text:
Where can I publish a parody (but not hoax) paper with a serious message?
I have written a short paper (six pages) in which I empirically analyse publicly available data. Both the data and my analysis are genuine and without (intentional) errors. Still, by using statistical and argumentative tricks, the paper somewhat convincingly arrives at a conclusion that is obvious nonsense.
My goal is to demonstrate by vivid example how easily this can happen (intentionally or unintentionally) even when obeying the typical scientific procedure and rigor. That message is directed rather at the "interested public" than at the most academic readers. It is not a goal to fool anyone (so it's not a hoax paper), and I have included a "preface" that clearly states the circumstances.
Now my question is: Where should/can I publish such a paper? I thought about a parody journal like the Journal of Irreproducible Results at first, but it does not seem to exist anymore and also its scope was not 100% fitting. Should I try a "real" journal instead and hope for the editor's humor? Or should I just upload the paper to ResearchGate? My "criteria" are:

It would like it to be published in such a way that I can tell everyone it was accepted by "prestigious and well-known journal XY" (regardless of whether the journal is really prestigious), rather than just "a website".
The journal should be open-access or similar so that everyone can read the paper.
It should not be a predatory journal, because I do not want to harm my real academic reputation.
I do not want to pay publication fees, at least not high fees.
It should not take a year or so until the paper is published.

Thematically, the paper addresses a question that could be called a politics issue, so it might fit in a corresponding journal. I also thought about journals that deal with good/bad scientific practice in general.
Background: In the recent months to years, I had to read a lot of pseudo papers (mere PDF files I mean that luckily have not been published) about, well, what I and many other people would call conspiracy theories. The main content of such a paper usually was an empirical analysis that resulted in completely absurd conclusions.
My job was to find errors in these analyses and to refute them, but, as always, this proved to be very difficult. However, this is something that people outside academia often do not (or do not want to) understand... So I decided to turn the tables and write an even more obvious junk paper that nevertheless no one will be able to refute.

As clarification, I'm rather asking in which "category" to publish such papers in general, not concrete journals (except journals like Improbable.com, which however form a category on their own).
Some have expressed concerns that the paper despite all measures will be taken seriously by some groups. I can understand this very well, but my paper is actually about a theory that itself has been made up exactly for the purpose of demonstrating how easy it is to generate believable junk science.

Update 1: My paper has been accepted! In the end, I chose to submit it to a respected statistics journal that had 1) a relationship to the topic of my paper and 2) an "under debate" section. This prooved to be a good idea it seems. I will link the publication here as soon as the paper is online.
Update 2: The paper has now been published. Since I was asked not to link it here, I linked it in my profile instead.

look at this paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3545216?msclkid=2d60f460b41711ecbf2c6d745a0a3946 The Spatial Distribution of the Montane Unicorn was published in a top ecology journal

Have you also considered publishing the paper on a blog, or making it into a video presentation which links to the paper?

Frame challenge: make a serious, formal paper about misusing and misinterpreting scientific data, and use your "parody" study as part/demonstration of it

Various additional exemplars, answers, and discussions about whether this is a good idea have been moved to chat. Please see this FAQ before posting another comment, and remember that we can only move comments to chat once.

Please do not link the paper here, even though people have mentioned they are intrigued, it could be seen as self-promotion/spam. Feel free to have links to your paper(s) or a collection of them on an academic website/Google Scholar profile, etc, in your profile, though.

The sort of paper you mention is very valuable to e.g. use in education to show that statistical analyses cannot be used without also understanding the underlying data. There are several papers like this published with the expressed purpose of making a point about over-interpretation or relying on statistical numbers alone to describe relationships.
The first that comes to mind is Anscombe (1973) (see wikipedia for a picture of the Anscombe quartet) who produced four data sets that are statistically identical (with reference to linear regression statistics) but when plotted indicate four very different types of relationships. The point of this paper was to show the power of graphical representation to complement statistical measures.
Another example is Collins (1965) which shows a correlation between sun spot activity and the stock exchange. Although the analysis is not described in detail regarding the physical relationships between the parameters it is an indication that spurious correlations may arise if one really looks for them.
A third example concerns the issue of p-values. Letters by Baker (2016) and Karpen (2017) can serve as an example voicing the issue of over-interpreting the value of p-values in studies.
As for journals to convey messages like this there are two options as I see it. One is to go for an obviously extraneous journal such as Improbable Research (https://improbable.com/). In the past there was also the Journal of Irreprodicible Research. A second option is to contact the editor of a statistics journal to enquire whether or not a paper such as the suggested could be published in some format in such a journal. To submit the paper as a regular paper is probably not a wise idea but trying to locate an avenue supported by journal editors would be a useful addition to our understanding of limitation of statistical methods. In addition there are journals specifically targetting higher education where publishing around problems as these suggested may be welcome for educational purposes.
References
Anscombe, F.J. 1973. Graphs in Statistical Analysis. American Statistician. 27 (1) 17-21. doi: 10.1080/00031305.1973.10478966
Baker, M. 2016. Statisticians issue warning over misuse of P values. Nature. 531, 151
Collins, C.J. 1965. An Inquiry into the Effect of Sunspot Activity on the Stock Market. Financial Analysts Journal 21 (3) 45-56.
Karpen, S.C. 2017. P-value problems. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 81 (9) 93.

Here's another example to consider including in your nice answer: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3545216?msclkid=2d60f460b41711ecbf2c6d745a0a3946

If you like Anscombe's quartet, you'll love the Datasaurus Dozen.

"four data sets that are statistically identical"... I would probably reword this as "four data sets with identical summary statistics". At least to me, "statistically identical" implies you cannot come up with statistics that would distinguish them, which doesn't seem true. (Not that my alternative is airtight either, but I feel like it's closer.)

The BMJ is a very serious medical journal. It has published two studies related to the use of parachutes when jumping off a plane.
The first one is a review paper. It attempted to find RCT (randomized controlled trials) of parachute use, found none, and "concluded" that there is no evidence for the use of parachutes.
The second one actually did a trial. The abstract confidently states that intervention (parachute) vs. control (no parachute) did not change survival at all. The reason for that is that survival rate was 100% in both groups, because the jumps were performed from a small landed aircraft ("mean altitude 0.6m, mean speed 0km/h").
Those papers actually have serious messages. The first one is about equipoise: there has been no gold-standard trials of parachutes, because nobody seriously doubt they work; it criticizes the rigidity of a "RCT or nothing" mentality. The second is about undue emphasis on statistical methods and abstract-skimming, when important methodological details are buried in the paper. (Also, to me at least, they’re hilarious to read.)
There is thus precedent to publish parody papers in serious journals, fairly recently (2008 and 2018).

Ah, but what were the standard deviations of the speed and altitude? Eh? Bet'cha never thought of that! :-P

@einpoklum - for a sufficiently small airplane, one might need Heisenberg as a co-author...

@einpoklum Zero.  All jumps were performed under the same conditions, changing only whether they wore a parachute or not.  However, it wasn't blinded.

@LorenPechtel ah but what's the accuracy of that zero?

I think this is missing a key bit of context: the BMJ has a long tradition of publishing humorous papers in their Christmas issue. Note the dates. I wouldn't assume it applies more generally.

If sufficiently useful, papers like this are published in the same journals where their message would be influential. An example would be:
Bennett, C. M., Miller, M. B., & Wolford, G. L. (2009). Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon: an argument for multiple comparisons correction. Neuroimage, 47(Suppl 1), S125.
This is a critique of neuroimaging methods published about fMRI of a dead salmon. It's published in a popular journal for fMRI-based and similar research.

This is a pointless and potentially damaging exercise.
YouTube and the web are filled to the gills with serious analyses debunking accidentally or deliberately badly analyzed data or claims.  And you know what?  They're basically preaching to the choir because the people who want to believe the claims still believe them and the people who don't agree with the claims are not being told anything they don't know already.
The people you'd reach in a even vaguely professional journal already know how to do a proper analysis.  Despite that, some of them will, for whatever reasons of personal bias, happily make conclusions they can easily see are false by e.g. ignoring inconvienent data or taking the result out of context or whatever.
I'm afraid you won't achieve anything by publishing an example of such a paper because unfortunately we have an almost endless supply of such material already out there and being greedily consumed by a target audience that doesn't want to believe it's wrong and won't listen to any proof or educational material explaining why it's false.
Remember you live in a world where the media "balance" debate by putting on the tin-foil hat brigade and giving them equal (if not more) time as actual mainstream scientists.  People select their news sources as ones that confirm what they already believe.  Who is going to actually benefit from your paper in such a climate?
In addition to this, the reality is publishing such a paper would probably do you more harm than good.  It would be forever attached to your name and the "obviously" false conclusion would be leapt on by people who like it for their own reasons.  Indeed the paper could later be cited by people who want to debunk one of your own legitimate papers by showing an example of how you messed up before and cannot be trusted.
So it's pointless and potentially personally damaging.
I would not recommend doing this.

Your conclusion is correct, but I do not see the relevance of most of it.  The question is not about YouTube or popular media.

@AnonymousPhysicist Professional journals are not the real problem nor are their users.  I'm afraid if we want to address misrpresentations we have to address the mainstream media, which is places like YouTube now.  I don't think being so narrow in focus on this answer as to limit it to journals only would be to usefully address the issue.

I do not think the asker would agree.

I can see your concerns, but still I think there must be a place for parody in science, as it has a scientific message nevertheless. And in fact, after the paper has been published somewhere, I'm planning to publish a summary & "press release" at other media such as YouTube.

The people you'd reach in a even vaguely professional journal already know how to do a proper analysis → well, you probably did not see statistical analysis in some areas of biology or economics. A friend of mine asked me to review her PhD thesis for statistics (she was a hard-core biologist) and I am traumatized to this day. She is a well know professor now.

"They're basically preaching to the choir because the people who want to believe the claims still believe them and the people who don't agree with the claims are not being told anything they don't know already." I completely disagree. I know people who have been convinced by conspiracy-theorists, and who then have been successfully "unconvinced". This would not happen if debunkers self-censored by fear of "only preaching to the choir".

Furthermore: politicians use misanalysed statistics ALL THE TIME, not to spread conspiracy theories, but to spread opinions. Being able to develop skepticism of those misused data is important. The world is not black and white, with "people who want to believe" and "people who don't want to believe". There are also people who genuinely want to form an opinion, and don't yet "already believe or already not-believe".

"The people you'd reach in a even vaguely professional journal already know how to do a proper analysis." Not every researcher is a statistician. I work in a research lab and I can tell you that even seasoned researchers can be relatively easily fooled by a well-done false analysis. Also, we have a "popularisation of science" journal that regularly gets our analyses wrong, because of miscommunication between the journalist and the researcher. I don't blame the journalist - often it is the researcher who wasn't wary enough of how their results could easily be misinterpreted.

@Stef Professionals really do know how to do a proper analysis, the fact is some do not for reasons ranging from personal bias to carelessness.  The purpose of peer review and publication is to allow work to be critiqued by the community.  It's the responsibility of readers of "bad" articles to constructively (where possible) critique them.  An article such as the one suggested by the OP will not achieve any real change but I do think could potentially harm the OP's career/reputation by giving ammunition to those who are only too happy to use it.

@StephenG-HelpUkraine "Professionals really do know how to do a proper analysis, the fact is some do not for reasons ranging from personal bias to carelessness" - That is very counter to my experience in science. Many professional academic scientists simply do not have sufficient background in statistics, and it's not because they are biased or careless, but because A) They aren't trained in it, and have so much else to learn that they haven't made time, and because B) For a surprising amount of science, quantitative statistics don't matter.

I say that as someone who works as a statistician and encourages people around me to improve their statistics methods. However, the most influential scientific results that underpin our understanding of "how the world works" don't need any statistics at all. Sure, you can do the stats on them and show that indeed, a statistician has signed off on this result, but we only really need the stats for the edge cases: the small effects, the complex cases where theory doesn't help out enough. That can make it important to show people who are less statistically trained where bad stats can fool them.

I think a number of people are getting very focused on the correct application of statistics and the lack of a proper understanding of them among some scientists.  I think this is an incorrect focus on one smal aspect of the OP's post.  YMMV, but frankly all that would be required to fix a purely statistical issue in papers would be reviewers applying such rigor and learning statistics.  This is not the problem usually as the issue is not so much the technicalities of analysis as the way people select and make conclusiions without including context that does not (to them) matter.

Might consider approaching a media outlet for the appropriate coverage then.

"The people you'd reach in a even vaguely professional journal already know how to do a proper analysis" I have seen, in a physics paper published in a good journal, a "discovery" with a claimed p-value of 0.7, after applying a bunch of arbitrary cut-offs. (And there is no reason why we would expect that to be true either, they were comparing two things that are rather independent.) Not only the authors published that, the reviewers didn't see anything wrong with it. And it was not a typo, I re-analysed it myself and got a similar value.
And that is physics, don't get me started in bio...

I don't know what your field is, but it seems to me that you're overestimating the extent of statistical education in academia in general. I work in a field that has seen its "empirical turn" only something like twenty years ago. I'm young enough to have grown up with a fairly solid understanding of statistics, and I like expanding on what I know, but I was never formally trained as a statistician, and neither was the vast majority of the people working in my field. Seeing that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, it's people like us who might benefit from the proposed paper.

@Schmuddi A hoax paper like this will be unlikely to be even read by most people, let alone be a useful education for those who are unfamiliar with statistics.  Again however I note you are another person focused on statistical technique rather than the way papers (and the media in general) take even perfectlly reasonable data and willfully miinterpret it for their own purposes.

@StephenG-HelpUkraine I guess I don't know exactly what OP has in mind, but I think you're overemphasizing the "hoax" part, when the title clearly says "parody" and "not hoax". I gave an answer of such a paper in my own answer. I think these sorts of papers serve to emphasize the points they are making about the impacts of errors in statistical analyses using compelling examples of the absurd variety. For many people, that is far more impactful than stating rules or writing equations.

This is not an answer to the original question, but rather your opinion about its context, so it may be more suitable to post this as a comment instead.

I know of one such example, an investigation of correlations between star signs and health conditions. It got somewhat famous after the German "newspaper" BILD fell for it, despite being very much not written as a hoax paper (so be wary, no nonsense is so obviously nonsense that no idiot will fall for it).
The paper was published in what I assume to be a regular epidemiology journal:
Testing multiple statistical hypotheses resulted in spurious associations: a study of astrological signs and health

Interesting, but not an answer, actually.

@Buffy It shows that there is precedence for "publish in a regular journal". If we read the question as "point me to a particular journal I could publish in", we'd have to close it as a shopping question.

It does seem like a shopping question, but I'm still very puzzled about the limits of that. My continuing confusion about shopping questions has stopped me from voting to close it as such.

I'm not advocating for a scientific basis for star signs, but I think it seems reasonable that star signs could correlate with some health conditions? To my understanding they're based on your birth month and I think birth month could be a predictor for some health conditions; eg. maybe something like seasonal affective disorder, or also I've read that if you're young for your school year group it can have a negative impact on learning social skills which could impact health later in life

@Buffy If the question should be understood as "recommend a journal for me to publish this paper in" then I agree, it'd seem like a shopping question, but by default I'd understand it as "what kind of journal would make sense to publish this paper in, and/or how can I find such a journal", and in that case I don't think it's a shopping question. (Although of course it would be better if the question explicitly said that)

@Joe to some extent, that is true, but you'd expect nearby signs to be correlated, maybe with jumps around Jan/Dec due to school year. In this case, it is just statistical noise, and that is the point of the paper.

"no nonsense is so obviously nonsense that no idiot will fall for it"  Now there's a topic for a research paper that I'd like to read!  Although the conclusion would likely be quite depressing...

Similar: https://xkcd.com/882/.

If you work at a university, would a university periodical, departmental bulletin or similar be an option? At least here in Japan, these are plentiful (The Kobe City University Journal, Shinshu Studies in Humanities, The Keio Journal of Arts and Letters, etc.) and while lesser to other journals are somewhat respected. Quick to come out, no fees, open access (university repository), you can tell people it's a 'respected journal'... it seems to fit your requirements.

Thinking outside the box. Most of this stuff is shared via web link anyway. When is the last time you cared which server your paper comes from, aside from the paywall and possible concerns of legitimacy?

...by using statistical and argumentative tricks, the paper somewhat convincingly arrives at a conclusion that is obvious nonsense.
My goal is to demonstrate by vivid example how easily this can happen (intentionally or unintentionally) even when obeying the typical scientific procedure and rigor.

If your intent is serious and you mean to produce useful science then I'd suggest abandoning the specific example you've proposed and instead focus on generalizing the fallacy(ies) you relied upon to produce said nonsensical result.
You will probably discover that, in generalizing, you can produce a far more useful scientific result than simply examining a single specific case. Leaving it as an exercise for the reader doesn't really provide people with a tool, metric, or algorithm with which to gauge their own methods in search of similar fallacious methods or reasoning, and so has limited value.
Science is about first being intrigued by a counter-intuitive result, but finally is about breaking down that counter-intuitive result until you can come to a place of understanding.  In so doing, you may also end up discovering an entire field of research that already focuses on the topic you're just now scratching the surface of.  Your work may not be as novel as you think, and you may, in addition, be an entire lit-review away from even having such an idea for the paper.

Why not do both? Generalizations and examples are best when used in unison. The former highlights the patterns and the latter allows for something more tangible to root one's understanding in.

@user110391 Fair enough, but the example should be the icing and not the cake.

"(...) but the example should be the icing and not the cake." Personally, I too believe that to generally be the case, but sometimes generalizations can get so abstract that a well-explained example is essential (thus making them the halves of the cake). This is probably not such a case though.

Depending on your field, I think there's a good chance you may be able to submit such a paper to many (open-access, per your requirement) journals: just not as a research article. As an example, PLOS Biology offers an extensive list of article types published in the journal; looking through the options, your article might fit as a Perspective or an Essay. In mathematics, I recently read a work about citation practices published as a Viewpoint in the Mathematical Intelligencer; it didn't invoke data but was written in a satirical style that strongly reminds me of your goal. The "Applications and Case Studies" article type in the Journal of the American Statistical Association might even fit the bill (although I didn't read its open access policies). As a final case study, the Frontiers In family seems to have a large selection of article types from which you can use; I linked Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics above.

Thank you for citing my paper! Hope you enjoyed it!

Have you tought about a Philosophy of Science Journal? That might be an appropriate place to try.

There is only one place to do this - the Journal of Irreproducible Results. It's a Science Humour and Parody magazine, so there is no danger that your parody will be taken seriously.

I would very much like to do so, but unfortunately the journal does not exist anymore it seems. The - in some unofficial sense - successor to it, the Annals of Improbable Research, rejected my submission because it did not fit the scope exactly.


text:
Accidentally burned bridges with PhD advisors
Late last year, I had accepted a research fellowship/startup position tied to a PhD position. The advisers were extremely supportive and I got my visa and was ready to move abroad. However, after working just a couple of weeks of joining, disaster struck and I had to leave abruptly due to a personal family emergency. My advisors were naturally upset but understanding of the situation. After a while, my personal situation got better and so I tried to reapply but by that time, the PhD position had already been filled. The advisers were kind enough to offer to possibly create a PhD position but wanted me to work at the startup in the meantime.
I had anticipated that the position would be unavailable and applied to other schools just in case; also, I was nervous about moving across the world to join a very small startup with a vague possibility of a PhD so I had to decline, especially since I wanted to prioritize securing a sure PhD position. Regrettably, I made the unfortunate mistake of telling my potential supervisors about exploring alternative options (I tend to be too transparent to a fault) and they became extremely upset. They sent a short but angry email telling me to stop  absolutely wasting ("abusing") their time.
Honestly, the whole situation has caused me severe anxiety and depression, and I feel terrible. I'm seeing a mental health professional, but I'm plagued by a constant sinking feeling and dread. I'm  sure I irrevocably burnt bridges here, but I was wondering if there's anyway to recover from the situation? Has anyone else gone through a similar experience of burning bridges in the academia? How badly will this affect my future career or has my academic career been destroyed completely?

You wanted a PhD. They didn't have one. That's their fault, not yours.

What's "the startup"? How is it related to the position in question?

Hmmm. You were the one abused, actually. You will do well to avoid them.

Exploring multiple options before committing to any of them does not itself burn bridges. Of course, you cannot control how other people react, but if someone else sees this as an affront to them, that's their fault, not yours. I would see this as a red flag/indication you've dodged a bullet in ordinary circumstances.
However,

The advisers were kind enough to offer to possibly create a PhD position but wanted me to work at the startup in the meantime

sounds like a bait-and-switch. I would run away, and look for PhD positions tied to reputable institutions of higher education, not startup companies. Universities offer PhD training, not startup companies. If a company wants to work with a university to fund a student position, that should be done through the university to protect the student.
Continue with your other prospects; your future career will depend on the success/failure of those prospects, not this one. It seems like perhaps this one never really existed in the first place, so absolutely nothing is lost except the risk of wasted time.

Thanks for the response! Just noting that the startup is connected to a university where the PhD would have taken place. I'm anxious about the possible repercussions of angering them given their network in the academia.

@flipflop81 "Connections" to a university is not an impressive credential. You have absolutely nothing to worry about. These people couldn't even unilaterally create a PhD position for you, they have no power over anyone else. No one cares what they think.

Company-funded PhDs work the other way around in here, because pretty much only state-funded positions are limited in quantity. But I assume this is an exception, because the very meaning of "funding" is different (students basically get salaried by the company, not the university in this case).

I had anticipated that the position would be unavailable

You were right, hope for the best prepare for the worse.

and applied to other schools just in case

You were very right.

also, I was nervous about moving across the world to join a very small
startup with a vague possibility of a PhD so I had to decline,
especially since I wanted to prioritize securing a sure PhD position

It is strange how an obvious thing such as this is misunderstood by the clever people in academia as "he/she is not that hardworking and confident" while exactly the opposite is true, saying no to such uncertain terms is exactly confidence.

Regrettably, I made the unfortunate mistake of telling my potential
supervisors about exploring alternative options

Ok, that is the only error, what you did is the only reasonable things to do, because no one is applying to one PhD and then waiting for the response from the sacred guard of that Phd position. Such a simple concept unfortunately cannot be expressed, because who knows that, knows that, there is no need to express it, but who does not know that got all upset when you try to not waste your time. Unfortunately many idiots in the academia thinks that only their time is worthwhile, while the others have plenty of free time and can afford to wait weeks or months for them.
You burned bridges with them? yes, you were lucky that this happened before starting working with them :) . Academia is a connected world, but there is way too much to do, there is no time to cultivate revenge and to proactively act against a minion like you.
Repeating what @Bryan Krause said in a comment " These people couldn't even unilaterally create a PhD position for you, they have no power over anyone else. No one cares what they think. "

Agree with @EarlGrey, but would add that admitting to exploring other opportunities is not an error at all. Anyone who is hiring should assume that the potential hire is exploring different ways of getting a salary, and nothing is guaranteed until a contract is signed...

@littleraspberry I may have been not clear, it is an error in the sense of "saying this thing to someone that do not understand this thing is an error", not because it is an error in itself, but because it leads to the unpleasant situation of having to deal with the idiocy of the other persons.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Which factors should I consider when choosing between 2 jobs in 2 different countries?
I am faced with a dilemma: I just returned from two years trying out a lecturer position at a top Australian university. My US public R1 was generous to grant me a leave of absence to do so.
I am trying to weigh all the pros and cons of each situation before making such a life-changing decision as resigning from one of the two.
I can't "follow my heart" because my children and I have been very happy in both places. Both universities are located in highly desirable locations with nice weather. Both places have cons, also, including an insanely high cost of living in both cities. I am neither from the US nor from Australia.
Right now, it feels scary to resign from a tenured associate professor position in the US for a lecturer one. It feels like a step-down in job security. However, the Aussie institution is a lot more prestigious than the US one. Please help me brainstorm any factor I might not have taken into consideration yet. I am especially keen to hear from people who have experienced a similar move.

What kind of job security is there at the Aussie job?

Is it a step-down in job security?  General labor law protections in Australia for permanent jobs (I assume your lecturer job is permanent, not term-limited) are a lot stronger than in the US and might be similar to the protection of tenure (except everyone gets it).

It is a continuing (permanent) position. I guess it is quite secure. However, it seems that, in the Australian system, people get stuck at the senior lecturer level if they don't obtain any ARC grants and those are nearly impossible to get in my field. The downside of my 2 years there was the incredible amount of time spent applying to these grants - time during which I could have written a book!

Given that you seem you would be happy at either place, I think this comes down more to personal (and family) preference. Any chance of a dual appointment allowing you to bounce back and forth (harder on the kids though).

Oh, I have not heard of dual appointments. How do they work? That would be hard to negotiate, I think, but ideal...

Which location has the better school for your kids? which one has an easier commute.

@VitaminE: the Aussie school has both. In fact, everything is better in Australia for my kids but the job there seems less secure and is a lot more stressful than my current one. That's why I am torn.

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


text:
Being undermined as a TA over grading
I have marked several writing assignments for this course and the grade grubbing from this cohort was unlike anything I’ve ever experienced as a TA.
The primary instructor and I were given a heads up from the previous semesters instructors and therefore we established some ground rules between us.

students wishing to discuss grades were to email me since I do all the marking.
I would review the requests for regrading and unless an egregious error occurred I wouldn’t change the grade.
all requests beyond that are to go to the faculty for a formal remark and that grade is final.

On the third and final paper. A student emailed the primary prof and not me to complain about their grade. They argued every other grade unsuccessfully this semester. The primary prof. Cc: me and asked the student to reach out to me which they never did. Today as I was finalizing. I noted that the grade had been changed by primary prof and added 10% even though their policy was no grade change and by the rubric they had earned their other grade.
I feel really undermined especially since the agreement between us was to talk to me. It only makes it worse that this student was atrocious to me in office hours and didn’t even want help improving their papers. Just to yell at me for their grade.
I’m not really sure how to talk to the prof about this when these were their own rules she broke.
Update: spoke with prof. Turns out the student responded to just them after that cc. And that I told them to “speak with prof” — all of which did not happen. So the student lied and grade grubbed the primary prof.
The grades have now been submitted and the primary prof has decided it’s not a fight they want to take up about the lying.

Will you have to work for this professor again?

I have agreed to do this course again with them next semester. I genuine love them as a prof. They have the same work style/humour as myself and are invested in helping me grow into an educator in academia. It’s just this one issue that left me completely blindsided. But after a discussion.  It was actually the student lying and her just being too busy at the end of the semester to follow up with me that ended up happening.

@LoopyStrings Have you considered pursuing the matter of the students' misconduct yourself? Either by a formal procedure at the appropriate university office, or simply by informing your colleagues that this student blatantly lies to university staff about other staff?

The words that jumped out at me were "this student was atrocious to me". It sounds very much like you've become emotionally involved with this student's outcome here and that you feel like they deserve to fail. Every single they do is going to irk you because you (naturally and understandably) don't like them. My advice is to step back, take a very deep breath and then move on with your life.

"The grades have now been submitted and the primary prof has decided it’s not a fight she wants to take up about the lying." this is a good call on their part.  Doing anything about it would be likely to require proving that they had lied, and that would be virtually impossible.  Would it be possible to prove that they had not contacted you in person and you hadn't told them verbally to “speak with prof”?

@DikranMarsupial This will obviously depend on the university's policies, but at my former institution this would be decided based on "balance of probabilities", not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

@kaya3 at mine it would be a disciplinary issue and the student would be likely to face a penalty beyond the restoration of the original mark.  However, even for "balance of probabilities" I'd suggest that would be problematic if it boils down to one persons word against another's (or at least it should be problematic - IMHO).

It would be the TA's word against the student's, but also the TA and the professor had previously agreed that the TA would not offload grading complaints to the professor; that backs up the TA's claim that they did not do so in this case. i.e. the TA can say, "I did not tell the student to take it up with the professor, and I would not have told the student to do that because it is contrary to our established policy". The professor may also be able to attest that the TA was in favour of this policy when it was agreed.

@Valorum while I see where you are coming from. I definitely don’t think she deserved fail to fail. She actually got a B+ from me. It’s the inequality that irks me. That she was missing very obvious and clear criteria from the rubric but was able to grade grub because of their audacity where others didn’t try and grade grub.

@LoopyStrings - It's hard to see someone that you don't like do well.

"but also the TA and the professor had previously agreed that the TA would not offload grading complaints to the professor" that would violate the policy stated in the OP.  There must be a means by which complaints can be escalated if the student is not satisfied, so it would be an unfair policy anyway.  I doubt the OIA would be satisfied with that.  "The TA can say," still the student's word against the TAs.

""but also the TA and the professor had previously agreed that the TA would not offload grading complaints to the professor" where did that come from?  I can't find it in the discussion so far.

@DikranMarsupial Lies over email (especially about timing) are very easy to prove.

@user131330 if the student sends an email to the faculty member saying that they have met face to face with the TA, but without a record of the meeting being kept, that is not at all easy to prove to be a lie.  It would likely be the TA's word against the student's.

I could prove it because my office hours are only zoom and have to be requested by email. Of which there will be no email record for them to provide.  I have no in person contact with students.
However, I am just letting this go at the request of my prof. Who doesn’t want to deal with it (she’s had a bad year) and just said  the student “got lucky”.

@DikranMarsupial "2. I would review the requests for regrading and unless an egregious error occurred I wouldn’t change the grade. 3. all requests beyond that are to go to the faculty for a formal remark and that grade is final." - i.e. the TA would handle complaints such as the one in question, not direct them to the professor; any escalation would skip the professor entirely.

@kaya3 those regulations do not mean that complaints are not "offloaded" to the faculty if the student is unhappy with the TAs resolution.  The point was that the student could claim that step 2 had been followed.  As it happens if the TA was only available online then that makes it easier to investigate as presumably the sessions are recorded (?) but that is not always the case.

Nobody said there isn't a way for students to escalate to the faculty, the point is that there is an established policy of not forwarding these complaints to the professor.

@kaya3 I run a very similar process in my modules.  The sensible approach is for the TA to forward on any cases where the student is unsatisfied, partly in case the student doesn't escalate it, but also so that there is a "paper trail" in case of formal complaints.  I do also encourage TAs to forward difficult cases to me where they are not sure how to proceed.  So cases could be off-loaded in some situations and remain within the regulations given.  The point is that there is a point where the student contacts the professor, which is what happened, but may not have been honest about story

I suggest that you ignore the issue and move on. The professor is the authority figure here. There may be reasons, even stupid ones, that the professor has.
But, once the decision is made, rightly or not, changing it will cause problems that will reflect badly on you.
Not everything is right in academia, but this seems not to be the hill to die on. Stuff happens. Sit back and have a culturally appropriate beverage.

A little update. I spoke with the prof. I guess the student lied and said she had talked to me and I told her to speak with the prof. But grades are now submitted and it’s their final course for their degree so she says it’s not a hill worth dying on.

Re 'There may be reasons, even stupid ones, that the professor has.' Actually my thought is like IF the professor says something like 'Actually, I have certain reasons, but they're private (eg privacy of particular student)', then ok makes sense. But as it stands, eh. @LoopyStrings perhaps the prof just hasn't really thought of this particular wording, but this is really what the prof intended to say?

Yeah, stuff happens.  But if we let these little things go, they grow into big things.  I'll bet $15 that this student has done the exact same thing in every class.  Since she lied to the prof to get a grade changed, she should be brought up on academic dishonesty charges (by the prof.)  She needs to learn a lesson and your prof will be a hero when all the previous TA's and prof's hear about it.

@B.Goddard But that's the professor's decision to make.

@PasserBy  That's why I said, "by the prof."  I'm saying the prof is wrong for letting this go.  I know of a case where a master's candidate plagiarized her thesis.  When she was caught, they found out that she had cheated in every class from freshman through the end of master's degree.  She confessed that she knew zero math.  She couldn't integrate $x^2$, and was within inches of getting a master's in math.  She was only caught because someone on her committee just had happened to read the paper she copied.

@LoopyStrings It would come back if some other students find out about this and complain. But, of course, that would be another hill not worth dying on.

The primary instructor and I were given a heads up from the previous semester's instructors.  Pay it forward.  Let next semester's likely instructors know there's a class of arguers with one in particular who will argue with whatever means necessary, including lying.

I concur with @Buffy .
Your post suggests that this occurred just once, for one student on the last assignment, and that there were many times when it might have but didn't. That suggests that on the whole the division of labor worked pretty well in a situation you both knew in advance might often be difficult.
If you are on general good terms with her you might ask when you next see her why she changed this grade. Don't be accusatory nor suggest that you feel "undermined". Just curious. Be sure to indicate that there might well be private reasons you're not entitled to know.

I adore this prof and her strict no “splitting” or whining to her about grades the TA gives policy. So that’s why I was so shocked. Turns out the student lied to her and said she talked to me and that I told them to goto her. I think she was just too busy to double check with me.
But now grades are submitted and we’ll… the student got away with it.

Thanks for the feedback. You might edit it into the end of the question to keep the community informed.

Ah good call ;)

Don't do anything till you have all the facts, which in this case means ask the professor why she changed the grade. Be diplomatic; it could be a mistake. You could also say it surprised you, since you were expecting to be cc'ed. After she tells you the reason, then you can decide what you want to do next.
If the professor stands her ground on changing the grade (should be reasonably obvious from her explanation), then it's not advisable to argue, since she's the ultimate authority responsible for the course. But you could decide not to work with her anymore.

'If the professor stands her ground on changing the grade ' --> That's ok if this is the case I guess. But IS IT? I think that's an key issue here.

I mostly agree with @Buffy, but would add:

I would review the requests for regrading and unless an egregious
error occurred I wouldn’t change the grade.

Personally I would fix non-egregious errors if they would justify any change in the grade/mark.  The most important thing is that the student gets good feedback so that they can learn from their mistakes (and getting things right).  However the next most important thing is getting the grading right, so if you didn't get it quite right the first time round, then fix it.  Being professional means taking quality control seriously.  It is unprofessional to think you don't make mistakes or being reluctant to admit or correct them.

"Just to yell at me for their grade."

If that happens, report them to the member of faculty for inappropriate/unprofessional behaviour, and do it in writing (email).  It is best for the TA that did the marking to deal with questions about the marks and feedback in the first instance, but they are not being paid to deal with unreasonable behaviour, so I make sure they know that I will step in when that happens.
If the lecturer changes their mark, then that is their responsibility not yours so it is their error if it was not correct.  Ultimately they have final responsibility for all marks, so they do have a right to amend the mark if they think that is the correct thing to do.

I recommend you just resolve not to work for this professor again.  That is poor educational practice and it obviously incentivises "grade-grubbing", which is highly undesirable.  If you particularly want to give feedback to this professor you should feel free to do so; just make sure it is calm, clear and constructive.  After that, do TA work for other professors instead.

Hmmm. Not all TAs get a choice in who they work for. You may be setting up an unnecessary conflict. And you are assuming things not stated and suggesting the OP act while lacking certain knowledge.

I'm not sure what I'm assuming beyond what is stated.  OP states the agreed process and then sets out facts that contradict that process.  I think he has good cause to be aggreived in that case.

You are assuming the OP is a party to the conversation between the student and the prof and that the decision was made on improper grounds. You don't know that, actually.

I'm not assuming that; I just think it is poor educational practice to depart from the agreed process to begin with (i.e., by allowing the matter to go directly to the professor, bypassing the TA).  That already undermines the agreed role of the TA irrespective of what occurs in the conversation between the professor and student.

Always difficult to judge from a single personal account of any event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon


text:
How to be professional when being patronised?
I had an interview at a reputable business school for upcoming MBA intake. The interview was informal and was conducted in the coffee shop on premises.
The first issue happened when the interviewer (Chinese male, early 50s) offered to buy me a beverage. I replied with 'thanks could I please have a bottle of water'. He then said 'no, have something else'. I feel like he was doing it to be hospitable but I was really quite irritated by his response there and then tbf. I ordered a cappuccino and felt it was a real hindrance because there is clearly a difference between sipping water in an interview to clear your throat and having a hot coffee.
There were also issues to do with use of language for example, he asked me to describe my experience when doing my undergraduate. I said it was great, blah blah blah however my only criticism would be that the program needed more structure blah blah blah. He then honed in on the word criticism and said that it was a negative word and that I should not use that. Again I feel quite patronised. I have literally written exam papers where the question has been 'criticise and analyse the following paragraph'. This was after all an interview for a business school not for a social work service.
There is an option to take a particular class on the program in titled "mindfulness and meditation for managers'. The interviewer, perhaps given his ethnic background, was very passionate about it almost to the extent of cult-like. He wanted me to confirm that I would be taking that module as it would make a difference whether I would be given a place. I replied that I had read the program and I was aware of that particular module and what it entailed; and whilst I found it fascinating as a subject it was not my first choice of study and I wouldn't be able to make a commitment now as to whether I would take that particular module. He seemed really very peed off by that and I don't know if I could've responded in any better way than what I had? I also felt a little bit patronised at the end of the interview when he said 'I'm leaving now but stay here and finish your coffee'.
I'm new to the interviewing process and I realise that I have to butter people up and say what the interviewer wants to hear if I want to successfully gain a place. But I found this to be particularly patronising or is it just a case of different communication/culture? How should I respond should situations come up again in a different interview? I think my reticence is is that I am wary of rubbing the interview up the wrong way and so I tend to acquiesce.

Perhaps related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/77024/4484

To me, the interviewer seems very insecure, or alternatively very condescending. But there is no response, in either case, that will satisfy them. Take it as a point of experience that not all people act professionally.
It is possible that they have enough influence to deny you a slot. In that case you would probably be better off in a different program where people behave better.
The proper professional response is to be honest about what you want to do in the program, but don't try to counter inappropriate statements. Nod your head a lot and say "thanks" at the end. If they are a minor figure at the institution then it won't be an issue. Otherwise, move on. If it comes up again with another interviewer, definitely move on. You don't want to be at such a place.
Note that being patronized is also a form of baiting: pushing you toward an inappropriate response that confirms the bias of the person. Keep Cool and Carry On.
FWIW, your responses all seem fine and professional.

How to deal?Just tell them the truth: you are feeling patronized and you do not appreciate it.

That seems sub-optimal if they have power to affect your career. Satisfying, perhaps, in the short term, but not the long.

It is optimal and in fact the only strategy. Here is how it works. A position is announced and about 100+ applications are received. Then 95% of them are not suitable for some reasons. The committee makes a short list. It already requires substantial effort. The short list people are invited for interviews. Do you think they prefer people who are coy with them? Or do you think they do not know that they are patronizing?

More explanation. One of the goals of interviewers  is to find out if you can work in a group of people and how you can handle non-standard situations.  They often provoke you and wait for your reaction, You should be absolutely honest.

@markvs, probably, I'd concur with Buffy because if the interviewer behaves unprofessionally, it is not the reason to behave unprofessionally in response. Get around irrelevant stuff and focus on the essense; it's not your job to educate the interviewer.

@rg_software: What I suggest is to behave professionally, which includes non-standard situations and working in groups of people. I know for sure that such tactics is used by interviewers at Universities, big companies and startups, Dismissing this as "irrelevant"  is unwise to say the least Interviewers are often very smart and skilled.


text:
Ways to republish a paper in a different format
Suppose I did publish an article under the CC 4.0. Now I would like to publish the paper again in my own classical two-column layout/format, because I am not happy with the single-column-layout of the publisher. This is actually bothering me a lot.
What are my options? I just know some keywords like "researchgate", "arXiv" etc. What are drawbacks of doing this (citations, indexvalues etc.)?

It may be annoying, but I would just let it go. It will be very confusing for future readers to see a paper which is (apparently) identical in content but different in formatting on arxiv, compared to the version they see in the journal. As a reader, I would be worried that there were other, non-obvious, changes.

And next time, publish in a journal which uses a two column format ;)

This sounds like it is not advised to republish to arXiv. I was thinking this is a good opportunity to get more attention for the article. If this also gives the opprtunity to reformat the text into a more professional layout, this would be perfect.

I'm not dissuading you from posting on arxiv -- all my papers go on there before they go to the journal. I then update the arxiv version to exactly match the published version. I just think reformatting the paper according to your own preference is not a good idea and will be confusing.

Ok, now I understand you. But tables look horrible in the current layout, because they are streched over the whole page even if they just contain 2 or 3 columns. I think my own latex layout is easily more professional than this.


text:
Change of tense in paper by editor
I received my paper back from the editor of a journal. They changed the present tense in the abstract in my paper into past tense. So they changed: "Something is shown/developed/proposed" into "Something was shown/developed/proposed". This seems quite off. I do not refer to things that happened or have been done in previous work, but things that are done in this paper. What would you advice me to do here? I understand that this is valid for the methods, but also for the abstract? Is this even correct?

Are you in a field, were writing “we show/develop/propose” is not the norm? Because in other fields writing in a passive voice like you did implies that you are talking about something others did.

The field is enginering. I am honestly not sure. Other papers in my field use also present tense. So I am quite confused by the sudden change. They also changed present into past tense in the introduction section (which sometimes state what will be done in this paper) and the methods sections, where I explain my experiment setup.

By "editor" do you mean "copy editor", or "handling editor"?

I mean the people at the journal taking care of correct english at the last step before publication.

This is not the hill to die on.

@Lemonbonbon Ok. In my experience, the people at this stage are not experts in the subject and so less familiar with subject specific nuances, like tense, unlike handling editors who are experts. (So you might want to specify this in your question.)

Hm, but if I say "In this paper, a model is proposed" in the introduction, it sounds odd to say instead "In this paper, a model was proposed". It is still a describtion of what I am doing IN THIS paper, not something that has been done.

I had a similar situation, at the same stage in publication, which I asked about here; maybe you will find some of the answers there helpful.

The confusion is due to your choice of passive voice. It is because passive voice does not explain who did something, and as a consequence one is left to wonder whether a sentence "It is shown..." refers to something others had previously done (past tense) or whether it is something you do in this paper.
If you had written "In this paper, we show..." it would all have been clear. Just use the opportunity to rewrite your abstract and purge all occurrences of the passive voice there (along with everywhere else in that paper, and while you're at it: from your life -- the use of passive voice in scientific writing is a cancer that needs to be eradicated!).

I completely disagree with the idea that the passive is always bad. Sometimes it is clearly better. Here is an example, by Bill Walsh: The active voice is overrated. Oops. I guess those who disagree would make that "People overrate the active voice."

Both "Something is shown" and "Something was shown" are in the passive voice, so I don't think this can be an explaination for why the editor changed things. My personal view is that the active voice is to be prefered, but not at all costs, sometimes the passive voice is justified. Actaully, I quite like the explaination here: https://clauswilke.com/blog/2015/12/19/dont-use-the-passive-voice/

@toby544 The fact that one can find counterexamples (and non-standard uses of passive voice that do seem to have a subject like in your case) does not negate the fact that using the passive voice is greatly detrimental to the readability of scientific articles in general.


text:
Drawbacks of republishing an article
Suppose I publish an article in a journal as open access. As far as I know, I do have the possibility to do with my article what I want. I then would like to republish the article with an identical content but a different layout. What are my options? Where can I upload the article (I know there exists ResearchGate, Arxiv and similar sites)? Does republishing the article affect citation scores, impact factor etc because now there exist two versions of the same article?

"As far as I know, I do have the possibility to do with my article what I want" - what does the agreement you sign with the publisher say about that?

It is clearly allowed by the journal in this case. But my question regards possible drawbacks if I do so.

Ok - this would not be typical for most Open Access journals so I think that's important to clarify in your question - not "as far as you know" but the specific language or a more definitive statement of what you are allowed to do by the journal.

Why a different layout? It seems like a bad move. Confusing or worse. And, you may not have copyright anymore.

I don't think uploading to arXiv or ResearchGate is known as "republishing" in its typical usage.

You really need to check with the journal. For example, Elsevier has a blurb that says "All articles in open access journals which are published by Elsevier have undergone peer review and upon acceptance are immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download." That says nothing about you 'republishing' the content. If you transferred copyright, well, no you can't. All you did was make it openly available for everyone to read.

Unfortunately, the current model of "peer-reviewed" publication does not include or allow "revisions" or "updates" to previous documents. There are some arguments in favor of this "permanence", but some against...

@Roland - which is just the type of check the OP needs to do on their journal agreement rather than guessing.

As far as I know, I do have the possibility to do with my article what I want.

Actually, depending on your agreement with the journal, you may be quite restricted in what you can do.  When you publish an article with a publisher you will generally make some kind of contractual agreement with the publisher.  For academic journals, the usual practice is for the journal to require a copyright transfer to the journal prior to publication, though there may be some cases where a lesser agreement (e.g., a publication license from the author) suffices.  In this case, the usual legal position is that the publisher obtains copyright in the article, but the author maintains a set of "moral rights" or "authorship rights" relating to their authorship, which are generally preserved by statute.  The specifics of what you are and aren't allowed to do depend on your agreement with the journal, and the IP laws in the relevant jurisdictions.  Nevertheless, the usual case is that the journal agreement will involve you transferring copyright in the article to the journal.
If you have transferred copyright to the journal then you will generally require their permission to republish the article in another forum.  There are some exceptions for this relating to personal use under your "authorship rights" and there are standard copyright exceptions for "fair use", etc.  The best way to find out your options here is to first contact the journal where you initially published the article, tell them what you would like to do, and ask them if there is any restriction preventing you from doing that.  If the journal holds the copyright then you may need their permission in order to republish the article on another forum.  Most journals are okay with publication of pre-prints on academic sites (e.g., research-gate, ArXiv, etc.) but you should check with them.


text:
Publishing to MDPI and reupload at researchgate?
Is it legal to publish an Open Access article at MDPI and then reupload this article after publication at researchgate? Furthermore, is it possible to change the layout of the article into a standard 2-column article for the upload at researchgate? I am asking because I do not know if there are any legal issues with this.
I am not very happy with the layout of articles at mdpi, but I didnt came across a different publisher, that is that fast, which is the reason I choose mdpi.

The first and foremost question is, why do you want to do it? Being Open Access means accessible to all. Why do you want to put it up on ResearchGate? What's the point?

I simply do not like the layout at mdpi, which is hard to read.

Well, that's a personal preference then! You must have a preprint/early draft of the paper. You can put that on ResearchGate/ should already have right after you finished the initial draft!

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5466/is-mdpi-a-reputable-academic-publisher

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/149929/is-researchgate-still-useful

Yes, you have the right to do this under the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license that MDPI uses as standard, as long as you link back to the original version and give credit to authors and publisher. You retain copyright as an author.


text:
reference footnote in a footnote
How should I reference footnotes inside a footnote. Do we have to have them superscripted?

6 For further clarification, see footnote 5.
How should I style see footnote 5?

Having this problem probably means that you have too many footnotes.

It probably matters little what style you choose.
Perhaps write just one footnote and use its number twice in the text, since the current footnote 6 adds no information to that already in footnote 5.

(I initially assumed that by, "reference footnotes inside a footnote," you actually mean how to format a reference that actually includes the word "footnote."  However, if you are explicitly using the word "footnote," I think the answer is the same whether the reference appears in the body text or in another footnote.)
You should use the second one, probably with a square bracket:

See footnote [5].

When the running text actually refers to the something in a footnote, the reference is part of that text, and so should be typeset as such.
This applies when references are normally typeset using footnotes and to other types of footnotes as well.  Although the phrasing may be different, the placement of the numeral is not:

See Ref. [5].

versus

According to Marcuse,5

which would be implicit form of the reference.
Whether there should actually be a square bracket, as I have recommended, and whether "Footnote" should be capitalized are questions to which there is no standard answer.  My preferred way of writing it is as appears here, but individual publications may have slightly different standards.

Thank you, I mean, I am already inside footnote 6, and I am referencing another footnote 5. I am not in the text.

@user18602524 Actually, thinking about it, I think my answer is essentially the same in that case.  See my edit above.


text:
Got shortlisted for PhD, what to expect?
I applied for a PhD in philosophy at Yale, and I got shortlisted yesterday. I was given the day for the interview on Jan 15. What to expect exactly on the day of the interview, and how to approach it? Thanks! Also, should I respond to the Shortlisting email with Thanks message?

"what to expect" for what, exactly?

on the day of the interview

Since I don't know the interviewers, I can only say what sorts of things I'd be interested in. My questioning would mostly be follow ups on what you said (or might have said) in a Statement of Purpose. What do you hope to study, with whom (if you have a sense of that), how does your background support that, and what are your future career plans at the moment. The answers could be pretty specific, or not, but you need to reply sensibly. If you have only a bachelors then I wouldn't expect much that is specific.
If you already have a publication history then I might ask a question about one of your papers. To give a short summary, especially of why it is "interesting".
I might also throw in an off-the-wall question or two as an ice breaker or just to see how you interact to less formal questions. "What do you like to do when you aren't studying? How about those Mets?" (Sorry, NY in-joke).
Yes, thank them for the shortlisting, and confirm the availability for the interview.

Mets are doing not so good! Thanks


text:
Should I give up on an assignment that I can't figure out?
I'm a sophomore CS Major, and I have a final programming project due on Monday for one of my classes, but right now, I've been stuck on it for the past two days. I've tried several different approaches to finding the problem with my code, but I can't get it, and I can't ask for help from anyone (including TAs/the professor) since it counts as an exam. Should I just give up on it and submit what I have at the moment? It's really frustrating and stressing me out, and I have another final to study for.

Debugging is one thing, not understanding how to solve the problem is another, and it's not clear which it is for you yet. But to "Should I give up?" the answer is probably "No, but put it aside since you're stuck, study for the other final for a day to make progress there, then come back and try something different." Break the problem into smaller problems/steps, add print statements for intermediate results, etc.

I'm trying to debug at the moment

There is one person you can ask: your professor. At worst, they will tell you they can't answer the question. But there's a chance that they can provide some answer that might help: maybe the problem hasn't been worded clearly, or maybe they can suggest that you document any assumption you can make that will "unstuck" you. (You may not have a correct answer, but often there is partial credit available for correctly pursuing an incorrect approach.)

Following up on @chepner's comment, you might try asking for some (nontrivial) hints that would allow you to make further progress, at the expense of some automatically deducted points. This is something I often did as a teacher (e.g. see this answer) to my own advantage, as explained in the last sentence of that cited answer.

You're going to have to make the decision. I'll only point out that this is not dissimilar to another situation which you've surely encountered before.
Consider: you have 30 minutes left in an exam, and you're stuck on one question which you've spend 10 minutes on without progress. You could give up and move to another question which you've yet to look at, or you could keep working on it. What do you do?
Ultimately you need to do whatever maximizes your grade. If you keep working on this assignment, how many points are you likely to gain? If you give up and work on the other exam, how many more points are you likely to gain? If you give up, are you likely to still pass? How important is it for you to pass anyway (e.g. if it's a core course and you fail could your graduation be delayed by a semester)? You know your circumstances better than anyone else, so you will need to make the decision; nobody else can do it for you.

It is sad that 'ultimately you need to do whatever maximizes your grade'

@FShrike - I'd actually regard this as pretty good training for doing programming - pragmatic assessment of what goals are achievable in the time is an excellent skill to learn

@lupe Whilst this is certainly a good trait to have in an engineer (speaking as one), I'm not sure if this kind of mindset should be encouraged in academia (given that we are in the academia stackexchange). Academia should be about the pursuit of truth, not "Oh well this is too hard so Imma just give up".

In my view, the crux of your dilemma is contained in the final context statement ("... I have another final to study for") rather than in the simple question about whether to give up on an assignment or not.
For example, if your current focus is on an assignment for an elective that is not critical to your overall success, it would be obvious that you should change tack. You might also consider how likely you are to pass the other exam without further study, and how necessary (or not) it is for you to get something higher than a mere pass.
Whether for good or ill, a lot of university study involves trade-offs of the kind that are sometimes referred to as exploitation vs exploration. Do you invest more time in the problem you are currently working on, or do you explore other options (studying for other forthcoming examinations) in the hope that the effort you invest there might be better rewarded than in your current focus? Unfortunately, only you can answer ... but it is worth explicitly thinking about:

your own estimate of the probability of you solving the assignment you're working on, as well as your estimate of the likely value (mark) that you'll receive
your estimate of the probability of you successfully studying for the other upcoming exam, and of the mark you might achieve
and finally, the relative value of the two different assignments/exams.

Let me suggest, first, that not all projects are successful, nor all approaches productive. You also have a fairly firm (hard?) deadline to produce something.
Rather than giving up on the project and not submitting anything, I suggest that you write up what you have done and where you are blocked.
Most important, include your best analysis about the nature of the block as you see it. What is it about the problem that creates a gate that you can't open? What thinking process led you to the current state.

Personal note: I once passed a comprehensive doctoral oral exam with flying colors, responding in just this way to the examiners. "I'm blocked, sorry, and this is why...". I was later actually praised for that response, since it showed some insight, though no solution.

Does it compile?
If code doesn't even compile, generally you'll fail a programming assignment. So at least get to that point. If that's your problem, you have plenty of compiler error messages to tell you what you've done wrong, and Google has more info on fixing them.
Does it run at all?
If it crashes at some point during running, stop the code at a random point and see if it gets there. If it crashes before that, stop at a point before that and try again, until you find a point where execution gets there. After that, work forward until you find where it's crashing.
Note that running in a debugger will make this easier. The debugger will give you a stack trace telling you what function it crashed in, and the nested function calls which led up to that crash.
Once you're past these two steps, you're into the possibility of a "gentleman's C". In which case document your known failure - what the inputs are, and what outputs you're getting versus what outputs you're expecting. This demonstrates you know good practice for debugging, and that you've isolated what's going wrong.  It also points the assessor at where they'll likely check for the bug and how to check what's right versus what's wrong.
And not infrequently, the process of writing this down might trigger a spark of realising what you've done wrong. :)

and I can't ask for help from anyone (including TAs/the professor) since it counts as an exam.

That's not a reason not to ask for help. They may not give you exactly what you ask for, but they may offer some kind of help - hopefully the kind which, if you've followed the course material properly, will indeed put you back on track.

Should I just give up on it and submit what I have at the moment? It's really frustrating and stressing me out, and I have another final to study for.

First, consider asking for an extension due to the conflicting final - and if refused, perhaps even an extension with a grade decrease. Better that than just "bombing" the assignment.
Second, consider asking for some alternative form of evaluation given the circumstances.
A third option: In some universities, the final exams in courses are given twice - in two sessions with a different exam for each - where the student can choose to take only one, or both, but with the second session's score always replacing the first session's. Perhaps something like that can be arranged with this course of yours? e.g. delaying the evaluation (and your grade) until the end of the next semester, taking the final assignment with them?
A fourth option: If the course staff refuses everything, consider consulting a colleague who's also taking the assignment, and whom you know has completed it or has fully worked out what is to be done. Tell them you're completely stuck, and ask for some guidance. Guidance, of course, is not the same as access to your colleagues solution - but something to help you become unstuck. This final option may get into some ethically-gray territory and also depends on the social and formal conventions of this kind of assignment-taking at your institution, so take this suggestion with a grain of salt.


text:
How do I develop the big-picture vision for my future research?
I have just recently completed my Ph.D. Throughout my Ph.D., I’ve been fascinated and motivated by incremental and focused questions that would show up in my research, either imposed by my advisors, or ones that I would figure out need addressing. I genuinely enjoyed getting into the nitty-gritty details of my research. I believe that this attitude has let me thrive in a Ph.D. program and produce good research.
But, as a result, I feel like I’m driven by curiosity only when I have a specific question to tackle (like, “I wonder what happens when I set this parameter to...”), but I have no interest in the big-picture questions of science or vision for my future research (like, “How do machines learn?”). I think I haven’t yet developed interest or skills in finding such a vision. My Ph.D. advisor has his long-term goal for his research group, but being his Ph.D. student, I never cared about or was (directly) influenced by that goal. In some sense, I couldn’t care less about what my advisor’s lab wants to develop long-term. All I genuinely cared about was another hurdle in my narrow slice and the tiny curiosities that would show up along the way.
I would like to stay in academia and apply for a TT position after my postdoc. Professor Patrick Winston mentioned in this talk, that the TT applicants have 5 minutes to convey their vision and their contributions to the hiring committee. I think that I would fail that test if I were to apply right now. I would like to develop that vision, and be able to one day say: “My lab aims to understand how machines learn.” (just an example).
I’m looking for concrete advice on actions that I can take in the coming months/years to slowly start developing this big-picture interest in my research field. Is it normal that I don’t have that interest yet? When should such interest start to emerge in me for me to be a successful professor and researcher?

It's worth remembering that this 'big picture vision' is largely a marketing spiel. It doesn't really matter whether it neatly aligns with all your personal motivations and interests - it just has to convince customers (i.e. a hiring or funding committee) to buy your product (i.e. you).

@avid Thanks, I never thought about it that way. I guess I now want to ask a different question: Does having a big picture vision help run your lab? :) And I mean: in a sense that it becomes a true guidelight for the PI. Or is it only helpful when showcasing your lab?

@avid I agree with you that the "big picture" is often overrated when you're young, but you do need some vision.  If you just pick problems completely at random, it's unlikely they will be of much interest to others.

To your question of if it's helpful to a vision: it's necessary to have some vision to write grants and collaborate with researchers long-term. You're not limited to it, certainly, but thinking at the level of dissertations and grants (and not papers) is the responsibility of a professor. But if your focus is papers, and you're good / enjoy at writing papers (sounds like it) then I think you'd certainly be able to adapt to higher-level visions.

So, full disclosure, I'm a PhD student still and I'm still learning and growing myself. But, I think I kind of might have an answer here. Your research is driven by (in part) personal curiosity. You thrive in those details of whatever your interests are, and you have little to no interest in the so called `big picture' questions that scientists ostensibly are kept up late at night over.
Okay. That's great!! Why deviate from that path? I myself am the same way. Last semester (or two semesters ago now, I guess), I took PHD logic of policy inquiry at the Georgia Institute of Technology. In it, we read Thomas Kuhn, whose book consisted of discussing the process of revolutionary development in science. To be simplistic, we essentially have two kinds of scientists: those who take a Bird's Eye view of their discipline (how do machines learn, how does facial recognition software influence popular opinion, how do Black Holes prove some physics theorem), and people with very very focused views of their discipline (How to do donor selection for synthetic controls in econometrics, how can we use LASSO or other ML ideas to better predict counterfactuals, how do we asymptotically justify using this penalty for this estimator...)
My point is, there is no right way to play. Both paths will lead you to your intended experience. `Big picture' work always builds on the "small picture" work. It is partly by that process, argues Kuhn, that we make advances in science on those big picture questions, yes, by having people who dedicate their lives to big picture questions, but ALSO by having researchers like you who are very narrowly interested in developing part of your field.
I'm a public policy PHD student. Most of my cohort have very specific substantive interests (labor market policy, housing, etc.). But I don't! I'm an econometrician, a statistician who's interested in methods used for causal analysis of policy. I'm not married at all to any field or set of topics, I have papers in the works in policy, criminology, marketing science, and other areas. What I'm married to, is econometrics and advancing certain causal models in my field and to anyone who would find them useful. Even if I'm not working on some big picture question, my work and skillset is still valuable,
So, my advice to you is to explore your curiosities. Make them your own, and publish great work in great journals with it. It's perfectly okay not to be really into big picture questions as a matter of profession. You like what you like, and that's okay. Academia is about finding your own path. Find your own path, and make no apologies for your work not sounding as earth-shattering as other people's. I guarantee you, even if your work isn't "how do machines learn", the quality work you do will be used by the people who are answering that question, to eventually have those pathbreaking discoveries.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, it's a comforting one for sure. Thanks for a book recommendation too! "I'm not married at all to any field or set of topics" -- I think it's very similar to my situation. I can imagine developing those little curiosities in so many disciplines.

I would still like to hear someone's perspective though on how your recommended strategy will work out in applying for TT positions. I could probably convey to a hiring committee my interest in answering a very specific research question, but would this be enough to hire me? I imagine them saying: okay, that's work for one journal publication, what do you plan to do after you have that published?

So like other answers, I definitely recommend talking to your advisor if you have a good relationship with them. I'll also echo @avid's comment that this is largely a "marketing spiel" in the sense that you don't in any way have to limit yourself to the "vision" that you label yourself with. Nevertheless, a large portion of the work of a TT position is some form of "marketing" (I recommend calling it "getting other people excited about what you're excited about" instead). The benefit of having a good, pithy explanation helps communicate what you're excited about and what you want to work on.
My context is that I just accepted a TT position at an R2 starting next year in computer science in the US. I had the benefit of a failed search last year, so I didn't have to start this year's job search with a lot of work already behind me. It's OK for the development of this vision to feel exceedingly slow and difficult. Taking the time to actually think about this vision was really hard (my research statement was a high priority for weeks, and there were several times it was substantially re-written with advisor and mentor feedback). But the benefit is that it's a line of thinking I've got developed for the next 5-ish years.
First, I think it's important to understand what you're developing, exactly. From the tone you have (and the example of "how machines learn") I think you might be looking for too grand of a vision and intimidated by that prospect. I found this article by Yitong Yue very helpful when working on my research statement, and I'd like to highlight two paragraphs in particular.

An Interesting “Medium-Level” Agenda. It’s relatively easy to craft a good high-level agenda (e.g., AI for Science, AI for Social Good, Protein Modeling, Real-World Robotics, etc.). It’s also pretty easy to get into the details of your research (e.g., summarizing the key findings in individual papers). However, it is the medium-level story that often ties your research agenda together in a coherent and intellectually interesting way. The alternative is to jump straight from a relatively vague/abstract high-level story into what might feel like a laundry list of projects and results. What are the key insights that propel you forward when you seek out new projects? Why are your previous results realizations or instantiations of these insights? Based on my experience advising and evaluating faculty applicants, this is the most important thing to work on. (emphasis added)

And here's another, specifically about what that vision is valuable for, which can help you evaluate whether a vision is good or not:

Frame Future Work in Terms of PhD Thesis Topics. A heuristic I like to follow is to list future directions that can be compelling thesis topics. The supporting sentences in the paragraph on each future direction might then point to specific results (e.g., specific papers you might write). Don’t present future directions that are scoped at the scale of individual papers, as those don’t really support your medium-level agenda.

In other words, if you have a vision that can inspire 3-4 dissertations, which is certainly an order of magnitude work larger than a paper (at least in my domain, yours may be different), you have a good vision. "How machines learn" is too broad - I'd categorize it as one of those "high-level agendas".
I was able to develop my vision (medium-level research agenda) over several conversations with other researchers, my advisor and mentor, and even conversations with friends and family (they often have good ways to phrase insights that are a lot less academic).
I'd also say that my advisor's mid-level vision(s) were ones I agreed with and saw the value of but certainly wouldn't have made them my own, so being lukewarm about your current advisor's vision doesn't count you out either. I certainly borrowed big ideas from my advisor and his work, but I had a chance to re-prioritize those values and set them in a different light.
You mentioned you enjoy those "tiny curiosities" - I think those are the starting grounds of a mid-level vision. Why do those curiosities strike your curiosity? Why do you find them interesting and others might not? What about your background or your interests makes you well-suited to tackle those? That unifying theme isn't necessarily some type of application or theory - it could be a method, if you focus on why that method (not just the algorithm) is 'interesting'. Also, I think I used about half of my work in my PhD in support of my vision - it doesn't have to encompass all of your (previous or future) work. If you can write a statement that feels like a good way to sum up a sizable portion of the work you've done so far and leaves room for future work, then that would seem like a good vision.

Answering this as a new assistant professor: I agree this is a real challenge! It may help to note that this is a very good problem to have: it's much easier to start from specific technical expertise and "zoom out" to a broad research agenda than the other way around. This happens all the time among more established researchers -- it's fundamental to managing a research project and getting funding.
To do the process of zooming out, I think there are two components: First, establish your expertise; and second, establish your agenda.
Establish your expertise
To find your expertise, you can start with your individual paper abstracts. What does each abstract say to sell the paper? Additionally, what are several key results -- such as an experiment or buzz phrase (e.g., you are 10x faster than some other technique, first to do XYZ, etc.) that you can lift from that paper? Do this for all of your papers, and you may find a pattern. Are there several distinct lines of work? Are there common themes? "cluster" these into groups and identify what do your contributions mean in aggregate for someone who has never heard of your research before.
Then, try to condense this to a simple sentence like I work on X or I'm an expert in applying Y to Z. Typically, it is as simple as the jump from "I studied how to use nanofunks to create foobars with applications to thingamajigs" to "I am an expert on nanofunks and foobars". Once you have a pattern of important results in an area, experts will trust you to know some things about that area, what are the typical techniques, and what things are often difficult and lead to unsolved problems.
This process can even be surprising -- sometimes as researchers, when stuck in the details, we don't fully recognize our own strengths and expertise in an area. For example, maybe you have published 3 papers in a general topic X. That fact alone often makes you stand out quite a bit compared to other researchers, and you are now (surprise!) an expert in topic X.
Establish your agenda
Second, you need to establish your agenda. This is a similar process to before, but this time, focus on the future work and unsolved problems for each of your research papers or projects. What are some things that would be nice to have? Often you will have a dozen ideas for each project, and you can list these out. Then, how do these fit into a common theme that might take 5-10 years of work to play out?
Try to be interdisciplinary about writing down your future work. Compared to establishing your expertise, future work should be ambitious, collaborative, and exciting. You can, for instance, introduce future work in an area you have never worked on before (e.g. applying thingamajigs to health science), if you think it ties in to the general agenda you lay out and sounds fun to do. You can also list some future work that is specific to your area, but I find researchers are much more likely to get excited about general collaborations.
When thinking about your broader agenda, it's also helpful to identify any common themes in your research process (rather than just research content) that distinguish you. What is your "secret sauce" that you can apply to any area and generate interesting ideas? For example, do you think more theoretically about problems -- looking for the foundational principle behind a particular phenomenon? Or do you prefer to start from a concrete application? Do you like to do data-driven research? Do you like to work incrementally building on past results, or do you like to pursue broad crazy ideas?
Other suggestions
This sort of process is extremely iterative; you won't get it right the first time. It will take successive refinements and lots of conversations. So it's critical to do lots of things to broaden your exposure to other researchers. For example:

Take every opportunity to interact with others in your department;
Get feedback on a draft of your research statement;
Attend conferences in your field;
Attend talks, especially those not in your area; and
Talk to experts and mentors to hear how they think about broad agenda and the future of your field.

Don't be afraid to ask the big questions, like: What are the important problems of your field?
Think about other researchers in your area or related areas. What are they doing that is most impactful and most relevant to the broader community?
At the end of the day, there is no substitute for practice: practice speaking, practice giving your 5-minute elevator pitch, and practice writing -- ideally write a bit every day. Research problems can be very specific, but broader ideas can only take shape by being refined and simplified over time.

I’m looking for concrete advice on actions that I can take in the coming months/years to slowly start developing this big-picture interest in my research field. Is it normal that I don’t have that interest yet? When should such interest start to emerge in me for me to be a successful professor and researcher?

We have research on this! From Huang et al, 2022, we know that successful researchers are able to exploit academic hotspots, while exploring emerging topics and combinatorial innovation more during their early career and exploring diverse interests during their later career, putting less emphasis on exploiting mature topics.
So if you want to hone your research acumen, you should learn how to explore emerging topics and combinatorial innovation -- that is, what are new and interesting trends in your field, and what are some unexpected ways in which your field combines with other fields?
Note that knowing what is new in your field requires you to know what is old in your field, and also requires deep curiosity about what everyone else in your field is doing. For example, you should eventually know who the few most interesting researchers in your area of interest are, and roughly what they are doing, and why they are pursuing their particular area of interest and not another. The granular, social understanding of your field is what your subconscious processes so that you can eventually carve out your own niche. And when you say:

My Ph.D. advisor has his long-term goal for his research group, but being his Ph.D. student, I never cared about or was (directly) influenced by that goal. In some sense, I couldn’t care less about what my advisor’s lab wants to develop long-term.

that is a significant red flag (unless you've developed your own peculiar vision -- but you haven't!). Every other researcher you meet has a research strategy, and the more you learn about others' research strategies, the more you are able to craft and articulate your own (even if as examples of what not to do).
Here are some specific questions you can ask yourself to hone your research vision:

Are there specific papers or journals I cite disproportionately often in my work? (That's a sign of an emerging focus of your interest, and is easy and objective to determine.)
What are the key terms in my field, and how would I define them and why they're important? (For example, when I read your question, I immediately googled for "explore / exploit scientist" -- which tells you a great deal about how I understand scientific innovation.)
Who are the most interesting people in the field, and what are they doing, and why?
Why do I care about [parameter I'm optimizing]? What's the range of possible improvements I expect to get? If it's a large range, why is that parameter so crucial? If it's small, should I really be bothering with it?
If I wanted to brainwash attract a PhD student to help me on a project, what would I ask them to work on? How would I pitch it to them?