA of ~3.7 and a major GPA of 3.9+ in CS. Unfortunately I have no research experience (that's why I chose to apply for taught Masters in the first place) and frankly have not much besides grades to show admissions.
So my question is: besides having strong letters of recommendation, what can I do to increase my chances?
I understand the "correct" answer differs from institute to institute and from country to country, but some general pointers are very much appreciated.

The question How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students? is related to your question and helpful to you.

@scaaahu taught masters and PhD programs have very different admission  criteria.

So my question is: besides having strong letters of recommendation, what can I do to increase my chances?

Not much. You're applying right now, so there's no time to make your application look stronger.  However, in math at least, no prior research experience is expected for master's programs, or even most PhD programs in the US.  Your GPA looks fine to me.  I don't think you should have trouble getting into a good master's program in the US (in math or CS) provided you're coming from a quality school and have good letters.  You could also consider sending out some applications for PhD programs if that's what you want.

As per the other answer, not much, but if you have a specific interest:
One of the things that we look for in CS/ECE/Math is what track the student wants to pursue with the Masters and why.  We have a thesis masters and a course work masters.  If you can identify an area of interest in your cover letter, we often can match the student with a professor in an area of research. I've found funding for my MS students who were interested in topics that I was in the past as well.

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


text:
Can I get code reviewed if it might be published or referenced in a publication?
I am a recently-graduated high school senior in the United States who is currently doing research with a professor in a lab at the university that I will attend. One of the components of the project we are working on is writing code to analyze sequences of DNA for certain characteristics. Even though I am a beginner to coding, I'm the only one in our group who has any experience writing code. I like to ask friends or Code Review.SE for help improving my coding style, as I would like to do for this set of programs in particular. However, I have some concerns about doing that here, as I believe that the code will be referenced in the paper we will write at the conclusion of the project.
If I share the code with people who are otherwise not affiliated with my project to review, do I have to

mention that I had the code reviewed in the code / paper?
list the reviewer as a contributor to the project on the paper?

You should check out this related question. Also, one option for this may be to make an MVCE that shows just the part of the algorithm that you are trying to have reviewed (usually a bottleneck of some sort) - this keeps the actual code off a review site while still getting some review and optimization help. Note: you should still to talk to the professor before posting (as @MekkiMacAulay states)

Short answer: "Do I have to mention that I had the code reviewed in the code / paper?" -> You really should, yes.  It's common practice to mention that code (or other research-related things) were discussed and reviewed with colleagues as they were developed.  A single sentence in the paper's methods section will suffice.
"Do I have to list the reviewer as a contributor to the project on the paper" -> Probably not.  The specific guidelines for what constitutes a "contributor" to a paper (usually discussed as "authorship", as in, should additional people be listed as the paper's authors) will vary from journal to journal.  Review of code or similar is generally not consider sufficient for authorship of a paper.  However, it is polite to list the names of the people who helped in the acknowledgements section, usually on the first page of the paper.
Long answer -> You really should discuss this with the professor you're working with as he/she will have a much deeper understanding of the implications, target journals, common practices, and so on.  That's your best approach.  There's no shame in having someone review your code.  It's considered a /good/ thing, so don't worry about being called out for not being good enough, etc.  Review is part of the academic process and is desirable.

Just one addition: if the code might lead to a patent or your group will write the first paper about this topic, you should be careful. But in general, code review is good software engineering practice.


text:
Meaning of 'scholarly approach' for graduate award nomination
I have been nominated for an award to PhD students. I have first been asked to submit a CV and a description of my research project(s). After that, I have been asked by the organisers (directly by email) to submit "a short statement about your research experience and scholarly approach (not more than one page)".
I would like to know what kind of information I am expected to include in that document.
There is not a public announcement of the award describing the requirements, and I feel a bit concerned about asking them directly for more information, since they might consider my ability to write that document on my own (without further description than that above) as something to qualify.
Any suggestion will be appreciated.
(English is not my mother tongue. I believe that's why the terms "scholarly approach" don't say anything specific to me)

Both answers were really helpful. Lacking any other reason, I chose the answer based on the reputation of the user.

As a native speaker, I am confused by that phrase as well. The term Scholar Approach lacks a strong, concreted definition. For example, one author uses it to describe work life balance in an article and how to frame one's career in a second article.
I could see two reasons for the essay prompt using the words research experience and scholarly approach. First, if the award is open to non-science fields (e.g., the humanities), sometimes they use terms other than research to describe their activities (e.g., Harvard's Graduate English program uses the term "scholar works" on their webpage). Second, they may be looking for a broader statement about your approach to your research, learning, and teaching.
Given this prompt, I would describe my research and its impact. For example, my outline might look something like:

Paragraph 1: Overview of your research

2-3 sentences about why you are passionate about the topic (e.g., I am researching cancer because a family member died from it or I have always loved nature and am studying Monarchs Butterflies because I am concerned about their decline).
2-3 sentences about why society should care about your research

Paragraph 2: Specific that make your research species

My methods are special because...
My methods tie into the group giving the award because (write to your audience here).

Paragraph 3: Taking your research into the world

Describe how you use your research and new ideas in teaching, or other outreach areas
What is is the current or possible applications of your research

"studying Monarchs because I am concerned about their decline" Most people think overthrowing royalty to be a good thing

@AzorAhai you've got a good sense of humor. I edited the post and clarified I was referring to Monarch Butterflies and not royalty.

Thank you for your answer. While I didn't take all your suggestions, I did use several of them to write it.

Actually, I don't think "scholarly approach" is obvious even to a native anglophone. Consider the following a guess. Others may supply additional suggestions, I hope.
If you have rationalized how it is that you find (have found) interesting research problems, then you can say something about that. How do I go about deciding what is worth exploring. That is a useful question for any researcher to be able to answer. It also seems related to things about your research experience.
Since you are being considered for an award, I assume that you don't need, anymore, to rely heavily on your advisor(s). So I suspect that you may have given that some thought already.

"scholarly approach" is obvious even to a native anglophone" --- It would be interesting to know whether the organizers asking this are native English speakers. Of course, this phrase may have been used for several previous award selection processes (and maybe it originated with previous non-native English speaking organizers), and thus the language background of the current organizers would be less significant because there would be some inertia to use the same phrase now.

@DaveLRenfro My impression is that "scholarly approach" was more likely written by a pompous academic than by a non-native speaker of English.  Either way, the meaning is buried, if not entirely absent.

Thank you for your answer. It has provided a lot of help in writing the document, that I finally titled 'Statement of scholarly interests'.

Your "scholarly approach" is your research methods.


text:
Withdrawal of accepted manuscript from predatory journal
I have sent a paper to the journal that was predatory and I had no idea what that was. Today, they sent me an email that I need to pay 1819 euros to publish my manuscript. On their internet pages stands that publication fee is 1819 USD and 1705 euros. This means that they have changed their "price". They also said that in case of withdrawal I will need to pay 919 euros and that it is a half of price (919 euros is not 50% of above mentioned fees). If i do not pay, what could be legal consequences for me? Please help.

Related, possible duplicate: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17374/how-can-i-withdraw-a-publication-from-a-fake-journal-and-resubmit-to-a-legitimat, https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/71872/what-to-do-if-predatory-journal-wont-withdraw-paper-after-acceptance?rq=1, https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/26455/what-should-i-do-if-i-submitted-an-article-to-a-predatory-journal?noredirect=1&lq=1

If you were not informed of the withdrawal fee anywhere in the process then you should not be paying it.

You never know to which lengths a malicious person will go extorting money from you, but my best guess is that the consequence will be some email threats written in bad English sent to you and/or your institution.

There stands that there are no charges if withdrawal happends in a period of 10 days from intial submission. There are no information abaout later period. The journal is Rheumatology: Current Research, ACR group

Get legal advice. I don't see any other way about this unfortunately. They could easily say the 1819 EUR charge was a typo and it should've been 1819 USD. It also clearly says on the website that there's a withdrawal charge, although it doesn't say how much. They have removed the reason for the withdrawal charge from their website; however I'm sure I saw in previous versions of the page that the reason is you've taken up the editors' + reviewers' time, which is a defensible argument.
You may have to provide an explanation for why you submitted an article to them in the first place. If you can e.g. point to a deceptive call for papers which did not mention the article processing charge, you have a stronger case.
Having said that, don't worry too much, you're probably going to get away without too much pain. Reasons:

The publisher is OMICS, which has a reputation as the worst predatory open access publisher out there (see their Wikipedia page). You can point to action by the US government against OMICS, which should be especially relevant if you're based in the US.
Because OMICS is so bad, there're likely to have been many authors who wanted to withdraw their articles. If OMICS has initiated legal proceedings against these authors, I'm not aware of them (and they would undoubtedly have been publicized by the victims).
OMICS has already been involved in lots of legal suits, on the wrong side (i.e. they're the defendants). Courts are not likely to be sympathetic to predatory OA publishers.
OMICS has little to gain by filing a suit. The most they can hope for is 1819 USD. That's probably not enough to be worth the effort.

I'd guess that the most likely result is that you'll be blacklisted by OMICS. They might refuse to consider any more of your papers or they might charge higher article processing charges the next time you submit an article. They might even take you off their mailing lists. Do you care? One might even send them some genuine thanks if they do.

Based on the available information it is not possible (or even allowed?) to give legal advice. However, I strongly recommend you to contact your institute's legal department/lawers for support. You should also talk with your supervisor/professor about this, they might have experience.

i do not understand the first sentence in your comment

@MiMa Your initial post misses some information, e.g., which journal, their submission conditions, anything you have already signed, etc. Thus, giving advice with having little information may be quite difficult or even (dangerously) misleading.

Pull the paper.  Don't pay the withdrawal fee.  Stop submitting to such junky journals.

This begs the question how.

Send an email and say the paper is pulled.