text:
Advisor asked for my entire slide presentation so she could give the presentation at an international conference
First, she never helped me on either my thesis or my slide presentation.
After my presentation (which she did not attend), she asked me "how to present" it to her so she could use it in the international conference.
(I don't want to do that, but I have no choice.)
Then, she asked me to send the whole presentation.
I sent it to her as a PDF file.
Later, she asked me for the "power point presentation" with the script.
I really don't want to give it to her.
What should I do?
P.S. She never gives anybody credit. (She did this before with my senior.)
Update: After reading many comments, I realize that I might be over-reacting. In academic area, it is normal that advisor could use the entire presentation of their student in the conference. (If I am lucky, she will acknowledge me)
I feel so bad about it but I need to accept the reality....
Thank you for all comments.

More contextul information is needed before we can answer this. For example, are you funded by a grant held by your supervisor which gives co-author status to all work produced by grant staff (such as an ERC grant)? Is there a clear reason why you cannot go to the international conference and present the material yourself?

Why did you stay with her after your senior? It's one thing to fall into the trap of a supervisor who does not give credit, it is quite another to repeat this. At this stage, probably you are better off just giving her what she wants and get rid of your project as soon as you can.

Sometimes there are unpleasant or wrong situations for which an answer is almost impossible. Consider that if she doesn't even remove your name the situation will be less dramatic.

@GrotesqueSI: Yes, my thesis was funded by the grant from government which is purposed by my advisor. She is my co-author. I could share her my figures, results and everything. I'm OK if she share my result in the conference with the presentation created by her (not her student). But asking me to teach her how to present my own presentation in the conference is too much.
As far as I know, she is invited speaker.
Thank you for your comment. I might consider ask her directly that can I go to the conference and present it by myself.

How long was your talk? How long is her talk? If you had a fifteen minute talk she's going to work into her 90 minute keynote, that's a bit different

a) Have you been awarded your (PhD? MS?) yet? Can your advisor retaliate? b) Which country is this in, and where is the advisor from? There simply are many (academic) cultures in the world where plagiarism, misattribution and theft are everyday behavior (depends on country), academics think they're entitled to. c) Would you be ok if advisor publicly attributed your work to you? (I wouldn't trust them, not even if I had someone in the audience)

It's misattribution (and thus academic fraud) when the coauthor's name is not displayed, let alone prominently (i.e on the title page, with equal billing to all coauthors, not just line 13 of acknowledgments on page 39)

@Azor Ahai My talk is 15 minute. I have no clue how much time does she have to talk.

@smci a) I have not yet award PhD. I also afraid that if I don't give my presentation to her, it would affect my graduation.
b) we are from the same country. I am sorry that I could not tell you the exact country. I'm afraid she might know. (And Yes, I think this might be common in my country... but I don't feel better even it's common in my country)
c) I will be ok if 1. She create her slide presentation by HERSELF with the figures from me 2. She acknowledge me.

Honestly I am surprised by everybody's answers here. Yes, it is normal that the advisor presents their students work, and even reuses the slides. but, Lucus then goes on to say that the adviser never gives anybody credit (as seen from experience with other students), that the adviser asked them to coach them in presenting their presentation and asked for the "script". And the community reaction is "This is not common or ethical, so it is most likely a misunderstanding. You are wrong. You should be proud that your work is presented, and you will be credited as that is how proper scientists act"

I've seen in the comments "the fact that you think it's luck that she acknowledges you if you are a main contributor is the real problem you have" implying (at least to me) that this is somehow a problem the OP as either caused or created (in their head?). It is very hard for PhD students in broken environments to speak up about misconduct and unethical behaviours and it seems like not a single person here gave the OP the benefit of the doubt that he has correctly interpreted the situation with his adviser, and not a single person advised on how the OP should react in that case.

Lucus, I think you are indeed in a serious situation. You might be missing some details, but the behaviours of your adviser you have observed and mentioned surely raise some red flags to me. Unfortunately, I do not have good advice for you, as you seem to be on one hand close to finishing your PhD, so taking any action to defend or stand up for yourself in an unethical research culture could cause somebody (your advisor) with power over your graduation to hold a grudge and prevent/postpone your graduation.

From your comments, you seem to be worried not only about not getting credit, which others have already addressed, but also about the originality of the presentation itself. Here you write:

To be honest, I will feel much better If she create the presentation by herself.... What I feel uncomfortable is "she will present my entire presentation with my own script."

Here's something important to keep in mind: this being academia, the value is in the research itself, not the presentation. That's not to say that the presentation isn't important; quite the opposite: you need a good presentation is to present the research in its best light, ensure that both the it and its relevance are properly understood, and so forth. But remember, you do not get academic credit for the good presentation, you get it for the research that was presented.
In other words, a good presentation adds no extra academic value to the research: poor research with a good presentation remains poor research. However, a bad presentation detracts from the value of good research and may delay or prevent its worth from being fully recognised.
Thus, if you have a good presentation that's a good thing, but its only real value to you as an academic is to help keep your research from being misunderstood or going unrecognised. Therefore you should greatly prefer that your adviser (or anybody else), when they present your research, uses your presentation if that's the best one available so that your research is seen in the best possible light. Further, you should give them any help necessary to improve the presentation further or focus it for their particular audience and situation, including giving it to them in the best format for modification and helping them make changes.
(In case it's not clear; this is all completely separate from the credit issue; if your advisor isn't giving your credit you should deal with that as suggested in the other answers.)

I strongly disagree with both "you do not get academic credit for the good presentation, you get it for the research that was presented" and "a good presentation adds no extra value at all to the research".

@jhin Really? Do you think that poor research becomes better and gets more citations if you put a really good presentation around it? Do you think that if the OP's advisor gave a really good presentation of the OP's research and then told people, "it's his research but I did the presentation," people would be citing her rather than the OP?

No, in those both points I agree with you. But I do believe that provided you have done good scientific work, a good presentation adds a lot of scientific value and you also get academic credit for it: it helps to disseminate your findings / educate others about them, which a) is an essential part of science (and thus adds extra value to the research which otherwise nobody would know about / understand) and b) helps you get more citations for your work, possibly at the expense of other works that may even be better content-wise but have not been disseminated as widely and nicely.

Maybe we're just splitting hairs/words here, but those statements in your answer can be read as strongly discounting the value of scientific presentations / dissemination. I don't know if that is what you meant, but that is what I (respectfully) objected to. Cheers!

@jhin Did you read carefully the second sentence in my third paragraph (the one directly after the quote)? As for "a good presentation adds a lot of scientific value," how does the science itself become better just because it's presented differently?

@jhin Consider the case where a mathematician A develops a proof of X but his paper is difficult to understand (i.e., he presents the proof poorly). Mathematician B writes a paper that much more clearly presents A's proof of X. Should be then get some of the credit for proving X (scientific credit), or does A still get all the credit for the proof?

A should of course get all the credit for first proving the theorem, but at least in my opinion, B should also get (scientific) credit for presenting it more clearly / understandably / beautifully. But leaving aside the question who should get credit in an ideal world, I was thinking more practically: it is simply a reality that people who present their work well often get much more academic credit for it than people who do great work but do not present it well, whether we like that or not.

@jhin So consider my proof example above in the current, imperfect world. How muc scientific credit will B get, in this real world, he doesn't try to "steal" credit by not referencing A's paper? Then look at the original question to understand the context in which I'm making my remarks. (I feel that you are considering my remarks in a different context of your own imagination.)

As an advisor, I regularly use my students’ slides when I present my current projects. This is usually done within the context of high level presentations: I’m working on important project X; Alice and I worked on X.a which resulted in such and such, and with Bob on X.b which resulted in so and so. Claire and I are working with Alice to extend to X.c. If your advisor is supportive and showcases your work, she’s increasing its visibility and helping your career.
To conclude, presenting students’ work is not necessarily a bad thing and can help them a lot.
What is more concerning is that you seem to have serious trust issues with your advisor. She may be passing off her students’ work as her own but I honestly think that this is either a misunderstanding or something else. Advisors normally want to show that their students are doing well, not that they’re being totally shepherded by the advisor. This reflects badly on the advisor which is why I think it’s unusual.
If things have gotten to the point where you’re not harboring any goodwill to her, I suggest you rethink your options. If there’s a chance of a conversation to rebuild trust, try and have one.

Reading the comments: if my advisor were to present my results as part of an invited talk I’d be honored and ecstatic! That you are not indicates that you have major issues with her which you two need to figure out ASAP.

My advisor, even though he was the keynote speaker actually introduced me to present my/our research...  seems like the saying “all advisors are equal, but some are more equal than others” is so apt...

What your advisor did is really uncommon, and I’m not even sure whether it’s appropriate. I never had to give keynotes, but in grant review presentations I wouldn’t dream of dragging my students to present just to highlight the obvious fact that they’re lead authors. In keynotes people want to hear the speaker; other uncalled speakers is bad form. If I organize an event and someone pulls this off without telling me I’d be pissed.

Just because you scrupulously attribute other people's work to them when presenting it, doesn't sound like OP's advisor will do that... And it likely isn't about personal relationships, there simply are many (academic) cultures in the world where plagiarism, misattribution and theft are everyday behavior (depends on country), academics think they're entitled to.

@smci but that’d be really weird if she didn’t. I’m just not seeing how that would benefit the advisor. Your students doing well probably reflects better on a professor than independent work (at least in my university). I feel like there’s a misunderstanding or a trust issue here, rather than truly unethical behavior.

@Spark: Actually there are many countries where plagiarism, misattribution and theft are commonplace everyday behavior in academia. (Ditto: bribery, corruption, nepotism, incompetence, falsification). You'd be surprised.

@Spark: I would also was happy when my advisor presented a couple of things I'd written at conferences, because that meant I did not have to travel.  (I intensely dislike commercial flights, and am not real enthusiastic about hotels, either.)  It was IIRC reasonably common for advisors to do that, but they always made it clear that they were presenting their students' work, not their own.

@Spark Thank you for sharing your comments.
I might not state it clearly since the very beginning.
What she will present is "my entire PhD project". Nothing else. (No other student project)
I have no problem IF she create her own slide presentation with my results
(I would be proud if many people could see my work).
But what I feel uncomfortable is "she will take my entire presentation" and speak with "my script".

@Lucus, what is your concern here exactly? That she uses your slides instead of preparing her own? That she won't acknowledge that this is your work? If it's the former - I don't understand what's the issue. Presentation materials are really low on the order of "important things to fight with advisors about". If it's the latter, then this is something to perhaps start a conversation about. In particular, if you have no good faith in your advisor, you two should work it out or go on your separate ways.

@Lucus, when you two wrote the paper, did she contribute to the writing? Is it ok for coauthors to claim ownership to their own parts and get upset if someone uses the part that they came up with? It'll make it very difficult to present any paper with more than one author, really.

@Spark I concern about "My advisor using the entire powerpoint presentation with my script".  For me, this is the issue. I spent so much time on creating the slide presentation and thinking about how should I talk. I have to ask many of my friends to listen to my practice and give the comments (while my advisor didnot contribute to any of it). I revised it several times before my talk. Therefore, I feel this is not right. My ENTIRE slide presentation should not be used or presented by others, including my advisor.

@Spark Moreover, I feel that people, not only invited speaker, should prepare the slide presentation by themselves not using other's entire presentation (but of course, the speaker could use their student's data/figure/result).
However, after reading many comments, I start to realize that this is common in academic area.
To answer the questions, my advisor did not contribute to my writing. It is me and my friends contribute to it. My friend also use my figure to present in the local conference. And yes, my friend created the slide presentation by herself.

I feel like focusing on the slides is a bit strange. If you have issues with her not contributing and not attributing the results to you, you should mention them to her. I have regularly given my slides to my advisor for her use in presentations. You should address why this bothers you. My guess is that it’s because of an underlying issue you have with your advisor.

@Lucus Professors are very busy people. Forcing her to recreate slides is a waste of her time and skills. She is asking for the PowerPoint file instead of a PDF so she can integrate it into her larger presentation, which if it's an invited talk at a conference, is probably much longer than 15 minutes. Unless there is more than what you've explained, you should not be offended! Do you and her share a first language? It sounds like English may not be your first language, and perhaps there's a language barrier here that led you to misinterpret her meaning.

"A script" is not really a piece of academic work. The charitable interpretation is she probably wants it so she doesn't screw up your results. If she really does have an issue with misattribution, that's a different question.

It's pretty common in my experience for advisors to present their students' work, with acknowledgement of the students' contributions. They'll often combine slides from several students' presentations into one talk for a conference, but they can also present just one student's work. In that case they usually say something like "The work I am going to talk about today was all/mostly done by my student, Whoever McLearny", at the start of the presentation.
Prepare a version of the slides specifically for your advisor to present, with her as the presenter, and with whatever acknowledgement of your authorship you feel is appropriate. This could be as simple as the first slide having you as the first author and your advisor as the last author, with your advisor's name somehow highlighted to indicate that she is the speaker. Or it could be having your name and picture featured prominently on an acknowledgements slide at the end of the presentation, along with any other group members who contributed. Or it could be your name in the corner of all the important figure slides, to show you did that work in particular, if the slides are going into a longer presentation.
Then you can send your advisor a nice pre-made presentation, and she won't have to do any extra work to cite you, because it will have already been done. It also communicates what form of acknowledgement you feel is appropriate.
On the other hand, if you think you and your advisor have very different ideas about how much or what form of credit is appropriate in the presentation for your contribution to the work, you need to have a talk with your advisor about it.

To be honest, I will feel much better If she create the presentation by herself and say that "The work I am going to talk about today was all/mostly done by my student", at the start of the presentation.
What I feel uncomfortable is "she will present my entire presentation with my own script."
However, after reading many comments, I start to realize that what my advisor did might be common in academic area....

One benefit of her giving your presentation is that she will be actively promoting your work. For example, my adviser presented my theoretical work 3 times at 3 different conferences, and found an experimental collaborator to show that my theories were correct.
The more exposure your research gets, the higher the possibility for citations, which then leads to better career opportunities.

That is the correct answer. OP should be happy that someone is spreading their work "for free". There is nothing more to say about it.

True, but the scientific community will be aware that the results are the products of the OP's work only if the advisor acknowledges that she is presenting her student's work.

I guess I'm assuming that this will all be published.

Look,  if she had done the same to  the senior, there's something afoot.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with the length she is forcing you to go for her -  like you've said, she wasn't present when you defended your thesis, and  now, when there's an international acclaim in the game, she wants to have your work to present.
She is your advisor, which means she is not your mentor. There's an important  difference between the two. Mentor is  usually accredited professor. Advisor is usually a senior student, usually in a capacity of helping professor manage his workload, but rarely they are professor themselves.
You haven't cleared out if she is professor or not. If she is professor, then no, you got no recourse available for you, at least not at this point.   But if she is a fellow student or just a person who specifically holds the title of 'advisor', and if there's a precedent -  a bad one - then you can complain to the board of professors, but  be aware you will have to have really good reasons and proofs at hand if things go south.  In academic sphere that kind of thing can quickly go kaboom and influence your  career later on in your life, never mind if you were right and she wrong.
So if you want to go that route, then save the emails,  all the conversations,  if you were talking over phone, write the dates down, etcetera. If it's an advanced level of research, what she is doing without asking for your input, it's an academic suicide at its finest -  for her.
I find it strange she wants to present a topic she is (presumably) not well-versed in  and you had to additionally practically dumb it down for her because she cannot be bothered to take some of her precious time and do her own note taking and research.  Well, fine, she can present your thesis, but what about the questions that come after the presentation?  If she doesn't  understand the material and its nuances, she will trip all over herself because she won't know the particulars well enough to explain this or that facet of the experiments of wording or something else.
It would've been better if you were the one to go and present the entire thing, because you know it inside and out.

Hi and welcome to Academia SE, I removed a sentence that can be considered offensive and may have led people to downvote your answer.

I have never heard of this "mentor"/"advisor" distinction and in fact, would think of it as the opposite.


text:
What is a nice phrase to use instead of "ladies and gentlemen" to be more inclusive?
I really like to use the phrase "ladies and gentlemen" while teaching. The reason is not necessarily to be formal, but to gather the attention to a particular point.
For instance, I'd occasionally say "this algorithm, ladies and gentlemen, was only discovered 30 years ago" in order to stress the fact that although the algorithm I am mentioning seems very trivial, people were not able to discover such a way until 30 years ago.
I choose this phrase to occasionally address the students simply because I find it interesting as opposed to "guys" or "folks," both of which are daily language. Also, I came to a realization that these kind of phrases really stimulate the listeners to pay attention even if they lost concentration.
Considering that this phrase might be perceived as a generalization of a group of people, that is there are no non-binary people in the audience, I would like to replace it with a similar toned phrase. Are there any phrases that you know or heard, and think that sounds as cool?
I understand that the question seems off-topic. Please let me clarify. The reason that I am asking this question in Academia.SE is because the phrase I am using considers academic environment, not daily language or some arbitrary presentation. Thus, the potential replacement should be suitable for a classroom. This is why I find it more proper to ask the question here rather than a community where academics are not overwhelmingly populated.

Related: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/491617/ladies-and-gentlemen-beyond-binary-gender-classification

Please don't post answers in the comments, that's what the answer box is for.

I feel like this is likely to be an evolving question over the next few years. Is there a student group that you could poke the question into? An answer that works here might not work for the specific community around your institution.

An airline has addressed the same issue.

My favorite podcast, Good Christian Fun, switched their intro from “ladies and gentlemen” to “friends and folks.”  I think having an “and” in there helps with the rhythm, and feels better than “everybody.”  If friends is weird in class you could try something like “students and scholars”?  I realize these are all a little cheesy, but so is the original phrase, so it’s nice to maintain that tone.

Some variants using "my": this algorithm, my friends, was only..., or my students. [I personally use the word 'friends' with care and reservation, but YMMV.]

I really like the phrase "friends and folks" to be honest! Thank you. I'll definitely give it a try.

@PabloH Indeed, "my friends" can be overdone.

Pandits and Padawans!

I just use the word everybody.

Hello everybody.

Or

This algorithm, everybody, was only discovered...

Suits all cultures, genders and is universal without offending.
(perhaps a question for English Usage SE really)

this seems like it misses the point of being attention-getting

This answer will seem so outdated after the incorporeal artificial intelligences take over.  :-P

Actually, most such phrases are little more than a "clearing of the throat" and can be eliminated altogether. They introduce a pause, but little more.
Phrases like "by the way" or "as a matter of fact" or "as is well known" serve the same purpose.
If you really want to draw attention to a point, be more explicit. "It is important/interesting to remember/know/consider that...". This wakes them up a bit, hopefully.
But, "dear students" or similar might work in some cultures.
I once had a colleague who thought of herself as a sort of "mom" to her students and often interspersed "darlings" or "children" in such cases. It was just a personal quirk that worked for her, though it is hard to recommend.

The comic in me wants to suggest "slackers" or "you hiding in the back row", but it would be wrong ;-)

‘Clearing of the throat’ toss-aways, in the hands of a professional at least, are effective rhetorical techniques to engage. Not to be dismissed without personal consideration.

Professional vs a belief that 'ladies and gentlemen' gathers attention to a particular point ...

Here are some ideas:

"Ladies and gentlemen and gentlepeople"
"Gentlefolk"
"Dear/esteemed students"
"All ye who attend my class"
"Friends and folks" or "Students and scholars" (as suggested by @Noah Snyder)
"People of any and all variety"
"Thou bunch of remarkable renegades"
"Esteemed chaotic villains and ne'er-do-wells"
"Those who are in possession of souls"
"My delightful crumpets"
"Academic appreciators"
"Distinguished personages"
"Kiddos"
"Buckaroos"
"Class-hoppers"

Most of these are humorous, and could be used them at the start of a speech to break the ice, but if you used them in the middle of a sentence like "this algorithm, esteemed chaotic villains and ne'er-do-wells, was only discovered 30 years ago" would draw attention away from the point you're trying to emphasise; all of the listeners would either be laughing at the incongruity, or confused by it.

@DanielHatton Latin has three grammatical genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), which are associated with gender (the personal characteristic)/animacy in a similar way to in many modern languages. Traditionally the masculine form is considered the 'default', and mixed groups are addressed with the masculine plural. I don't know if any group has adopted norms for inclusive gender-neutral Latin.

I've encountered people that imitated/parodied some shows, like using "dear audience"; "dear listeners" like a radio show or podcast; "dear viewers" like a TV show; even "dear readers" as if the class is a book or written segment. I found it amusing.

To grab attention, instead of "All ye who attend my class" I might go with "All ye who wish to pass".

I would love a professor that randomly picked one of these with each instance of use!

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

I come to bury my academic reputation, not to raise it.

You've said that you want emphasis. How about this?

This algorithm, was only discovered 30 years ago: now, why do you suppose that was?

Addendum: I had forgotten my Shakespeare: he solved the problem in the Prologue to Henry V.

this algorithm, gentles all, was only discovered 30 years ago

fellow human beings
fellow contestants in the game of life
fellow travelers on starship Earth

This does not work as a 1-1 replacement for your term in all situations, but I start sentences that I want to emphasize with "Okay people, [...]" which serves a similar purpose.

A good answer can be 'Hello There' or 'Hello People'

General Kenobi! You are a bold one.

This does not seem to fit the attion getting usage.

"this algorithm, hello there, was only discovered 30 years ago"

@qwr I think that could work if said in the right tone :P

As this seems to cause some confusion: @qwr’s comment is aiming at the asker desiring to substitute ladies and gentlemen in a sentence like: “This algorithm, ladies and gentlemen, was only discovered 30 years ago.”

I like the simple
Listen, All!
It gets attention, and includes, well, all.

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава

sort: votes


text:
How can editors and reviewers detect data manipulation?
I am preparing a paper in the field of Computer Science.
In order to report test results, we usually run a number of tests and report the average of those tests.
For each test, we generate random data.
Because of the randomness, at some points, the results may come out not as expected.
For instance, a graph may be like:

Usually, one should explain why on points 8, 11 and 12 there is a decrease on the plot.
Probably, it is because of that randomness.
Not hand-crafting all the graph, but just manipulating a few points makes the graph acceptable:

Since three weeks or so, I work my ass off and try to figure out why my resulting graph looks like the first one. Sometimes I feel like yielding to temptation and just modify the raw data before I go crazy.
I believe, at this point the title became misleading, so let me make it clear:
I am not seeking an advice on data manipulation. I will not manipulate my data. However, I ask to myself "how the hell this can be detected?"
And now, I don't only ask to myself, but to whole community. How is this detected? For editors, referees out there, have you ever detected something like this?

Many of the posts in the RetractionWatch image manipulation tag describe how the manipulation was caught. There isn't much CS representation over there, though.

Related (possible duplicate?): What should raise red flags to detect fabricated data

If using random data can cause sizeable movement in your data points, simply be honest and include error bars on them. Yes, that does mean you will have to work extra to figure out how big those error bars should be and what they mean exactly, but it's exactly that work that will enable you to tell the reviewers that the downward dips are artefacts due to your statistics.

By the way, I'd advise you to let go of the idea that a plot is unacceptable or in any way undesirable simply because it's not "smooth enough". Scientists know that results from a random procedure will be randomly distributed, they will not count that distribution against you.

One way to be explicitly clear that you used smoothing is to plot both the datapoints, and the smoothing curve (not necessarily with the same weight).

Since you generate random data, it would be good to repeat tests a couple of times and for each data point, i.e. your 1 until 14, report a 95% confidence interval. This way it will be clear to readers that the actual value probably lies in each reported range and the reader will understand that the obtained points cannot lie on a perfect line.

@Ritz Exactly, or at least put some standard deviation error bars. Simpler to implement, while still hinting at the underlying distribution.

The image manipulations reported on Retraction Watch are most of the time naive collages of gel photographs or spectrograms. They get caught, among other things, because repeating patterns in the noise appear on closer inspection, or linear disruption of the noise are visible, see this.
For 1D data, the case you mention, there is the Benford's law and other statistical tests that can indicate potential manipulation of data. It usually relies on human beings preferring certain digits over others, even unconsciously, thus generating data that has a non-random variability.
Also, many journals ask for graphs to be submitted in vector format, which means you are actually sending the data points, and not just a rendered figure. Things like editing out a few data points to smooth a curve will be apparent.
Now, to the best of my knowledge publishers and, even less so, reviewers don't systematically screen for these things, they only do so if they have suspicions, because the scientific publishing process is based on good faith. But if the paper gets any sort of attention it will get caught by post publication review.
Don't fabricate/manipulate data. It's adding unwanted noise to an already noisy signal, it's dishonest towards your coworkers, the people who fund you, the publisher and the readership, and it will ruin your career.

In addition to Benford's law, you can use goodness-of-fit tests to see if the data fits the model "too well."  There are various papers on detecting fabricated data, e.g., this one.

This page describes in great detail the techniques and software used by the US Office of Research Integrity to detect the kinds of falsification mentioned in this answer.

Cape Code pointed out that in fields that involve use of gel photographs or spectrograms, sloppy image manipulation can be detected by experienced readers.
In other fields, data can be flagged as possibly fraudulent for being "too perfect." For example, here is the abstract of a report that led to the investigation of a social psychology researcher:

Here we analyze results from three recent papers (2009, 2011, 2012) by Dr. Jens Förster from the Psychology Department of the University of Amsterdam. These papers report 40 experiments involving a total of 2284 participants (2242 of which were undergraduates). We apply an F test based on descriptive statistics to test for linearity of means across three levels of the experimental design. Results show that in the vast majority of the 42 independent samples so analyzed, means are unusually close to a linear trend. Combined left-tailed probabilities are 0.000000008, 0.0000004, and 0.000000006, for the three papers, respectively. The combined left-tailed p-value of the entire set is p= 1.96 * 10-21, which corresponds to finding such consistent results (or more consistent results) in one out of 508 trillion (508,000,000,000,000,000,000). Such a level of linearity is extremely unlikely to have arisen from standard sampling. We also found overly consistent results across independent replications in two of the papers. As a control group, we analyze the linearity of results in 10 papers by other authors in the same area. These papers differ strongly from those by Dr. Förster in terms of linearity of effects and the effect sizes. We also note that none of the 2284 participants showed any missing data, dropped out during data collection, or expressed awareness of the deceit used in the experiment, which is atypical for psychological experiments.

This report is obviously the result of some non-trivial effort. But some of the symptoms described (exceptionally good fit, no experiment participants dropping out, atypically large effect sizes) can raise alarms for any experienced, diligent reviewer, possibly leading to a more formal investigation.

In addition to these, missing IRB approvals indicates one of two serious ethical breaches has occurred.

First of all, don't do it.
You probably wouldn't be detected, because peer review isn't generally hunting for subtle data manipulation.  Methods like those the answer by CapeCode could be applied, but even then a small number of data points like you are showing would not likely produce a terribly conclusive indication of dishonesty.  But it will be in the literature forever, and you never know...
But really, that doesn't matter.  Whether or not you get detected, you will certainly still know you that you lied.  You'll be voluntarily throwing out the one thing that nobody can take from you: your integrity.  Will it stop there, or will you do it again, the next time something's not quite perfect?  How much of your work will be tainted?  Pretty much all of us researchers struggle with impostor syndrome, but if you go down this path, you'll know it's true.  Do you really want to live that way?
Not only that, but you will have lied and compromised yourself over something really stupid, just to make a graph a little bit prettier.  If you have real results, they will stand, even with noise.  If the noise is big enough to actually be a problem, then that's not a problem, that's an opportunity.  As the quote attributed to Asimov goes:

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka” but “That’s funny...”

A lot of important emergent phenomena in computer science get discovered that way as well.  If you lie, not only are you compromising your integrity and risking total damnation if it ever gets discovered, but you are also cutting off the possibility that you might stumble over something more important than what you were doing at first.
In short: don't do it.

Per the question: "I will not manipulate my data." While this post is good advice generally speaking, it's (1) I think, a little insulting to the OP to ignore that statement, and (2) doesn't add anything to the existing answer about the actual subject of the question (detecting data manipulation)

@ff524 I read both that and "Sometimes I feel like yielding to temptation." Maybe I'm reacting too much to the second, but I feel it's ambivalent as presented, and I'm happy to let the community judge how useful my response is.

Why not run the experiment enough times so that you can produce your plot with error bars on the points?  This will make it possible for the reader to understand how much random variation there is in the measurements.

While this is good advice, it's not an answer to the question about detecting data manipulation - it should be a comment on the question instead.

Brian, it's not always possible to do that either - some measurements are costly or time-consuming.

Others have provided useful input but I am not sure they completely addressed the “How can editors and reviewers detect data manipulation?” question.
The simple answer is that mostly, they can't and they don't, certainly not in fields where researchers don't routinely share code, raw data, photographs and the like but only statistical tests or basic plots. If you are really sloppy, you might end up with incoherent numbers that could not possibly have been produced by the analysis you claim to have done (I have seen things like that) but more subtle manipulation is not so easy to detect.
There are a few fascinating techniques to detect bogus data (including but not limited to Benford's law) but very few people actually have the expertise required and reviewers do not routinely check for that. In most cases, such an analysis can give you a strong presumption but no solid proof. Some famous data sets have been thoroughly analyzed without reaching a consensus (e.g. Cyril Burt's work on intelligence and heredity).
If you look at some of the high profile cases of fraud exposed in recent years (Jens Förster but also Diederik Stapel or Dirk Smeesters), they were mostly found out after many many fraudulent publications and not always because there was anything suspicious about these publications. The more “greedy” the fraudster is, the clearer the pattern becomes and some people might have had private misgivings at some stage but the fraud is only exposed later, usually after someone blew the whistle and not because a reviewer noticed it.
You can look at this as a glass half full (fraud is eventually detected) or half empty (How could it go on for so long? How many others are out there?) but the fact is that it's only in the aggregate that the results look suspicious, not at the level of a single graph or article.
Not that I advocate doing that, of course. Ethically, it's clearly wrong and the cases I just mentioned show that you can get found out in other ways and face very serious consequences. But reviewers and editors usually can't detect fraud directly, that's not how the systems works.

Also, the technieques to detect bogus data cannot do miracles. It should not be too difficult to produce bogus data that cannot easily be differentiated from real data, even though that happens too. In the end, the only reliable way is to try to reproduce the whole experiment or parts of it and for that you would need all the relevant information (algorithms, implementations, protocols, substances, ...) to be available next to the publication.

At the point at which you only have the figure, or the underlying processed data, you cannot detect "well crafted" manipulation. One aspect of reproducible research, which is becoming more popular, requires that others be able to reproduce the data. This means making code available, describing hardware in sufficient detail, and also proving things like seeds and states of random number generators. This allows reviewers to recreate your data and then test how sensitive they are to slight perturbations.

Care to explain the downvote?

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

authors: د. رشاعامر نوري مهدي الطفيلي


text:
Is there a difference between "forthcoming" and "in press"?
Once a paper of mine has definitively been accepted for publication, I typically list it on my CV and in citations as "forthcoming". Other people seem to use "in press" for the same category, and an author once asked me to change my reference to his paper to use "in press" rather than "forthcoming".  Do you feel that there's a literal difference in what's conveyed by these two terms, or some difference of connotation?  I suspect it simply has to do with conventions in different disciplines.
(Personally, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with "in press", since it suggests that the publisher is at least close to the process of printing the paper.  Apart from the fact that that doesn't make sense for online-only journals, I feel funny referring to a paper that I know will appear in a journal issue dated a year and a half into the future as "in press".  Actually being printed is a long way off.)
(On the other hand, I suppose that "forthcoming" might be confusing to someone who doesn't know its standard meaning in academia.  In theory, someone might interpret it as implying no more than "This is something that I'm planning to write, when I get around to it, and this is the journal I expect to publish in."  Obviously, that's not what most academics take "forthcoming" to mean, but any thoughtful person would understand that "in press" implies that you can count on the paper being published.)
EDIT: Obviously, given some of the answers to my question, the way that I thought that nearly all academics obviously interpret "forthcoming" was not correct (assuming that there's not too much weirdness in the sample I've drawn by asking the question here).

I use "To appear in [journal]" which I think avoids this ambiguity.

Or "accepted by [journal]".  "Submitted" is also useful as it states in a single word that the work has been written up.

The Establishment sometimes gets a little too caught up in words.  You need not worry about such minor possibilities of misinterpretation.  Lives are not at stake.

@DavidZ, good idea.  Given some of the remarks about "forthcoming" here, I would still worry that someone might nevertheless misinterpret "to appear in [journal]".

@MarkJ, fair enough.  Nevertheless, I do care about individuals who investigate my work.  Evaluations by others can lead to opportunities for participation in an intellectual community.  I'd rather not be misunderstood.

@Mars well, some people will misinterpret anything ;-) I've also used "Accepted for publication in [journal]" (on a CV, not in a reference list) which you could also consider if you want something more explicit.

I don't agree with most of the answers so far in one point: The answer depends on your field / area of research, so there is no universal truth about them.
For example in economics I have never seen "in press" and "forthcoming in [journal]" means that it is accepted. If the issue of the journal is already clear some people change it so that it looks like was already published (with a date in the future). (However, most people don't care after that point.)
The only thing where I have seen "in press" is when talking about a book.
So the main point (at least for me) is to clearly state by whom it is "in press" or where it is "forthcoming", as this adds credibility to your claim that it will be published.
However, from your question it is clear that both are common in your area of research and therefore I would just stick with the most commonly used. If you add the journal / conference where it is going to be published it should be clear that it was accepted.

The variation in other answers, and in my own experience, shows that your opening answer has to be correct.  My sense is that "forthcoming" is what's most common in my field, but I now think that "in press" is safer.  Some of my research is of interest outside of my field, and everyone's CV is read by someone outside their field some time (e.g. during university promotion processes).  Given some of the answers, I would even worry that "forthcoming in [journal]" could be misinterpreted as if consistent with: "This is where I expect it to appear, once I write it."

I think many people would construe "in press" as meaning "has been refereed, accepted, and will definitely appear sometime", while "forthcoming" is often more vague, and may include cases where something has not yet been approved by a referee ... or even submitted... or even written.

I use in press for any accepted papers, regardless of the time-to-publication. I don't feel that indicating an article as in press implies that it will be published any time soon.
I specifically do not use forthcoming because it is ambiguous to me. I've seen people use it for everything ranging from accepted papers to future work in a conceptual phase.

To me, "forthcoming" usually means "I think I have enough material to write it up, and maybe I've even begun writing." I don't think I've ever used "forthcoming" myself, and I tend to be skeptical about any paper that others list as forthcoming.

The major separator for manuscripts is whether or not they have been accepted for publication. This means been through peer review and revisions and accepted by the journal editors. Once a manuscript passes this step it can be assigned as in press. Anything before that stage is manuscript in preparation or in prep. for short. In a CV you can of course list manuscripts that have been submitted but not passed acceptance and submitted but this is usually not a formulation accepted as a reference in a journal. In my own CV I list manuscript as either submitted or published (which then includes in press).

There's a secondary distinction to be made. Being "under review" is very different from being "in preparation". At least in my world saying "in preparation" usually gets someone on the committee to say sarcastically "well we all have lots of things in preparation".  Having it submitted is worth calling attention to.

These answers make clear that "forthcoming" can be misinterpreted.  So be explicit.  Here are things that I think will be clear, and are standard for CV's I've seen:
If it's published: give the publication details
If it's accepted but not published then say: "accepted to [journal]"
If it's submitted then say: "under review" or "submitted"  If you want to emphasize the journal, you can say "under review at [journal]", but it's a judgment call whether to do this.
If it's not submitted yet: then say "in preparation" - but at least for me, if you do this you better do more to convince me that it's almost done - link to an article on arxiv, maybe.  I'd advise not including these unless you have a good reason (say, it's a grant application and you want to prove you've been working with the other people on the grant --- then include a link to the draft.)
In any of these last three, I could argue that the paper is "forthcoming".  So if I'm reading a CV that says "forthcoming", I'll assume that it's forthcoming in much the way some of the papers I've been planning to get around to writing for 5 years are "forthcoming", because if it were accepted or submitted the person would have said so.

"Submitted" should work just as well as "Under review", shouldn't it?

agreed.  Changed.

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


text:
How do you write an acknowledgement section without having anything to acknowledge?
If a journal requires an acknowledgement section, but you have nothing to acknowledge, how is this put best?
"The authors have nothing to acknowledge."? This sounds a bit arrogant to me.
The formatting instructions say: "Must be brief and must not include thanks to Editors or referees, effusive comments or dedications." It is given as optional; yet, the editor asked for it for the second time now.

I removed a bunch of obsolete comments, some of which attempted at answering the question. Please make them proper answers because comments cannot be downvoted, edited or marked as accepted answers, bypassing the site's quality feedback.

Write

This research has received no external funding.

or something along those lines - or simply respond to the editor that you have not received any external funding, and thus do not see the need for an acknowledgement section.

One possibility is simply to extend your gratitutde to the reviewers and the editors.
According to this paper, the acknowledgement section can be quite hetereogeneous and can comprise the following sections. Perhaps you will find some inspiration here:

Financial disclosure
Conflict of interest
Disclaimer (Ex.: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.")
Ethics
Peer communication (Ex.: "NN provided insightful discussions.")
Investigation and Analysis
Supervision and Management (Ex.: "Research included in this review was partly completed at the University XYZ under the supervision of NN.")
Materials and Resources
Writing
Dissemination
Organization (Ex.: "The second author would like to thank Organization XYZ.")
Combination
Vague or other (Ex.: "We thank NN for their contribution during various stages of the paper preparation.")

The formatting instructions say: "Must be brief and must not include thanks to Editors or
referees, effusive comments or dedications." https://www.nature.com/documents/ncomms-formatting-instructions.pdf

@Libavius the instructions you link to for the Acknowledgements section clearly indicate that that section is “optional”. I think you are simply misinterpreting “must be brief” as “must be included, and be brief”, when what it actually means is “must be brief if included”.

"No undergrads were harmed in the writing of this paper."

@PaulPrice isn't that an oxymoron? :)

@PaulPrice Pretty sure that the IRB wouldn't be too happy if they were.

I only just realised that the example I provided for fun is a very real issue in some fields... Sorry.

@PaulPrice seriously?  I can’t believe there are fields where undergrads are harmed by writing papers.  They might be a$*!@le supervisors, but that would not be field-specific and hopefully exceptions rather than the rule.

When you don’t have anything to acknowledge, there is no logical reason to include an acknowledgements section. I speculate that almost no reputable journal will  insist on you adding such a section, or, if they do insist because they do have some logical reason why they want such sections included, they will provide instructions what to write in the case when the author has no one to acknowledge.
In the case in question (the link you posted in the comments), the acknowledgements section is explicitly indicated as “optional”. Since you say the editor asked about it, tell them you will not be including an acknowledgements section. I hardly see how the editor can go against their own journal’s official instructions to authors of what papers should include.

tl;dr: Just ask the journal.
There is no reason to demonstrate your superior intelligence and conclusive skills in these situations; nor are we the best people to ask. Just write the journal's editor/secretariat/point-of-contact what they want, e.g. like so:

About the submission requirement of an acknowledgement section: Can you clarify which kinds of acknowledgements are expected? I'll mention I have not received any external funding for the research underlying my paper, so there is no funding body I could acknowledge.

and they'll tell you what needs to be in there - if anything.

It is worthwhile to note that an author can succesfully submit a paper to one of the top journal of the Nature family, even if he/she/they are not able to conclude the social interaction with the editor without recurring to some sort of suggested behavior from the internet. Dictature of the masses, for the masses.
Maybe there should be a IG:Academia, IG as per InstaGram ...

If you have nothing to acknowledge then you could use the space to do a land acknowledgement or note that black lives matter. The journal may not like it but they could hardly say it's not an acknowledgement.

Rest of the world does not give a damn about internal US politics. This really starts to be annoying (at best). Hurting political views of your readers is probably not a good idea.
Unless this is a social sciences journal because everybody will agree (or pretend to). Or nobody will read it and be hurt : )

Not understanding the downvotes here, the OP wants to know how to write an acknowledgement when nothing comes to mind. This answers provides US centric material to acknowledge. Downvoters may not agree or like this but there are other suggestions they also don't like and did not vote.

@Kwarme Do you want to be (mis)judged on the sole merits of your work or on your political views ? Pro Choice or pro Life statements would also be acknowledgements. And both would be wrong imho.

The downvotes likely are there because people consider the answer as well as such an acknowledgement as a troll move / political stunt. And most academics like the academic work to be free of political strife and wouldn't include their own political views for the same reason. It's simply a distraction and totally goes against the spirit of papers - putting the essential information into a condensed representation.

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


text:
Regarding PDF copy of a book downloaded from reputed universities
For ethical reasons I try to avoid reading books downloaded from illegal and pirated websites.
I was self studying a topic by reading a certain book. Due to COVID-19 my nearby library is closed. I googled the book's details and I came across the full PDF version of the book on the websites of two reputed universities.
Is it it unethical to read the PDF downloaded from a university website? How the university is able to upload the PDF? Will it be unethical if I read from the PDF downloaded from the websites of these reputed universities?
Please help me in overcoming my confusion.

These are the individual web sites of people at those universities.  The documents were probably posted by those individuals acting on their own; the university often doesn't keep a close eye on such things.  They may or may not have had the permission of the author/publisher and their actions may or may not have been legal; we don't know.  Often this happens when a professor posts material for their students to read and doesn't realize, or doesn't care, that everyone else in the world could read it too.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/112457/is-supporting-sci-hub-illegal-unacademic

The website you used is irrelevant.

not strictly an answer to your question, but if you email the authors chances are they'll be more than willing to share a preprint with you.

Obligatory link: https://custodians.online/

If a reputed university has uploaded the PDFs online, chances are they are legally allowed to. This could be, for example, if:

The book's copyright has expired.
The copyright allows for distribution (e.g. if the book is open access).
The copyright holder allowed the book to be distributed.
The university paid for the right to distribute the book.

So it should be OK for you to use it. If you're still worried, look at the license statements that come with the download.


text:
How can I find additional funding for my extra year of PhD in Europe
I am a third year (3 of 3) PhD student in Italy. I was so stupid during my first year and lost a lot of time, because I didn't put much effort.
Now, my professor says that my current results are not sufficient even for making a publication (I need at least one publication), so I have to take a fourth year if I want to finish. In this case, the fourth year will not be funded.
My question is: are there any possibilities to find any funding outside of the University?

Are there any companies in industry that might be interested in your results?

@J.Roibal I didn't do the research in the industry field. Thank you for giving me idea ;-)


text:
Backlog as a measure of difficulty of submission
Is the backlog of a journal correlated to the difficulty of submission (with acceptance) to a journal?
I would imagine that a journal with high backlog could be more selective in publishing journals (if they have so many journals to choose from).
At least in mathematics, this seems anecdotally true.
For instance, Annals of Mathematics has one of the largest backlogs (and is also notoriously among the more selective of math journals).
On the other hand, I suppose it could be possible that backlog is merely a measure of how slow or fast the journal is, and could have nothing to do with difficulty of getting accepted submission.

We must have a different definition of backlog. For me, "backlog" means how many already accepted articles they have that should appear in print. This may be correlated with, but is different from the time between submission and acceptance. What is backlog for you?

Also, we must have a different definition of "anecdotally true". It seems like on that pdf you linked there is a ton of data to check whatever correlation you want to check.

The backlog of papers refers to those in the pipeline already accepted for publication. If there is a bigger backlog, it can mean a longer wait before it actually is published after being accepted for publication. There would be only a small correlation, if any, between that and the "difficulty of submission"; do you really mean difficulty of getting a paper accepted for publication?

Yeah I mean difficulty getting accepted.

Depends on what you mean by "backlog". If you mean papers accepted but not yet published, then it's probably not more difficult getting accepted, because it's the publisher (not the editors who're making the decision) that's backlogged.
On the other hand if by "backlog" you mean submitted papers without a decision, then it's possible that it will be more difficult getting accepted. It indicates that the journal is currently receiving many more submissions than it needs, and it means they can be more selective. This is when an editor might incline towards rejecting a paper even though the reviewers recommend revision.
Having said that I'll add that if a journal is consistently receiving more papers than it needs, and those papers otherwise meet their quality standards (i.e. the only reason they are rejected is because the journal has too many papers), the journal is likely to increase its number of issues in the future.


text:
Filling in details from other papers, is it good or bad?
Say I find a Math Proposition in another paper, which is just stated, and no proof (nor even sketch of proof) is given.
If I am writing a paper referencing that paper, is it good or bad (from reviewer's point of view) for me to fill in the proof of that proposition?
If I do so, what is a good way for me to indicate it in the paper? (that the proof written is by me, though the proposition is by the other paper)
The proof is not trivial, though it is not particularly difficult either.
Or should I just privately verify if the proposition is correct? And just cite the proposition (without proof) in my paper?
Thanks.
I am concerned about this issue since I followed the news story in the case of Grigori Perelman's proof of Poincare conjecture; the authors who filled in "gaps" in his proof did not go well with the reviewers and the general public. (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-destiny)

@NajibIdrissi That is kind of annoying, though I note the authors quote Perelman as stating “I never set out to be the sole solver of the Poincaré.”  Assuming this is a complete and accurate quote, and the article's prior description of Perelman's English as being fluent is reasonable (I've never heard him talk, personally), the authors may have simply accepted that "the Poincaré" must be an accurate and acceptable way of referencing the problem.

Not all authors who 'fill in "gaps" in a proof' are jealous... as Najib said, one would have to be rather obnoxious to face that kind of disapproval from the mathematical community. For instance, don't go around telling people that the cited paper is full of holes, or that you are the one who contributed 100% of the proof of that proposition, or that your paper finally makes the cited paper complete, or something like that...

I think you mis-read that New Yorker article. Your assertion "the authors who filled in "gaps" ... did not go well with the reviewers" is not correct. To the contrary, what that article is about is that the stakes for understanding and filling in the gaps of Perelman's proof were so high that there were vicious academic fights for the credit of that understanding and gap-filling.

Let's call the other paper [A].
First of all, you might like to check whether a proof already appears in some other paper or book, [B].  You can search MathSciNet or other databases for papers which cite [A].  If so then you can cite both ("The following proposition was stated in [A]; see [B] for a proof.")
Otherwise, whether to give a proof is at your discretion.  If you think the reader would find it helpful to see the proof, and it doesn't distract from the main purpose of your paper, and it isn't excessively long, then sure, you can include it.  People often use phrasing like:

We make use of the following proposition, which is stated in [A].  Since [A] does not include a proof, we give one here.

Another option is to put the proof in an appendix, or to write it up as a separate note which you post on arXiv or something.
The Perelman case is about something different - people disagreeing over whether the original paper actually solved the problem, and how much of the credit for the result is due to those who filled in whatever gaps there may have been.  In this case, you describe the proof of the proposition as "not particularly difficult", so it's likely that the authors of [A] did in fact know how to prove it, and so would most of their readers who took the time to do it.  It's reasonable to give all the credit for this proposition to the authors of [A].  There's nothing wrong with you including a proof, and as long as you don't try to take credit for the result, no controversy will result.

Otherwise, whether to give a proof is at your discretion. If you think the reader would find it helpful... I agree, and my rough guideline for when it is helpful is if the idea/details of the proof are used in other parts of your paper.  If it the proof is completely tangential, I would typically not include a proof, unless I found a proof I really liked.


text:
Appealing failure in PhD qualifying exams
For a student who has failed the PhD qualifying exams twice, is there usually any hope for him/her appealing to stay in the school?
Any advice from professors/students with experience in this will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks a lot.
Edit: Just asking out of interest, I haven't taken the quals yet.
Extra info for those who saw my previous question: I am now on good terms with 2 of the admin staff. One of them regularly chats with me. Learnt my lesson, no intention to make any enemies / offend anyone.

Probably not good enough to finish the topic anyway

You may want to add some details. Failing a very difficult qual in a very top tier program is different from failing a relatively easy qual in a middle tier program. I do agree that failing qual twice is very serious. Have you talked to your advisor?

I know more than one person who got a PhD in mathematics at a major US state university despite failing qualifying exams twice. One of them became a professor and continues to publish. In his case it was a particular exam that gave him trouble and the difficulty was some strange psychological barrier. He convinced some professors of his passion and his ability to work hard by writing a good master's thesis, and was allowed to continue in the program. While this is probably best considered the exception that proves the rule, it does show that there is hope.

@DanFox Can you please turn your comment into an answer so that I can vote for it?

Sure you can, however there are the following points to consider, before jump in to the next Ph.D. position:

Abstraction On Failure and Potential Side Effects: First of all, failure is not a bad thing, it just means the person is not ready yet. However, most people deal with depression after a failure, and for few suicidal thoughts come to mind. So in one hand, it is not a big deal, however it is a big deal in another hand; if the person does suffer from depression. The person needs to be very honest with him or herself about this. In case the person is not sure, he/she needs to talk to a psychologist about it.
Supervisors' Role: I saw students who were smart and determined, and finished their Ph.Ds through though times (a friend of mine, finished her Ph.D, where her supervisor had a cancer and needed to be absent the last 12 months of her Ph.D.). However, some students, throughly need supervision, through out their Ph.D. programs, and their supervisors play a big role in their success. If the Ph.D student in the question, belong to the second group; then he/she needs to find a supervisor who take care of his/her students and provide an excellent service. Starting at the same environment, does bring the chance of failure to 100% ... again.
Student's Role: If a Ph.D. student, does not have a good manner, and wastes his/her time; and/or does not listen to his/her supervisor, having the supervisor and getting another Ph.D. position, does not change a thing; and result in the failure again. This is one of those things, that the student him/herself need to commit to do. The Ph.D. student needs to throughly look at him/herself and see what traits he/she has that effects the outcome of his/her progress.


text:
Is this a realistic salary for China postdocs/ assistant professor?
After reading this (Persistent issues with salary pay as a postdoc in China: What can I do?) I am kind of worried about working in China with regards to pay.
On paper, the type of salary advertised by some universities is fantastic for Chinese standards, even Western standards.
For instance, on https://www.mathjobs.org, postdoc/assistant professor salaries are in the range of 200k-500k RMB per year. For Chinese standard of living, this is considered very good.
Is this a realistic salary? Any experience to share? I am a foreigner and do not know much about Chinese academia.
Also, this salary does not tally with what I read elsewhere online and speaking with some Chinese friends. According to them, 100k RMB per year is more of the norm in China for postdocs and junior faculty. The Chinese universities do give some other benefits like housing/research funding though.
Thanks.

you got offer of 200k?

@SSimon Well, no. But I saw it stated explicitly on websites. Currently I have still not graduated.

China has a problem with very low salaries for post docs!!! id they offer you 200k, please accept, but I doubt

I answered below but careful with relying too much on the promised benefits like "like housing/research funding" because in my experience they may ultimately claim there are available apartments upon your arrival, or the one offered is uninhabitable (my case), and funding for research may be locked behind sour bureaucracy and negotiation or in reality prove as something else, such as a major part of your official salary which was broken down by the administration.

Please take my answer considering my declared conflict of interests:
I am the author of the linked question "Persistent issues with salary pay as a postdoc in China: What can I do?". Here we are within just 5 days from departure and still the payment issue is a monumental struggle.
I shall update my situation in that question soon after I am gone.
Now, directly answering your question. I have been offered another postdoctoral fellowship at CAS/Beijing for (theoretical) 250k/year. My friends in that same lab (lower salary, Chinese PhDs) claim they never had issues with being paid, stating they get 9k every month sharp.
I have done some research around and in fact standard salary is within 120-180K per year, with the problem that typically some 35k off the total are withheld until the very end. They claim this is to ensure you'll complete your "duties".
However postdoctoral salary offers are on stead increase, and now there are several places offering >200k per year, up to 280k per year as the highest I've heard.
Mind you that the Chinese system works on a local logic of "meritocracy" which is solidly based on rankings. This means that highest salaries are offered to the youngest PhDs coming from top-rank universities from 1st world countries who published in top IF journals. These individuals will get offered >250k per year as postdocs with a wide margin for negotiating extra benefits.
This brings me to another point: in Chinese culture negotiation is never-ending. This means a signed contract is just a formality symbolising your engagement, and from that moment on rules and terms can and will be moved around depending on a complex game of mutual understanding. This is called "guanxi" in business in China and can be very hard for foreigners to understand & digest.
Finally, this brings up again the issue I face while here. What was written in the original offer and even on contract may be quite different from reality. Carefully read the discussion at zhihu.com/question/52131526/answer/232792998. This is a top university in China offering attractive contracts for postdocs and locals are complaining they finally get a fraction of the promised figure. I know how it feels.
Realistically, expect earning anywhere between 8-12k a month depending on your "qualifications" for local standards, while working 10h per day 6x a week and being asked for more. Expect some dirty game around your payment, possibly involving potentially illegal activity (e.g. being asked to generate fake invoices).
All points taken, it boils down to your personal reasons for taking a postdoc, and why are you considering this and that lab, and why in China. If you're the kind of righteous law-abiding animal-loving individual who enjoys straightforwardness and openness, a healthy work-life balance, and drinking some wine with a good cheese on occasion... probably coming to China might not be a good idea. If you're seeking a stable salary pay and a professional work environment towards erecting as a established professional, probably taking a postdoc may not be the shortest nor surest path.
I don't think you should focus your worries on salary, all the more in China where it may vary without warning.

I read your the other question before. I was hoping you would get all the problems squared away given more time. Obviously not. Did you ever try to contact Ministry of Education about your issues? As far as I know, Chinese will not like this kind of problems happened and made public. They would lose face this way and they would have trouble finding postdocs in the future. I would definitely suggest you to contact the central government.

Thanks for your answer. It is an important warning to us foreigners who have little idea what is going on. I have no doubt that the situation in China will improve eventually, but it may take ten years or more... If an early career scientist falls into one of the above “scams”, it could be devastating.

@scaaahu thanks for your insights and wish. I have decided not to contact MoE until they finally showed me more of the true face of their scheme. Which they did, and remarkably via email. My plan now at the very end is to contact the Principal tomorrow, and than try to call & write to MoE. I openly announced to them I will do that, and they didn't seem the least intimidated. I think they either believe they are right, or that I am bluffing, or that the authorities will side with them. I am deeply puzzled, and maybe this is part of their strategy. Will update all on my answer within few days.

@Scientist Just curious, so in view of all this are you still accepting the fellowship at CAS Beijing?

@yoyostein In fact I am warning anyone, not just foreigners. My impression is that (i) local postdocs do not expect these games; (ii) these issues are increasingly common in other countries; (iii) the schemes survive on the silence of the lambs. It can indeed be devastating. I am rather strong-minded, and already experienced with academic abuse. I feel most people I know would have cracked in my position, e.g. total submission, mental breakdown. An aggressive individual would find it hard avoiding physical conflict which would rapidly culminate with fines and deportation.

@yoyostein Never in this life. For a number of reasons, but the main one being that I find the PI extremely Machiavellian.  A pity as I thought he was a good scientist, looking from outside.

@Stefan the original issues described in the other thread took place with another institution.

@Stefan I below repeat what is answered above: "Just curious, so in view of all this are you still accepting the fellowship at CAS Beijing? – yoyostein" "Never in this life. For a number of reasons, but the main one being that I find the PI extremely Machiavellian. A pity as I thought he was a good scientist, looking from outside. – Scientist"

@Stefan This is one deep discussion and a highly subjective topic. I am afraid manipulators unfortunately thrive in professional academia and industry. Still this was the most openly parasitic individual I have met in over a decade working. I am surprised he is tolerated as such, and that said a lot about the local ambiance.


text:
Should I ask the expected level of technicality in the research statement while appyling to a potdoc position?
I am currently in process of applying to open postdoc positions.
As a global regulation, universities require for me to provide research statements as well as cover letters.
Many articles in the web advise to avoid technical language. This is understandable, because the person who is reading the statement might not be competent in the field I have worked so far.
I have also read this excellen answer from JeffE, which attempts to draw a clear line between a technical wording, and a very technical wording in the statement.
I am applying to a position in the field of theoretical computer science/computational geometry. Because of the nature of the position I am applying, I must use some technical language to demonstrate my knowledge on the topic.
However, I am really doubtful about writing a statement which contains not enough technical language, misleading the hiring committee of thinking that I do not have deep enough expertise.
As a result,
I now have two different research statements. One is technical, one focuses on the everyday applications of my research.
I don't have a strong publication record. Thus, the only strength I can highlight is the significance of my publications. I cannot decide which one to submit.
The only solution comes to my mind is to contact with the corresponding faculty members whom I will potentially work under, asking the acceptable level of technicality in my research statement.
I wonder if this seems unprofessional.
Should I send a mail asking about the level of technical detail?

Can you say more about "the nature of the position"? I am skeptical because I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they "must use some technical language to demonstrate my knowledge on the topic". It seems to me that a research statement is not about demonstrating knowledge.

The position is a theoretical position. By demonstrating knowledge, I mean demonstrating my proficiency on the topic.

It is a postdoctoral research position in e.g a university or research institute setting, right? If so I would say that a research statement is not the place for demonstrating proficiency. Your CV and reference letters should make it clear that your expertise is up to the level required by the position. I would follow other standard advice about research statements, like that of which you are already aware. Don't make it too technical and use to explain your own research approach and ideas.
I would imagine that contacting them to ask whether or not it ought to be technical will not provide a helpful response. One way of gauging is to ask about who will be reading the statement. You can arrive at a question like this in a sort of "what does the hiring decision-making process look like?"-type question. And this is answerable with clear facts. Otherwise they may something like "not too technical".

Don't confuse an application for admission to a graduate program with an application for a postdoc. In most cases the application will be read by people well versed in your field, if you have matched your skills to the listed requirements.
I think you can be much more technical in such a situation and it will probably serve you well. The only caveat is language that implies that you have no flexibility in what you intend to pursue in the position if it is awarded.
You aren't writing for a general audience, but for people looking for expertise. Being to "soft" will work against you.
And tailor each such application to the specifics of the listed position. Don't try to depend on a general letter that "might" work for a lot of similar ones. Speak to the audience.
So, I don't think it will serve you well to ask them how to write the application.