text:
PhD situation, is there hope?
Next november I will face my third and last year of my PhD. However, my percourse has been torturing and twisted.
I started my PhD in a different group because I was kind of tricked out. My background is molecular biology and microbiology and I ended up in a group about biosensors, which was essentially sensors - nothing bio. The group did not have any senior researcher nor postdoc so essentially we were alone and the supervisor was not there.
I switched group after almost a year to food microbiology. In that period I got another PhD position but I was so stupid to refuse it. However, I was doing fine during the first month in the new group. After some time, I got results that were the contrary of our hypotheresis and I am stuck without any result since then. I must mention that my cosupervisors do not help and mostly critisice my work without knowing about that particular techniques. However, when I do something wrong they are supposed to know, they do not tell me anything, which causes losing months of time. One of them even tried to down my work in front of our boss. Also another important fact, is that our university is so bad organized that the reagents and stuff take 2 motnhs to arrive after you order something.
At this point I have no results after more than a year and a half and my PhD last for 3 years. My cosupervisors are causing me incredible delay and I am just seeing a big failure at the end because they require three submited papers. I end up in a psicologist, I work every weekend and I dont remember the last day I had free since months.
I started applying for jobs because the PhD is not giving me any knowledge at all, just monkey lab work togheter with people who disturb and try to mess around with my very small outcomes.
I just write here because I dont know whether if I can keep going like this anymore. Should I just quit even if I am jobless afterwards? Should I keep pushing harder? Is this even normal? I dont see any other PhD like this here..

I'm a bit afraid that this situation isn't so uncommon. I also got a lot of bad advices and "obvious" unpromising projects which cost me about 2 years. After about 1.5 - 2 years I stopped listening to other people, isolated me from the working group and did nothing else than following my own thoughts and goals. After 4.5 years in total I got my phd but I was working on several projects in parallel since I didn't know which would be promising and in the end I even had too much for a single phd... but yeah, I didn't know until I submitted..

Basically, I had some aspects I could benefit from: I had own thoughts and projects I followed - I obviously was allowed to follow them on my own (I know from other working groups that this is not a must while in others this is everything..) - and to the rescue, one of the post docs recognized my value somewhen and he was a great help. Not in terms of supporting my projects but in helping/pushing me through the phd in general. And also supporting my back within the working group..

my girlfriend's phd got dropped after 2 years and she had to start again at zero. Yet, she also did it after about another 2.5-3 years..  and in my case respectively in my working group, in the last 4 years I'm the first who finished it successfully.. five other phd students gave up/left after the funding. But my best friend got it even more worse than all I know - and he was the best of his year..

@Neuls  Any chance there is somebody you trust who could give you some good advice? Can you talk to your faculty adviser? Or some other faculty person? This is a complicated and delicate situation that requires some wisdom.

I started applying for jobs because the PhD is not giving me any
  knowledge at all, just monkey lab work togheter with people who
  disturb and try to mess around with my very small outcomes.

This is called a toxic work environment! It is not specific to research/academia only, but it is a general problem.
Unfortunately, it is not good for mental health to stay in this kind of work environment.

I just write here because I dont know whether if I can keep going like
  this anymore. Should I just quit even if I am jobless afterwards?
  Should I keep pushing harder?

Pardon my words: if your supervisor is not aware of the status of your work, you shouldn't be a laboratory mouse for your supervisor. However don't jump out of PhD without any plan.
1. Discuss with our supervisor about the situation and your limits (time, funding, psychological issues).
2. Spend minimum 1 (and max. 2) hours every day for:
2.1 confiding to your friends that you are looking for a positive change by switching to a full-time proper scientific job; preparing your CV and looking for opportunities.
2.2 forging new connections and contacting recruiters, by using online platforms e.g. linkedin etc.
A smooth transition may take sometime. So don't panic, don't be impatient. AND don't be apologetic for this tough time. Be confident when talking to people for job, otherwise the chances are very low that someone with low self-esteem will get a chance.

Is this even normal? I don't see any other PhD like this here..

Unfortunately this has become normal, and there are many victims. Not all are innocent, but without supervisor's support its almost impossible to complete PhD. So his role is critical.

*
P.S: whatever is written above, is not hollow. I had to quit my PhD in 4th year due to amalgam of problems. And this is how I could rescue myself from PhD-whirpool and change to industry.

Would it be possible to switch labs again? It sounds like the the problem with the first lab was the research area/topic was inappropriate and it sounds like the people in the second lab are being inappropriate. As for your results, well, that happens sometimes and a good PI should be able to know how to handle that (it's kind of required for grant writing, after all). Do you have an advisor that is part of the PhD program but not connected with your research. If you have a thesis committee, there really should be someone that fits that description already. Perhaps that person could advise you and give you specific advice. It's hard to give advice without knowing your location and more about your background, capabilities, and goals. Sticking with the PhD program or leaving is always a difficult decision to make for anyone, regardless of the circumstances, if that helps at all. It sounds like your situation is legitimately bad, so good luck and let us know what you decide!


text:
How to read a research paper at faster rate?
I am a PhD Student works in computer science. I am currently in the middle stage of my PhD. I am facing a serious problem right now. It is about reading a research paper at a faster rate. I usually takes 2 weeks to read a paper nowadays, but my supervisor wants me to read a research paper in 4-5 days with greater detail. It involves mathematics and it takes time to get used to it. I have tried to explain him the problem that it is not possible at this time for me to read a paper in 4-5 days but keep pushing me to do so.
Question : How to read a research paper at faster rate?

Similar question : https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/95310/72855

It comes with time an experience.

@corey979 read it in its entirety, understanding every single word/formula, and being able to reproduce its results in the smallest details

@old It is impossible.

@corey979: Excellent comment!

It sounds like you have an XY problem here: you think your problem is with your comprehension speed, but it sounds to me like your actual problem is in managing your relationship with your advisor (especially his expectations).

Are the papers close to your own work? If yes, I (partially) understand your advisor - if you are in the middle of your PhD, you should have kept up with the field which means that the commonly used tools (and if it is mathematics in your area, it's a tool as weel) are known to you and you are used to it. My suggestion would be: Find out where your weak spots are and work on them. Usually it's not reading speed ;-).

You said it yourself,

It involves mathematics and it takes time to get used to it.

Thus, the solution is to get used to it. It took me a few months to read the first paper I read. Now I can skim through a few papers for breakfast and read one in a couple of hours. It just takes a lot of practice. Also, the more you learn, the less new things will be in each paper.
Usually, with mathematics in particular, some ideas and details take a sentence to explain and understand, but takes several pages to explain in a rigorous manner. Learning to identifying the ideas and the main theme is what you seek, and then get down to the details only when you need to implement something.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Where to put a cited paper: introduction or discussion?
I have finished the first draft of my paper. It extends a statistical method and it is applied to an application. I cite many papers in the introduction. As a result, not so many left for the discussion part. If I put them here again, it seems redundant. So my question is: when you see a relevant paper, how do you know that it should be in the introduction or discussion?

As a general rule I think it is better to over-cite than to under-cite.

@Bitwise: Do you think that there are some rules that for some paper it is more likely to be in the introduction whereas others more likely in the discussion?

Of course you cite those papers AGAIN, every time, with the same number or code  you gave them in the previous chapter!!!!

Keep in mind you want to keep the intro as concise as possible (which can be very difficult already). Indeed this is the case for all sections. So there's a trade-off between covering everything and limiting size. And reviewers may attack you from both sides, sometimes at the same time.

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


text:
Is the phrase "results show" appropriate in academic writing?
I once heard of a professor saying that it is not appropriate to say that "results show", because it is not the results that actually "show" anything, and a more appropriate way of putting it would be that the results "support" the idea of something.
I am not sure if this is overthinking or there is actually a point made.

You are overthinking it :-)

The professor is suggesting that in academic writing one needs to be precise and one also tends to be more formal. Things that are natural in conversation, for example, may not be the best way to express something in writing - especially academic writing.
But it is easy, and natural, to slip up since we normally spend more of our time speaking and writing informally than formally.
But yes, most "results" only give evidence that something is true. Only in some fields do the "show" or "prove" something (say, mathematics).
I think the point is valid - precision and formality are likely good, but condemnation of such terminology is probably overblown. In most cases the reader will make the right assumptions about what is meant. Novices might be misled, however, if claims seem a bit overblown. And intentionally overstating a conclusion is wrong in general.

I think in general one should write for the audience.  While I think the professor's point has little value, presumably the professor knows his/her research community better than I and if the audience feels the same way I would honor it.


text:
Bombed an academic interview, should I do anything about it?
I had an interview a few days back for a grant for graduate studies. The interview panel consisted of various judges including some of the most renowned and well known researchers/professors in my field(s) of interest. Some of them almost have a celebrity status given the kind of respect they command.
Now comes the bad part. My interview was going good for most of it, I was answering a question when I was told that none of what I said made sense. I was completely caught off-guard. To the best of my knowledge, my answers were correct, but the committee did not share my enthusiasm. I came across to them as an impostor who was simply winging things/saying random rubbish.
The interview went downhill from there. I was so flustered that even the questions which I could have answered in my sleep went wrong. I tried putting some things down on the whiteboard and tried explaining my answers but by then the committee had lost interest. The overall experience was very bitter with me almost coming across as undeserving to even has been shortlisted for the interview. Post the interview, I felt extremely guilty not for torpedoing my interview, but because I felt that I had wasted the time of such esteemed academicians.
My question is regarding, what if any action should I take at this point? I know for a fact that the grant will not be awarded to me, but that is not my concern. Some of the members on the committee are at the forefront of research and work in their field (which heavily aligns with mine). I do not intend to spoil my relation and any chance of a future collaboration with them because of this one interview. Some of the possible actions that came to my mind were:

Sending an email to one or more members of the committee, apologizing for the interview.
Sending an email to one or more members of the committee, asking for feedback.
Sending an email to one or more members of the committee, trying to explain my answers and why they were not completely wrong given the context.

Are any of these too far fetched? Any alternative action that you would recommend? Or should I just let it go?
PS. In case you find any details of my question to be fuzzy, please ask for clarification. Any sort of help/feedback will be appreciated.

"Post the interview, I felt extremely guilty not for torpedoing my interview, but because I felt that I had wasted the time of such esteemed academicians." - interviewing people is a skill. It sounds like the interviewers did not do a good job of getting the best out of you. I wouldn't look at it as if they are doing you some great service by give you their time, and you wasted it. What about your time? Why didn't they ask a question instead of making an unjustified comment? (unjustified as in, they didn't seem to give their reasoning).

"I was told that none of what I said made sense." This could have been a loaded comment. Perhaps they wanted to see if you could stand back, think and then clarify your answer without becoming flustered or taking it personally. Perhaps they made an effort to ask this during all candidate interviews?

Do you understand why they described what you believed to be correct answers as nonsense? Are you trying to ask for feedback, or merely apologize? 2. If asked that question today by them, would you do much better? 3. Could their reaction be due to your terminology, or misunderstanding the question or context (did you restate/ ask clarifying questions?), or were they deliberately trying to give you a hostile interview? (Do they typically do that?) 4. Are you merely trying to seek interview feedback/ what the right answer was, or apologize, or both? The right approach to 4. depends on 1..3.

Based on what you wrote, it's impossible to tell if they simply have huge egos and get off giving hostile interviews and messing with candidates' heads, or whether your interview style could do with more restating and asking clarifying questions, or both?

Note that their behavior might not relate to your actual answer (or their hostility). When interviewing for a very prestigious PhD scholarship me and other candidates realized that the most reputable and most esteemed and senior scientist would always become very vocally negative (and sometimes positive) about one answer of every interviewee (sometimes being very positive or positive for the same answer given by distinct interviewees). We suspected that she wanted to test how one would react to criticism from an authority, if it wouldn't be scientifically warranted.

As others have said, it very much sounds like the "nonsense" comment was a deliberate attempt to test you. The "correct" response would've been tor remain calm and challenge the person who made that statement as to why they said that (after all, burden of proof is on the person making the claim) - to me it sounds like they were looking for a person who is confident enough in their knowledge to be undeterred by negative comments from authority figures, but instead be willing to argue their viewpoint with said figures. So take this as a learning experience for next time - to believe in yourself!

@JibbityJobby In other words, a trap? Ugh. People who do this have no place interviewing.

@KonradRudolph Obviously I can't know for sure why this comment was made but if deliberate then I think it's debatable whether it's a good interview technique. If someone's confident and not phased by authority and doesn't get overly nervous in interview situations and the interviewers want to measure these criteria then it can be considered a good comment. I think I failed my first academic interview because I was offered a boiled sweet, politely accepted and then had the misfortune of having a boiled sweet in my mouth for the duration of the interview. I think this was a test.

Think of interviews not as similar to exams, but as more similar to going on a date. Sometimes a date flops for all the wrong reasons which have nothing to do with either you or them being [your choice of expletive] per se. And sometimes, even though a position is perfect on paper, you realise at the d̶a̶t̶e̶ interview that actually you two partnering would be a disaster. Do what you'd do on a date. Presumably calling them back and apologising profusely that you can do much better isn't the best course of action. Especially since you don't actually know what they thought of you at this point.

let it go... dont do nothing

Don't give too much reverence to celebrity academics. There lies madness in trying to judge yourself by impossibly high standards. Who cares if you wasted their time? They aren't that important, really. Learn what you can from this experience and move on. You aren't any less of a human being than before.

I know this is not what comments are for but... Maybe it's worth of taking it for the better. Remember that if you passed and enrolled you would be dealing with this auditorium more. If you did not feel comfortable with their approach, you could find yourself in similar situation more times in the future. Imagine this defending your PhD thesis. You should learn to deal with it, or avoid such cadres.

You very likely failed the human-skills part of the interview: it is not uncommon to try to make the candidate angry to test his "stability". Interpersonal skills are as important as hard skills, take this as a lesson, no need to send excuses. You`ll do way better next time!!!

You're standing up for the proposal, they're standing up for the people who (and entities which) provided the funding. So, to perpetuate the negativity a little longer, "So you can't handle adversity? Duly noted!" Maybe that's all they needed -- or maybe they think you handled it quite well.

First of all, you should cool down before you take any action. Clearly, the interview was an emotionally intense event for you, so don't do anything in the spur of the moment (and "a few days later" may still qualify as "in the spur of the moment" in this context). Let a few more days pass, and see how you feel later.
Second, seek the guidance of a trusted person or mentor who is aware of the details. Maybe your advisor can feel out to what extent you have really bombed the interview quite as badly as you perceive it? Note that especially for interviews on grad student level, the committee will be positively used to people giving bad presentations and not being quite able to argue their case. Unless you have made a really monumental blunder, the committee has probably already forgotten about the details of your interview by the time the next coffee break rolled around.
Which brings me to the third point: no matter what you do, don't write an email reminding people that you did poorly or excusing yourself for not doing better. Don't try to argue your points, either. This won't make your interview better, but now people may also think of you as somewhat unprofessional. If you feel you need to write an email, keep it professional, thank them for the opportunity, and ask for feedback.

Any alternative action that you would recommend? Or should I just let it go?

Letting it go is generally the right course of action in these situations. I have personally done my fair share of bad presentations, bad interviews, and (in retrospect) crappy paper submissions. Learn from them and improve for the future. You are a student. Mistakes are to be expected. Life will go on.

You are a student, mistakes are expected - I can confirm that faculty make plenty of mistakes as well...

To add to the "feel out to what extent you have really bombed the interview" part, I have been part of a number of interviews that I thought I bombed where I actually did fine. For one in particular I learned later that the interviewer's technique is to keep pushing and asking harder questions until the interviewee fails, so that he would get a better gauge both of their knowledge and also how they handle that pressure. Basically everyone came out of interviews with him feeling like they failed, but many actually did well

@Bitwise Perhaps, "You are a human being. Mistakes are expected."

Your question reads:

I came across to them as an impostor who was simply winging things/saying random rubbish.

But I wonder what the committee said that made you feel that way.
I know you feel like your answers were on the mark, but I'm going to side with the committee here and assume that you weren't demonstrating the kind of mastery and expertise they were hoping to see. This doesn't mean you were an "imposter" or that what you said was "rubbish," it simply means I'm assuming they know more about this subject than you do, and they were hoping that their interviewees had a stronger grasp and mastery of the subject matter than you displayed.
I've learned the hard way that it's possible to know just enough about a subject that you can – how does the old expression go? You know just enough "to be dangerous;" that is, you may think you fully understand the concepts, but you don't have all the details ingrained enough to sound like an expert when put under close scrutiny.
I'm guessing that they didn't really regard you as an "imposter," but more like someone who had some more learning to do and wasn't yet ready to receive the grant.
As for what to do next, I would avoid your third solution, which would be to prolong the debate outside of the interview. That would likely rankle their ire even more.
I wouldn't apologize for wasting their time, either. That sounds too defeatist.
Your second solution aligns most closely with what I'd recommend, but I wouldn't ask busy people for specific feedback. Instead, I'd recommend sending one or more of them a thank-you letter for pointing out that you still have a lot of learning to do, and letting them know you intend to keep studying the subject and developing a keener mastery of it.
Perhaps you can tell them it was a humbling but eye-opening experience, and you intend to leverage it to further your career, your goals, and your aspirations.
I would think that the committee members would find it hard to argue with such a humble approach, and some of them might be impressed by your willingness to learn more.

Mostly agree, but I wouldn't recommend sending a thank-you letter for having been so thoroughly chewed out (much less with platitudes about 'still having a lot of learning to do'). If they actually gave helpful feedback, sure, thank them for the interview and the feedback. Otherwise, best to let this lie.

Important interviews can be very emotional business. Also, performing well during such an interview is not an easy skill. I think you are not the only person to learn that "the hard way". Everyone experienced a failed interview, and the committee people have seen dozens people to fail. You are no exception.
Instead of worrying about the bad parts, you need to take this as a precious lesson.
An interview is not just about seeing what you can do (although it is also important), but also finding out what you cannot. The interviewers need to see how far your understanding goes (and what happens beyond) and how you act outside of your comfort zone. If the interview is tough and you feel lost, that does not necessarily mean it is going bad—it simply means they have reached your limits. What matters is how do your limits compare to others'.
Certainly, this was not the last important interview of your life/career.
Do not regret the failure; embrace it and learn from it. Next time, you shall be ready for this situation (which caught you by surprise this time and got you off balance).
Also, there is no reason you should feel like wasting the time of the professors on the committee. They agreed to be on the grant committee and interview the candidates to pick the best; interviewing you was a necessary part of the process.
Finally, regarding your next step: I would recommend against contacting the committee members. Do not further emphasize this episode. As was said in other answers, they probably forgot by now, and the only potential effect the email might have is to remember you as "the guy who failed". If you get to meet them in the future under different circumstances, you can talk about it perhaps in an informal setting and maybe even have a laugh together over the whole story.

There is really no need to do anything in this situation - interview panels are aware that people sometimes stuff up their interviews, get nervous, fail to explain things correctly, etc.  Experienced research-leaders like the ones you are describing have probably conducted a number of interviews, both with applicants for academic positions, and post-graduate candidates, and grant-candidates, etc., and it is likely that they've "seen it all".  It is also quite possible that they would test you by telling you that what you said made no sense, when in fact it did make sense, just to see how you would react to this (which is a well-known interview technique.)
The fact that you were selected for an interview means that you have the academic background to be considered for this kind of grant.  If you made a mess of the interview, they will not conclude that you are incompetent and write you off for all time, especially since you are still only a grad-student.  (Don't over-estimate the level of understanding that experienced professors expect of a student.  To an experienced professor, all grad-students seem like imposters who are winging it!)
Now, if you really feel you need to apologise, you should feel free to email the panel.  In this case it would be best just to write a short email thanking them for the opportunity to interview, and noting that you feel that you did not do a good job of answering their questions, and you're sorry if you wasted their valuable time.  There is no need to go overboard; don't bemoan your answers; just say that you feel you didn't do a good job explaining yourself.  And whatever you do, don't attempt to re-explain or elaborate on the answers you were making at the interview - have mercy!  If they didn't enjoy hearing you speak about these at the time, they definitely will not enjoy plowing through a second explanation!

I've had this happen to me in job interviews. They will staunchly claim that I'm remembering some obscure (or maybe not so obscure) thing backwards. They want to see how you handle it when you think (or know) you're right and their not. Don't sweat it.

Post the interview, I felt extremely guilty not for torpedoing my interview, but because I felt that I had wasted the time of such esteemed academicians.

One: these esteemed academicians (who look like some sorts of demi-gods) were there to interview you. These esteemed academicians apparently do not know how to interview very much.
Two: use it as as a learning opportunity. You will have a lot of interviews and some of them will be painful. I once had an esteemed academician who covered his face with his hands after one of my answers. I concede that my answer was not the most brilliant but I asked him to stop the drama after 15 minutes of holding his face and making weird noises because it was disturbing. He was clearly offended. I got the job.
To answer your question: it is not likely that anything you could do would change the mind of your esteemed academicians. Since they have a first-grader level experience in hiring, they will not have any second thoughts after receiving your letter.
Just let go, learn (not to be disrupted by some comments, among others), and go on. Good luck finding a position!

Adding to the previous very good comments:
People tend to forget. As long as you are not very well known in your community at present, it is very likely that non of the committee members will remember this situation in a year or so. So don't worry about long term impacts.
Professors know that people can be very nervous in interviews and underperform.
If you really meet one of them again, you could talk to them in an informal setting (like a dinner reception at a conference or else) and tell them how you felt.

Don't worry about it too much.  I read an essay online from an academic who had vomited on the department chair during an interview.  Your interview was much better than hers.
She got the job.
You might ask yourself if these are people you want to work with, per @Thomas King's comment.

Do you have a link to the essay - it sounds like a hoot!

As someone who's been on the other side (the committee), taking at face value what you wrote, it sounds like you had a mediocre, not horrid, interview. One which you didn't perform very well at, and someone on the committee behaved like an ass.
I don't know if academia would be better or worse off if such an occurrence were rare enough to be memorable for members of the committee. But it very likely isn't. They've each collectively and individually interviewed dozens of junior people whose ideas seemed naive or uninteresting (whether the problem is the ideas or the interviewers' lack of imagination combined with narcissism is always a question...); who were less than compelling speakers; or bumbled questions. Whoever behaved like an ass to you probably behaved that way all day, maybe their entire career, and more humane members of the committee are probably heartily sick of his (it's always a he, somehow...) behaviour.
Bottom line is what feels like a big deal to you has likely already faded in the mists of time for them. The bar for making a bad impression is high, just like the bar for making a good impression. You likely merely didn't meet either one.
As others have answered, I'd learn from it as best you can, but I would not pick at the scab by taking any action in response to the interview itself. To the extent things did go badly rather than just not-good, the last thing you want to do is cement that in peoples' memories. Or force the kinder members of the panel to wrack their brains weeks after the fact to try to recall enough of the details in order to write a nice response note to someone junior who has since written to them, clearly distressed.
You can, if you wish, think about some of the discussion points and if you can turn them into something interesting/exciting (best to confirm this with a 3rd party....), reach out to specific individuals on the committee that you would like to have a positive relationship with and focus on the exciting/refined/improved ideas. Something along the lines of

Dear X. You interviewed me 3 months ago for the John Q. Moneybags Ceremonial Monopoly Money Grant. We had a bit of an inconclusive discussion about y and z. I've followed up on this, of course, and think there's something quite interesting here, namely a and b. Thought you might be interested (regardless of the grant, of course). Let me know if you'd like me to send you more information.

However, I'd do this only after checking with someone that a and b are in fact good, not just "dang, I wish I had said that..." slightly-better answers. And that X is in fact an individual good for you to build relationships with, and likely to respond positively to such outreach.
Good luck!


text:
Have technical reports been subsumed by preprints?
As someone who has recently gotten into the research world, I read a lot of preprints and occasionally dig up some technical reports to access older publications.
To me, it seems like technical reports were the paper version of preprints. Many technical reports appeared later as peer-reviewed articles or chapters of books. Nowadays, there are far fewer technical reports appearing. My department used to produce multiple dozens each year in the 70s and 80s, but they have only produced one so far this year.
Does this mean that preprints have taken the place of technical reports? Is there any reason why a researcher would choose to publish a technical report with their university or organization?

Welcome! Your second question is possibly a duplicate of When and why a scientific technical report is written?, but I haven't seen the other one before.

I wish they were! Many people still submit them to some questionable journal, such as the "Lecture Notes" series. They may be dressed as something other than a technical report for citability reasons, though.

While preprint archives certainly remove one of the major reasons that I used to submit technical reports, sometimes I find there's just no other appropriate title for a work.
To me, the whole notion of a preprint assumes intention to eventually publish in a journal, using a journal-style format and style of argumentation. There are a number of things that I write, however, that are worth archiving in citable form that just are not that.
In my own work, for example, I often end up producing formal project reports for funding agencies.  These may incorporate material from papers or that will later be extracted for papers, but the report itself can be a valuable document, especially for talking about implementation details or negative results.
Likewise, highly technical documents such as specifications, architecture documents, standards, best practices recommendations, etc., can be extremely valuable, but are often not appropriate to publish as journal articles.  One often also writes journal articles about such things, but there is a big difference between an article explaining the core concepts and value in a standard versus the full grinding detail of its complete specification.
I'm sure there are other examples as well, but the bottom line is this: "technical report" remains a nice catch-all name for any archival technical artifact that's a written document but not a journal article.


text:
sharing preprint using the journal's template?
Publishers such as Elsevier and SAGE provide LaTeX templates for manuscripts to be submitted to their journals. Can one post that version of the paper in our websites if the paper has been accepted to such journals? I am referring to a manuscript that only I have modified and has not been modified by the journal.

Do you mean pure style files such as elsarticle.cls, or some of the slightly fuller packages included for camera ready journals with logos etc?

@origimbo Thanks for your comment. I mean style files such as elsarticle.cls, or those in SAGE that also include a pdf of the logo, but nothing beyond that.

If a journal allows authors to post their pre-prints, the general rule—although it is by no means absolute—is that you may use the manuscript in the form in which it was submitted to the journal, but you cannot use the version created by the journal's production staff.
However, you should consult the specific policies of the journal to see exactly what is or is not allowed, as not all journals allow preprints.

Regarding the general question of preprints for submitted and accepted papers, I direct you to aeismail's answer. Regarding the minutiae of journal style class files, all the ones I am used to include the basic details of the licence they are supplied under in the text of the .cls file itself. In particular Elevier's elsarticle.cls appears to be issued under the terms of the LaTeX Project Public License, and which is fairly clear that there isn't any great land grab being made in terms of the final product.
This doesn't apply to names or images, both of which might cause copyright issues, unless the journal's instructions clearly state otherwise.


text:
updating paper after conference/workshop
is it possible to update (minor edits) a paper after a conference/workshop before proceedings?
If that's not possible, why is that?, I'm just trying to understand the rationale, not critiquing.   Aren't workshops/conference mechanisms to get feedback?
The paper acceptance has already provided a peer review mechanism; but isn't the conference just another mechanism?  questions arising here, might provide means to clarify some concepts to a wider audience?  is this to avoid a loop of revision, and instead use the mechanism of a new paper?

It depends on the conference or workshop, of course. In my field (Computer Science), it is uncommon but not unheard-of for workshops to have what is called "post-proceedings". That is, authors submit an initial version of their manuscript, present at the workshop, and then have a chance to revise for the actual published paper. In this case it is possible, maybe expected, that you actually improve your paper based on the comments you received (although usually no additional review happens at this point).
However, most venues don't have that. The more usual case is that you submit a paper and the proceedings are already published when the conference starts. In this case, you obviously have no chance to revise your paper, because by the time the conference happens the paper is already available on archival sources. The advantage, of course, is that the paper is available for people to read during, or even before, the conference.

Aren't workshops/conference mechanisms to get feedback?

For conferences in CS, this is most certainly not what conferences are for. In this field, conferences are a means to communicate the result of finished studies, not to get input on how to do them. Sure, you can get ideas for future work, but it will pretty much by definition be too late to change what you have already done. For workshops, things are a bit muddier, but in practice authors usually use the feedback they receive at workshops to improve the larger study that they are usually working on (which will be submitted to a conference or journal), not so much to improve the workshop paper itself.

Materials science/device physics field - your submitted abstract is published (or available on-line nowadays), your paper is reviewed at/after the conference and published some time later. Never had one where the papers were published in time for the conference.

@JonCuster My impression from the question is that OP is not in a field where you typically submit abstracts only to conferences, but I may be wrong.

Yeah, wasn't clear to me either. Mainly pointing out that other fields may not be as different as suggested in 'most venues don't have that'...

@xLeitix Your answer is very insightful, however I stated in my question that I referred to minor edits; basically editing for better clarity, not to introduce or improve concepts.  I assumed that the conceptual/idea should have been validated through the peer review mechanism for accepting the paper.

@JonCuster As I sidenote my field is CS though it's great to understand  what goes in other fields.

Your questions are legit - of course in an ideal world you would be able to make your publication the best possible for when it reaches your readers. Notice the word 'ideal' though.
So first off, this is heavily dependent on the field where you're publishing, as well as the particular venue. In computer science (where i can comment first-hand), there are some workshops that even count on you amending the paper to incorporate feedback from on-site discussions.
Most of the time though, this is not allowed for processing reasons. The publishing schedules tend to be really tight (for instance because the field as such moves forward rather quickly). This means that if there are delays or inconsistencies at any stage, the whole 'pipeline' might fail.
Another reason can be tradition: it's quite common that every conference participant gets (or has the chance to buy) printed proceedings at the event time. Obviously then the papers have to be finalized. In the age of progressive electronic publishing, this will probably become obsolete at some point.
Still, it is possible to amend factual errors or other significant issues at least for the electronic version. For this you have to contact a responsible person (again depends - paper chairs, publisher, etc.) and negotiate.

I'm getting my first paper out and those details are really useful.


text:
About omics journals
Help me please. Omics group want fee to withdraw my accepted article. If I dont pay any fee, will they blockade my accepted article.I am waiting your response immediately.

Omics is a disreputable publisher.  Your best option is to ignore them.  Never give them money.

I never gave them money but I wonder if they blockade my accepted article.please help me

Ignore them.  They have no power.  They want to trick you into giving them money.

If I send my article which has been accepted in omics group to another journal, is it possibile.


text:
Should I mention my university name when publishing a paper if I'm tenured teacher but not researcher?
I'm teacher in a French university (I don't know if the right english term is 'tenured', I mean I'm hired permanently in this university, not temporarily), but I don't have any research role and I'm not connected to any research lab.
Still, I continue to do research during my free time (mostly continuing what I did during my PhD, not connected to the local labs research fields), and I would like to submit a paper to a journal.
Question: as I'm not hired by my university to do research, but only teaching, can I submit a paper like this:

On the cohomology of finite infinite categories
  John Doe
University of Cityname
  283, rue de Paris - 12345 CITY
  john.doe@univ-city.fr

or should I submit it this way, without any university name:

On the cohomology of finite infinite categories
  John Doe
  john.doe@gmail.com

What could be the potential problems if I use my university name / edu-email address, whereas I'm not hired as researcher?

Please edit in your job title in French in parentheses.  2) Please let us know what your field of research is.  3) Please be aware that 'lab' has a broader meaning in French than in English - only experimental natural scientists work in 'labs'; everyone else may or may not belong to a 'research group'.

I disagree with Alexander, I've seen other types of scientists refer to their groups informally as labs. Dunno about math tho (is this math? I have no idea what those words mean)

Have you checked your contract (or other such conditions) to see what restrictions they place on intellectual property that you produce?

The title says "Should I" and the question says "Can I". Things can get confusing when the title and question ask different things.

I'd be more worried / curious about the reverse question. Namely, "should my affiliation be listed as the current university where I just happen to work, or my university at the time of the PhD, which is when / where this research was actually conducted" (even if the ensuing write-up happens to have taken place after work during a time where at work you spend your time at a desk in a different university). Also, does your PhD supervisor feature in the paper in any way?

@TasosPapastylianou the situation of research done while at one institution and submitted while at another is not too unusual, and journals will probably have a policy on this. (The last time it was relevant to me, the journal wanted the affiliation where the research was done.)

FYI “tenured professor” is the English version of “professeur agrégé”. Getting tenure, c’est obtenir l’agrégation, which usually implies a permanent position with academic freedom.  You can be tenured even if your position is not “research stream” so I think “tenure” is appropriate.

@AlexanderWoo In the French system research groups are referred to as “labs”.  For instance Laboratoire Kastler Brossel (in Sorbonne), or Laboratoire Astroparticule et Cosmology (in Paris VII).

The fact that this research isn't part of your job shouldn't prevent you from giving your employer as your affiliation. A paper by David Pincus about certain weak forms of the axiom of choice in set theory (J. Symbolic Logic 67 (1997) 438-456) lists his affiliations as "Department of Anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Cambridge City Hospital". I can assure you that none of these anesthesiology departments paid David to prove theorems in set theory; he did this work in his free time.

I believe this answer to be wrong. First of all: while you can publish your employer's name it doesn't mean you have to. Secondly: just because some people do it doesn't mean you should do it. Who knows why David Pincus did that anyway? And finally: why should anyone take (some) credit for work that he had nothing to do with? Should I name McDonald's as the affiliation if I happen to work there at the moment?

“none of these anesthesiology departments paid David to prove theorems in set theory“ — I’m not so sure. Of course things were different then but even in the last century research already started being interdisciplinary. For instance, many computer science results at the time were derived by biologists, some of which were working in hospitals. And even as researchers their affiliations looked as in your example. The original Needleman–Wunsch paper for instances has an affiliation of “Nuclear Medicine Service, Nuclear Medicine Service, V. A. Research Hospital Chicago”.

And, more to the point: if I do research in my spare time I don’t list my employer as an affiliation. If I do it at work (even if it doesn’t directly affect my work) I’d list it.

@KonradRudolph I don't see the point of your example. Needleman-Wunsch appears to be a DNA/protein sequence alignment algorithm, which seems pretty relevant to medicine to me. The axiom of choice is about as relevant to anaesthesiology as mediaeval literature.

@freakish You claim this answer is wrong but it doesn't actually say any of the things you suggest that it does. It doesn't say that you have to give your employer as your affiliation. It doesn't say that you should. If you want to say that the answer should make recommendations, then fine, but that doesn't make it "wrong".

@DavidRicherby I'm not sure how you interpret the answer in a different way? But lets say that the story of David Pincus is not a suggestion that you should give your employer as your affiliation. Then what does it say? And how does it address OPs question to begin with?

@freakish The question asks if one can quote one's employer as an affiliation when the research isn't actually related to one's employment. The answer gives an example of this being done, which shows that, yes, you can do it. What's the problem?

@DavidRicherby Well this might be a misinterpretation on my side but the title says "should I" not "can I". Besides the "can I" question is pretty obvious, no? You can do anything you want. In worst case it won't be accepted or you'll get sued (but the OP doesn't address potential consequences at all). I can agree that it isn't clear what really is asked here.

@DavidRicherby The point of the example is that the connection isn’t always apparent to an outside observer. Many people in computer science are surprised to find out that the subsequence match problem (which they solved) is relevant in nuclear medicine.

I'm going to propose a different answer to everyone else: ask your university.  I presume you teach in the same area as your research?  If so, just ask a friendly senior researcher if it's OK to include the affiliation.
Certainly in the UK and in America, they would be delighted to have you declare your affiliation (because it increases their "published papers" count, and may increase their "citations" count too).  However, French Universities may have a different set of incentives, and may prefer you not to declare an affiliation.

Yes, I think the only potential problem you may have by indicating your university affiliation is if they did not want you to do it for mysterious reason. It's probably better to ask them to be safe.

@NajibIdrissi They might not know the rules, but they will know what incentives apply to the University, and whether there is any chance of their being rules, and who to ask.

I am French and published a couple of papers referring to my engineering school research group, even though I wasn't affiliated to them at the time. They were delighted to have "free ad" as well. I wouldn't be surprised however that they'd like to read your paper before, so they can check if what you wrote is related and not "untrue" to their eyes.

As I see it, it depends on several factors:

Is the university willing to be your affiliate for this publication? (Almost always Yes)
Do you want to emphasize the fact that this is independent research on the side (and perhaps the fact that the university is not paying you to do it, which maybe it should...)? Or - do you want to be more strongly associated with the university by listing them as the affiliate?
Has the university supported your researcher other than by employment, e.g. have you made use of its facilities, discussed your work with faculty etc.? (Note that if it has, but only to a minor extent, you can mention this in an acknowledgement rather than via an affiliation.)
Has the university in any way sanctioned, initiated or triggered this research?

Weigh these different factors together to reach a decision.

You should give your affiliation, that's basically it.
Usually, only universities, research institutions, and research labs are given as affiliation and people not affiliated with any of these just give no affiliation and a private email. So, if you are not affiliated with your alma mater any more, you not pretend you are. I do not see any problem with using your university email, though (if you still use is as alumnus).

Whether it's an affiliation or not is not very clear in my case. I am paid by the university in which I'm teacher, my univ office is where I sometimes spend time writing articles. I sometimes use the univ library to find research books, references, etc. The thing is just: I'm not researcher, I'm only teacher in my current university. PS: I didn't understand the part about alma mater / alumnus: I'm not speaking about the previous univ where I did PhD, I'm speaking about my current university where I'm teacher.

So the case is clear: You are affiliated with your university and can use it on your paper. (Your university may even appreciate it, as it will count towards the overall research output.) Is doesn't make a difference  whether you are paid for research or teaching.

It depends. I once assumed that of course I should give my affiliation, until my employer complained and told me to give my name without an affiliation. After that I asked.
Given that you work at a university, I would expect the department to be unhappy if you didn't give your affiliation, unless they told you not to; However, the safest course of action is to ask your department head.

Just to add to previous answer, here is a possible incentive for you to state your affiliation to your university: it may be easier to get your paper published if you have a connection to a university.
This is certainly not a good thing, but I think that most editors and/or referees will tend to be more suspicious of a paper submitted by someone who does not have a research position. Giving your affiliation might alleviate such doubts.
On the other hand, I do not see any possible benefit for you to not cite your university.
That being said, it is probably best to ask confirmation/authorization from the lab director. From the information you gave, my guess is that you are a PRAG; you may want to ask them if you could get the status of "chercheur associé". This shouldn't change anything in practice (you don't get paid) but it gives a formal status to the situation.

I don't know about France specifically, but since you work at the university it seems to be it would be appropriate to mention it, maybe even preferred.


text:
Do I need to explain my reasoning when choosing between two offers
I have been lucky enough to have been offered different professor positions in different universities. Both departments have made a lot of efforts to try and convince me to choose theirs (who gets offered what job is public here).
It was not easy, but I have finally chosen one. Should I try to explain why to the people from the other department, the one I am not going to? This is not obvious, because while there are arguments I could make, my decision relies in large part on extra-academic concerns, and some gut feeling. However, such an explanation may be expected, and I do not want to burn any bridges.

Where is this (e.g. what country)? In my experience no explanation is needed, but my culture may be different from yours; for instance, job offers are not public here.

@NateEldredge I would rather not say. My situation is specific enough that it could be enough to personally identify me.

No.  You do not need to explain your decision.
Assuming it's actually true, it would be appropriate to tell the department you're turning down that their offer was attractive, and that it was a difficult decision, and that the choice came down to non-academic factors that were out of their control.  But even this is more than you need to tell them.

I think even disclosing this much could be risky. Depends what was discussed at the interview. At least in the US committees probe as much as they can about outside factors (and of course you tell them what they want to hear) because they hate to make an offer that won't get accepted and miss out on their next choice. They might feel the candidate promised them that according to all extra-academic concerns they would be a favorite choice.

They might feel the candidate promised them... — Being rejected is never easy.  There is no way to prevent the person/institution you are rejecting from being hurt, or feeling used, or using the rejection as an excuse to burn bridges. I'm suggesting an honest response that allows the search committee an opportunity to save face. It's their own fault If they don't take it.

You don't need to tell them, but it is a nice thing to do: Since your decision came down to non-academic considerations, it would be a nice gesture to thank them for the offer and explain that you preferred the other university for reasons that are not within their control.  Just as job applicants like to get useful feedback on an unsuccessful application, and a guy who gets turned down for a date wants to know why (is it something wrong with me?!), employers generally benefit from knowing why they were unable to recruit the candidate they wanted.  I would leave out the bit about the 'gut feeling', but it is worth mentioning the other factors that led to your decision.


text:
Is it unethical to access journal articles from Torrent websites?
Getting access to journal articles can be quite expensive, in particular for those not affiliated with some University (even then, it's still expensive, it's just the uni paying the cost...).
A question asked on this site Why are most scientific articles locked behind a paywall?
ponders why this is so. The answer is not convincing at all, it essentially says "that's just the way it is, pay up".
Well, if that is the way it is gonna by, then I am just going to torrent-download the articles. How could this possibly be unethical, if you guys yourselves, for no good reason and for the detriment of scientific inquiry, help support the monopoly that these journals have?

This question is a bit ranty in its current form. If there is something new to ask compared to the previous questions, it should be reformulated a bit,

Similar questions would be: using pirated software in your research, or getting electric power by tapping into the electric lines but not paying for it, also to support your research.  Perhaps we have to draw the line somewhere.

Ethics is (by definition) personal or at least culture-dependent.
Personally, I think it is unethical to have publicly funded research results behind a paywall. That would make the answer to your question: No, it is not unethical to use websites like sci-hub. But that's just me and others may disagree.

To play devil's advocate here, what's behind that paywall is a product based on both publicly-funded research results and privately-funded editing, indexing, etc. efforts. If someone worked with a researcher to build a new kind of computer or phone or something, we wouldn't expect them to give it away for free. Nor would we expect an instructor to teach a course based on others' research for free. But certainly I agree the current system for publications is a dumb anachronism that should be discarded in favor of something either free or at least far cheaper.

@ASimpleAlgorithm The privately-funded contribution is so small compared to the amount of money the publishers are asking for/receiving that I'd feel comfortable rejecting your devil's argument.

@Arno I don't know that $25 or whatever is really so beyond the pale.


text:
Does every single table in a thesis need to be numbered?
In my thesis I'm analyzing the results of a linguistic survey in which a large number of words are discussed. I provide a small table with details of the statistical analysis for each word. All the tables look the same and there are as many as four of them on each page in one of the chapters. Should I also number each table and put all of them in the index of tables at the end of my thesis?

You could group related tables together as subtables under a single table number. Such as here

Probably. Have you read your school's dissertation formatting requirements? In my experience they have all kinds of details like this spelled out.

Probably.  Never underestimate the confusion that a reader may have particularly when there are lots of tables that aren't somehow annotated and discussed in text with clear way to find the table being referenced. Grouping tables that belong together, as mentioned by @mg4w,  also might be extremely helpful for reader.

If the tables are not referenced in the thesis text, why are they in the body of the thesis?
I'd put them all into an appendix, number them, and provide an appropriate, terse label.  If there are specific ones that are referenced many times in the body of the thesis, you should include these in the body. Duplicate the in-body tables in the appendix.
If all the tables are in an appendix, there is no need for an index of tables, but it would depend on the norms for your subject area.


text:
Should I quit if I'm having problems with the Marie Curie industry partner?
Unfortunately I am having a really hard time with the industry partners that have made me think I should quit. First of all, they are aggressive every time I come up with a research idea, and they shut it down in an aggressive way. I have been having some issues to be there to the secondments (bureaucracy not from my side). It is now on their side how to solve the bureaucracy. They have been trying to convince me the secondments are not important, and I can work for them from abroad. They are not being transparent or providing information about what they are doing to have me in place and finally one of them just got out of control and insane and scream at me in a meeting in front of everyone. Frankly I don't want to work with these people again.
What should I do in case of having troubles with the industry partner? What are the risks for the project, if I quit?

Did you quit? I am curious to know if there are any consequences besides "having quit an MCF" reputation.

I would not quit a MCS fellowship. Either you solve the problem with the industry partner, maybe by collaborating with another person or unit (if possible), or try to minimize as much as possible their importance in your project. Usually secondments are a nice addition but a MCS project should stand on its own even without the secondment.
You could also try to reach out to someone in the Horizon2020 and see if they have a person that can help with this kind of problem. In the meantime I would also gather some proofs that you can use to build your case. In the worst case you will have to justify to H2020/EU why the secondment was not useful/successful.
PS: how to improve the working relationship with industry partner seems more a question for another Stack.

As a reviewer for MSC I would also suggest not quitting the fellowship, but contacting your H2020 coordinator. There seem to be an infinite number of people in Brussels and there is always someone who is designated to deal with various types of issues. This will not be the first time that something like this has happened. When you resolve the issue, you will have learned some great leadership skills. Keep going!


text:
Minor editorial error during minor revision. Should I notify the editor or just correct it?
I recently submitted a manuscript to a prestigious journal in my field. The manuscript is now under "minor revision" status and the reviewer only asked me to provide percentages in one of the table. The comments are positive and I think the overall chance of acceptance is quite high.
The thing is, as I go through my manuscript, I found one minor editorial error, that is, the supplemental materials are marked incorrectly (the supplemental material 1 appeared after supplemental material 2, not in the order of appearance. But the supplemental materials are correct, not missing or mismatched). It seems that the editors and reviewers are not aware of tis mistake.
So my question is, what should I do? There seems to be three options:

Correct this editorial error before resubmission and notify the editor in the cover letter. The decision letter has stated

Do not make additional change unless absolutely necessary.

Correct this error anyway without notifying the editorial office since the error is quite trivial.
Don't correct this error now and wait till the copyediting process.

What would you guys suggest me do?
I don't want to leave bad impression on the editors and reviewers and jeopardize the chances of acceptance of my article.

For a small error that doesn't change anything else, I would suggest amend it, but - essentially - make sure you make the change clear to the editor. Errors in papers are frustrating, so are corrections. - Just don't try to sneak in corrections without declaring them.

thank you for the reply! I will mention it in the cover letter.

Take option #1, correct it now and notify the editor. The decision letter did say "do not make additional changes", but that is almost certainly referring to changes that will need to be peer reviewed. This kind of minor change that no reasonable person will disagree with is not a problem.
If you're still worried, you can also do #3.

Thank you so much for the reply. I guess I'll sleep it over and probably take option #1. Just wondering if making this kind of correction would leave bad impression on the editors and reviewers. But again, I guess honesty is the best policy. I certainly will have someone proofread it before resubmission!!!

@drwhc you might be interested in this other question: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109460/can-i-correct-a-mistake-that-the-reviewers-didnt-spot-in-a-paper-that-has-not-b

The problem with #3 is that during copyediting usually the same rule "Do not make additional change unless absolutely necessary." applies

Forgive me for being condescending - You seem to be experiencing symptoms of anxiety.
What you need to do is:

Take some slow, deep breaths.
Go some place with a wide vista, like a hill or something, and soak in the feeling of being on top of things.
Relax! Life is good - your paper was accepted.
Go with option #1 of course, and don't sweat it.
Did I mention taking deep breaths? Do that as much as possible.


text:
Leaving a postdoc after 3 months (for another)
I accepted a postdoc position after a short interview by Skype and I haven't had the chance to get to know the people and the city. Anyway, my PI helped me to get my visa (EU - researcher) issued and, currently, I'm already working on the project with some good preliminary results.
BUT
I hate the city, I'm sure it can never be a home. Also, and I'm having some serious problems with another postdoc, which I need to work with because our projects are connected (he's sexist; gave me a wrong protocol to follow and I have lost time and samples; he doesn't leave me alone to work, slows my progress and is always criticizing my project and my experimental approach in not a good way).
I know it will cost me my health if I stay the agreed time (1 year, at least) and I have already landed some other postdoc interviews to work on better places (better places, with nicer people) and I believe I have good chances to get the job.
But, with the visa issued and being my current PI a really good researcher and person, I'm afraid it will look pretty bad on my CV and I don't know how to explain it if someone on the interview asks about it.

I don't have a contract, I never signed anything for the fellowship, it's a normal procedure to have just a spoken agreement; Also I haven't received the payment yet because I still don't have a bank account because of the bureaucracy.

Since I really wish to stay in academia for quite some time what I should do? Tell that I cannot stay till the end of the agreement? Tell about the other possibilities? I'm lost here, the truth is that I never taught it could happend.

RUN, dont stop. you are in UK no?

Not in UK hahahah... I had problems with the dates on my visa and the date I entered the country, it led to other problems with bureaucracy that culminated on me working for free.

If it is just three months, do you really need to mention that in your CV? I'd just skip it. A three-month gap in a CV is fine in my opinion.

Yeah I do belive I can skip this on my CV, just afraid that it may reach others peoples ears and I would never get another chance.

Can you tell us which country is it?

If you believe you can handle the bureaucracy quickly, so as to get paid, do that. Depending on the local culture (Europe is not very homogenous), this might involve calling people and going past the official channels, or just doing everything you are required to do and waiting.
After having secured the payment, or immediately if you think it would take too much time to get the payment, talk to your supervisor about the situation. Your goal is to exit the situation so that your current PI understands and accepts it, so that they will be available for recommending you later. If this turns out to be too difficult, then your goal is to exit with as little damage to your reputation as possible.

If you judge your PI to be a reasonable person, just tell them that you are having difficulties with another postdoc, and try to give a fair and reasonable explanation. Also tell that you do not feel at home in the city. If they are a good person, they will understand, you can try to find the best possible solution in an unfortunate situation. The group dynamics in their research group are their problem and they can do something about it. The nature of the city cannot be helped.

If you have not tried talking to the other postdoc, you might also try that, if you have the courage. Something like "Thank you for helping, but I can do this by myself; could you, for example, do [other part of the project] so we would get results faster?". Or simply telling them that their behaviour is bothering you; check, for example, "nonviolent communication" with your favourite search engine, or maybe parenting books, for relevant advice. Tell factually what happens and how it makes you feel, and ask for concrete actions or how the other person thinks the interaction could be improved. Do not blame. Stick to facts, as much as possible. Do not attribute intention, attitude or sexism to the other party, as this will not help your cause, even if it is true.

1- being payed is the best option. But I thought that starting the fellowship would just get me more involved on the project and with the country and therefore a friendly goodbyewould be just a dream.

2- I don't know how to address this with the PI, because as far as she knows everything is good, results are coming and I'm well integrated in the lab. Also, I tried talking with the other postdoc very carefully but also straight forward. I thought it went very well until that his next step was the protocol thing. After that I just started avoiding him.

3- my biggest concern right now is how to tell my PI that I won't stay and if I should mention the other opportunities. In any case, I don't think it will help to say that the city is not what I was expecting and that the work is making me miserable.

@molecular91 if I am your postdoc, I would understand! this are normal resons. nothing to worry about

@molecular91 If you judge your PI to be a reasonable person, just tell them that you are having difficulties with another postdoc, and try to give a fair and reasonable explanation. Also tell that you do not feel at home in the city. If they are a good person, they will understand, you can try to find the best possible solution in an unfortunate situation. The group dynamics in their research group are their problem and they can do something about it. The nature of the city cannot be helped.

I am sorry to hear about your situation, this sounds like a serious issue. Despite that, I think you should consider trying to fix the situation in your current post and complete it before moving on to another place.
Leaving the post prematurely may backfire you the following ways:

Professional issues.  Academia is really a small place, with dense competition for limited resources. When a postdoc leaves funded post prematurely, a PI often do not have time to re-advertise for another post, which leaves them with a stash of money they can't spend and a pack of work they can't complete. Even if this is not the case in your current situation, a 3-month job on a CV will be definitely perceived like a possible issue in your future job searches.
Visa issues. Entering a country for a purpose of work and then not taking on the contract will probably raise some eyebrows in the immigration department. It also may be a violation of the visa conditions, depending on the country you are in (IANAL). Violation of visa rules of one EU country may result in delays/refusals of work visas in other EU countries.

If you decide to complete your current post, please read @Tommi Brander's excellent suggestions. You may also need a mentor and a council to support you in your current situation.
Good luck.

Well, the thing about the fellowship is that there is no contract... so it will be hard to determine if it is a visa problem. But I already talked to the immigration office and it appears I just have to state why i'm leaving or just wait it to be automatic canceled after some months.

All fellowship programs I know of always sign a contract (or two). Normally a fellow has exactly the same work conditions as any other employee.


text:
Scholarships and SOP
Should I mention that my work is providing me with a full scholarship to study my masters in my Statment of purpose?

It's probably worthwhile to mention it:
Pros:

If you work in a related field, this could be used to demonstrate
that you are a good candidate since someone is prepared to pay for you
because they think you are a good catch.
It is also more generally not bad to show that you are a competitive
applicant who has attracted awards for past performance.
Finally, it suggests that you are serious about pursuing your Masters (have secured your own funding or at least will not be deterred by financial issues). That could also be helpful to the admissions people if they are concerned with acceptance rates into the program.

Cons:

If the program has its own scholarship/funding you might take yourself out of the running for that and be committed to returning to work for your company after you graduate because you have used their scholarship.


text:
Including positive and negative evaluation comments during job search
This may sound like a "humble brag," but I assure you that I am asking this as a legitimate question for the sole purpose of increasing my chances of getting a job -- not internet bragging points. I am also very well-aware of the fact that evaluations are not a direct measure of how good a professor is; I am thankful for my good fortunes and know better instructors with worse evaluations than me.
I am currently applying for jobs and along the way I compiled a word document with all of my teaching evaluation comments, good and bad. Upon completion, I noticed there were far more good than bad (and the bad do not paint me as the worst) and it dawned on me that if I just cherry pick the good ones, the hiring committee might just blend me in with everyone else trying to sell themselves. After all, most people can cherry pick their way to looking good and it's typically not that hard to find a few wonderful comments.
But I wonder if I submitting a few pages with all of them (color coded by good and bad) would actually make me look better, showing that I am out in the open and didn't just cherry pick. Doesn't it look good that I don't have tons of disgruntled students?  I have read job searching guides that say to only paint yourself in the best possible light. But what if the transparent picture looks good and is actually a selling point? I imagine hiring committees sifting through hundreds of applications, desperately looking for real information from the evaluation comments.
Is this line of thinking risky? Should I just make a collection of only best positives and do what most people do?
Thank you.

"I have read job searching guides that say to only paint yourself in the best possible light." Follow that advice. They have reasons and experience.

To me a drawback to this is how do the people looking at this KNOW FOR SURE that you're including ALL of them? In particular, how would they know that you're not just including a few not so good evaluations just to make it seem like you're honest in saying that you're including all of them? For all they know, your bad evaluations far outweigh your good evaluations, and you're just sprinkling in a few bad ones to make it appear legitimate.

@DaveLRenfro This is a good point. I actually found that some of the comments I had to remove because they were silly, inapproriate, or otherwise unproductive (good or bad). It's not a giant leap to wonder about my threshold.

If teaching is an important part of the job, especially if it is the main point, then providing all of your evaluations is probably a positive thing to do. However, you might consider not including them initially, but including a line in your materials that they are all available on request. I wouldn't do anything more than highlight a few of the ones you are proudest of in your complete listing.
Pretty much everyone gets mixed reviews. Some of the negative ones are valid, and some are not. Most of the positive one, are valid, generally speaking. I think that is well recognized.
Including a few positive one, and even one or two mixed ones in the initial materials might be fine, but probably not the whole load. "Available on request" is a good compromise, I think. You might have to explain one or two of the exceptionally bad ones in an interview, but don't be defensive about it. Some students just clash with some professors.

Actually, it occurs to me that the indifferent reviews might be more harmful than the negative ones.


text:
Submitting to Journal: General prestige Versus Localized Focus
I am a Ph.D. student in applied math (graduating) with the following difficulty. I have recently completed a work by myself where I think it has decent potential impact. But the work is in a niche in applied math, and though interesting to anyone, much more likely to be meaningful to people in my field.
I am playing the game of deciding between general prestige and finding a niche. Say I pick a general, prestigious applied math journal X. Hiring committees might actually recognize the name and instantly light up.
However, a better fit (but less known) journal Y exists. In journal Y, the editorial board is loaded with people I recognize (who are well-cited). If I submit here, I am throwing myself in with the dogs in my field. If well-liked, there are many upsides: the possibility of conference invitations, networking, better chance of more citations, etc. If rejected, I gave a bad impression early on in my career to many big names. Note that journal Y is also open-access (a legit one).
On the other hand, journal X has less risk/reward within my field and more of a name for hiring committees. In your experience (especially considering my career stage), what would you pick between these two? For what it's worth, I think acceptance in Y is more likely than X. This could help me get a job, but would it hurt me for tenure later on?
In applied math, I see conflicting ideas. Some people want desperately for connections to applications to be made while others want profound generalizable claims with some regard for application. My work is right in the middle of this tug-of-war.
I realize anonymous people cannot decide my life for me, but I am wondering if the answer is obvious for some reasons I don't know yet. Based on the mentors (and my advisor) I have spoken to, they seem to think it's somewhat of a personal preference, as long as both journals are decent.

Since there is no guarantee that your paper will be accepted, my suggestion would be to submit to the more prestigious one first, imagining that it is harder to get accepted there. You can always submit to the other later if you are disappointed in the first.
Also, be aware that this is only your first (or early) work, and that you will have opportunity to publish again later, perhaps in the more arcane corners that fit your field best. But a wider reputation is probably best for a new academic.
But your advisor is correct. It is a bit of a personal choice and if you get it "wrong" it won't end your career.

Thank you for your answer; it seems to make sense. Does your answer change if I tell you I have had (much inferior) work rejected by the more prestigious journal X in the past?

@zugzug, no. If they even remember it will still be fine. They are more interested in the current work than the past. Good luck.


text:
How do ects grades compare to American grades?
How does the ECTS ABCD etc grades compare to the American ones?
Would I in particular be right in saying that the European B is worth more than the American B?

It is extremely difficult to compare grades - usually, all universities are having huge tables for conversion. If you are really talking about "worth", then it's even more difficult, because a "B" given by me could be worth more or less then a "B" given by the professor sitting next to me...

Related question: How to convert from one grading scheme to another? and many other questions linked to that one.

Just to be sure: You know that the purpose of ECTS is not to have comparable grades, but a comparable measurement how hard something was, how much effort and time something needed? ... And while I don't have a good overview over all European implementations, there are countries where ECTS exists on paper, but is completely useless even for comparing things inside the country.

@NajibIdrissi Sure, but nothing in ETCS says/suggests that an exam graded at my local equivalent of a C will get me a C in another country too - it's completely up to the university, professor, etc.etc. . And this never was the goal in the first place to have unified grading, which makes the original question moot (an european B isn't always better or always worse than an US one). The goal was to have a unified effort measurement (which doesn't really work in practice, sadly)


text:
Being a Dishonest Cheat. How do I live with this?
First things first. I am not a good person - I have never pretended to be. But I tried to make my parents (more importantly my dad) proud. Today I screwed up. I sat for an exam that I don't understand the work for, despite trying my best. I got desperate (this module is a prerequisite for everything next year), and I cheated. I had all the tutorials on my phone (I study using my phone, not my laptop, I didn't plan to cheat) and I tried to scrape together some answers. I was caught. Whatever happens I will not make credits this year (if I'm not expelled - which I deserve). I am so disgusted with myself. I have already taken full responsibility for my actions. No point in lying. I have struggled with engineering ever since I started (I've already taken 3 years to do 2 years worth of work). My question is, how do I handle myself going forward? What is the point of trying anymore?

You are in a bad situation, obviously. The advice I'd give is much like what I wrote previously: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/111717/75368. Also, having owned the problem, you are in a good place to move on without it affecting your future or self worth beyond the obvious penalties. Be the person you want to be.

Make sure you understand this and repeat it to yourself every day. "I do not live for my parents." If your parents are sensible and understanding they will be more proud of you living your life and becoming what you are instead of just blindly following what they think might be best for you just because it worked out for them. One day your parents won't be there any more. Who are you going to make proud then? Make yourself proud and follow your personal aspirations and follow them through and not only your parents will be proud of you but also your partner & kids one day.

Set aside what your parents want you to do for a moment. What do you want to do, and where do your aptitudes and passion lie?

What is your goal? Do you want to minimize damage, find another subject to study, decide whether or not to drop out, set boundaries against your parents...? If your asking about the first goal, this is a relevant, perhaps even duplicate question: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30539/i-was-caught-cheating-on-an-exam-how-can-i-minimize-the-damage

It seems that you already know what to do. You said it yourself, you've struggled with engineering since you started and you had to cheat on an exam that is a pre-req for your future courses. Classes aren't going to get easier and you would be wasting your time and money pursuing this degree. Is there a reason why you're still in engineering? Is there anything personal keeping you in this curriculum? Re-evaluate where you want your life to head.

Sound advice. You only live once. Make the most of it.

+1 and I'll add that if there's something you want to do that requires you to stay in engineering, then that's the point of continuing to try. If there's nothing - then quit and do something else you actually enjoy.

Struggling with something doesn't mean that it's pointless continuing to study. The degree is just a worthless piece of paper, but the experience and knowledge will set you for life.

I think that without a "worthless piece of paper" it will be nearly impossible to get a job in the engineering field. How is OP supposed to get an internship? How are they going to get relevant experience?

I would recommend that you take a real look at yourself and whether you want to be an engineer. This is the most important question you need to assess right now before going forward.
The first thing that your professors should have taught you about engineering is that there's a LOT of failure in it : This means, you fail all of the times you thought you understood something but didn't really get it, all of the times you thought you had a design that worked but didn't and all of the times that your designed was passed over for someone else's. What's more noticeable about engineering vs say the humanities , is that you have quantifiable ways to determine if you failed or not. In addition,  with an engineering mind you will always think of ways where your design or system will fail...so this experience with failure helps you anticipate the problems might experience in the real world.
So in your case, you just got hit with one of the many types of failures that plagues many people...cheating to get ahead. Remember that with knowledge, as in design, there are no shortcuts.  In addition, you honestly identified your method of studying that is really counterproductive for the majority of students.
Going forward, if you can accept that engineering is a difficult road because of these challenges but find it enjoyable enough that you aren't afraid of the possibility of failure then you are in the right field.  The lagging behind in schoolwork isn't what is that important. Right now, and assuming you are honest in your introduction, the fact that you have in fact completed 2 years of work is nothing to scoff at and you should feel good about that work.
So, if you can answer these motivational questions and you are still interested in the discipline of engineering, your solutions to your academic issues are solvable by first having an honest dialog with your adviser and the school's honor court and explain how this was a very real moment of weakness spawned by pressures to perform and feeling inadequate in your skill level. Next, explain both to yourself (and to the honor court) that you are going to put in hard work to figure out where your weaknesses are, and you will work with tutors , the school's writing center or any other resources given by your university (to help fill in gaps in students' knowledge) to help get you feeling on par with your peers and coursework. You might even want to look at seeing if your university has assistance with identifying learning disabilities. Remember
 that there's no shame in any of these things
Third, seek out more resources on how to be a good student and learn about the lower limit law of 10,000 hours for the amount of time it takes to master a subject. Lastly, have a "real" talk with your parents and explain that you are eager to make this change  but that your completion of the degree might take longer than you both had anticipated.
There's no shame in taking more time as everyone has completely different backgrounds when it comes to starting an engineering degree. The key aspect to being a good engineer is the same principle that helps you get the engineering degree : work hard at understanding the system and don't be afraid to tinker , play , fail and repeat until you finally succeed.

Nine years ago, I graduated with an undergrad degree in chemical engineering. I am of average intelligence, and to pass I studied my dick loose - 6 to 8 hours a day, easily 5 days a week.
Due to time being a limited resource, I didn't work through college, using student loans to pay my way. The loans racked up, along with their interest.
I graduated a month after the highest unemployment due to the recession. Although I spent months before graduating looking for a job, I didn't find one. And the thought of lenders hounding me for payment, or my parents having to make the payments with their meager income stressed me out.
I tried hard to land a decent paying gig. Eventually, I took a not-great paying job at a university doing neuroscience research. I still work here, granted making more money (though I live in my friend's garage due to living in an expensive city).
(Bear with me)
Neuroscience, while fascinating, is not my passion. Outer space is - and I decided to get a masters in electrical engineering (while working at the university) to help move in that direction. Once again, not the smartest man - it just took a lot of time. Five years working full time and going to school.
I finished and moved to another city. I spent the better part of a year looking for a job in aerospace (and after a while I tried any field). Never found one. Helped my brother through one trip to rock-bottom due to alcoholism (which is quite a ride).
I couldn't find a job in the new city, money dried up, got desperate - went back to neuroscience, sadly. Even worse, I ended up doing the kind of research that I found morally objectionable. Left that job for a year contract doing neuroscience I can stomach.
Now, I intend to leave a career in "engineering" behind. Engineering had never panned out for me. I dunno why. But, honestly, I had to go through all that I did - to learn it wasn't the life for me (or I wasn't the life for it).
The moral of the story is, you'll experience things in life that take you from one point to the next. Realize that you may need to be here. And you may need to learn the lessons that come your way.
Lastly, sometimes the hard way is the only way to learn a lesson.

The top ranked answer to this question is a good one- you already know what to do, etc- but I wanted to add a little more nuance around some language in the question: "I am not a good person..." and "how do I handle myself going forward? What is the point of even trying any more?"
I hear a very important issue in that language that I don't see being addressed in either the top answer or the other answers. This is the decision about even trying.
In school, one gets points for even trying. School is compulsory, curriculum is fixed, students travel in largely uniform cohorts. Even seemingly life-impacting decisions around courses of study in college are still ultimately just very narrow gradations in a very limited landscape.
Life is BIG. Much bigger than school. Life is LONG (one hopes). Life is made up of many PLACES. Your life is uniquely yours and your job in life is to find your PLACE, to tell your story, to find the authentic you.
In life, one gets no points for even trying. Even trying is lying to oneself. And the most important thing to find in life is how to not lie to oneself. It is harder than it seems.
The lies to oneself lead to lies outside, to others.
The education system- due to no fault of anyone, just the nature of any fixed system applied to a population- teaches some people that the only choice they have is to even try. That's a lie.
Do not blame yourself for even trying. It is important to you to earn the respect and love and pride of the people you love. That's natural.
But my advice is- set yourself a goal to listen to that voice inside that doesn't want to even try anymore. Listen to it and cultivate it, and learn how to share it with others, when the time is right. Work to understand why you have felt you had to choose to even try rather than listen to that voice. Understand what about your circumstances, yourself, the people you love, has led you to this PLACE of even trying.
Try to work to find a PLACE where you can still have the people and things you love, and you have to work hard, and probably sacrifice, perhaps a great deal, but where you don't have to even try any more. The authenticity is worth everything.
So you do know what to do. You are on the path. Find and listen to that voice.
PS- it is also a lie to say "I am not a good person." Many people say this for the same reasons they even try. Of course we are all terrible people, awful failures, too often much less than our best selves. Saying "I am not a good person" is a way of finding humility, which is better than cultivating hubris. But there is a way in which it is also a lie.
Try to find a way to be more gentle with yourself- you can be, you are, a good person, who does not have to even try. There is a PLACE where you can find and live your truth without having to even try.
Good luck to you.

Since this just happened today, my first piece of advice is not to make any big decisions while you are emotional.  You are obviously feeling very down about yourself, and yes, you have done a bad thing.  Take some time to remove yourself from the situation and try to relax.  Talk to your parents and let time pass; have a cry if you need to.  Do not feel compelled to take any drastic actions at the moment, and let the process play out however it will play out.  Part of that process is going to be a punishment for your actions in your exam.
At some point when you are over the initial shock of this situation, you are going to have to make some practical decisions about your future, and also some character decisions about the kind of person you want to be, and in particular, how you will respond when you encounter adversity.  You will need to decide if engineering is a suitable program for you, or whether you would be better at another field.  You will also need to decide whether you are going to allow yourself to fail at things, or whether that prospect is so terrifying that you will seek shortcuts and deceptions to give the appearance of success.
It is evident from your post that you are young, so you have plenty of time to forge the kind of character you can be proud of, and learn enough to attain competence in some career field.  Any resolution you make on the day of being caught for misbehaviour is going to look self-serving, so the real test is going to be whether you can establish some sense of good character for yourself that will give you the strength to act honestly the next time you encounter a difficult situation.
In answer to your title question: you do not need to learn to live with being a dishonest cheat.  Rather, you can learn to craft your own character so that you are no longer dishonest, and no longer cheat.  Once you make these decisions for yourself, and practice them over time, and automate honesty and good character, you will instead learn to live with being an honest person who does not cheat; and that is much more satisfying.  I'll leave you with this pearl of wisdom from a philosopher who wrote about this kind of thing:

Just as man’s physical survival depends on his own effort, so does his psychological survival. Man faces two corollary, interdependent fields of action in which a constant exercise of choice and a constant creative process are demanded of him: the world around him and his own soul (by “soul,” I mean his consciousness). Just as he has to produce the material values he needs to sustain his life, so he has to acquire the values of character that enable him to sustain it and that make his life worth living. He is born without the knowledge of either. He has to discover both—and translate them into reality—and survive by shaping the world and himself in the image of his values.
--- Ayn Rand (1969) The Romantic Manifesto, p. 169.

Comments deleted. If you have a problem with the quote in the answer, discuss the quote and not its author.


text:
Applied clinical research clinical trials and regulatory affairs
Is this journal a legitimate one with impact factor or is it a fraud?

This journal is not indexed in any reputable database, or at least i couldn't find it. It has no Impact factor according to the updated listed shared by thomson and reuter.
Before submitting my manuscript i will alyways check if the journal i am targeting is indexed in a reputable database like scopus, web of sciences and etc.
And you should also check the publishing house/company that journal belongs to, check other journals belong to that publishing house.