text:
Can a professor force students to pay a subscription fee for a different site in order to take classes?
I have a friend whose has a professor who is forcing students to sign up for a website (that requires them to pay a monthly subscription fee) where they will be posting lectures, notes, assignments, etc. The professor did not inform them of this until a few days before the first class would be starting, meaning students who could not afford to pay it right away essentially couldn't attend class on the first day. We've had departments use different websites before, but this is the first time I'm hearing about someone using one that students have to pay out of pocket for. From what I know it functions the same way as Blackboard, but it isn't covered by the school. They are also expected to pay a lab fee and buy the textbook so it just seems like overkill, but I don't know if it's something that can be brought up as an issue to higher ups.

This seems to be a legal question, not appropriate here. But universities fairly often require specific software products, such as MS Word and such for submitting work. The answer might depend on local law and practice. Complaining is possible, of course.

Which country? It is common to pay for textbooks if the library does not have them, but this is the first time I hear about obligatory subscriptions.

It is common at my institution for there to be "lab fees" for various online services (e.g. a polling response site), but these are strictly regulated by the university. The particular example you give sounds questionable, but I don't know exactly who you would ask/complain to at your university.

When I attended university we paid for the costs of copying the course materials (often entire books created by the faculty but not publicly published). I can imagine that this is the modern equivalent.

What is the website used?

This started as a comment but I decided to give an opposing view from the one in Anonymus Physicist's answer.
As you might have guessed, the answer to this question is location dependant.
In my University in the UK, this is explicitly forbidden. It is, in fact, forbidden to ask students to register to any website or service in order to follow the course materials, even if the registration is free. There is a (fairly short) list of approved services, for which the University has ensured that they follow the (now local, but still based on GDPR) Privacy Laws, which students may be asked to use. This list is updated yearly, and I believe the process is substantially more complex than sending somebody an email saying "I want to use X in my classes next year".
As this is done to ensure compliance with Privacy Laws, I am fairly certain that all British Universities have the same clause. As the current Privacy Laws are still based on GDPR, originally passed as European Union legislation, I would guess that something similar is in effect through EU Universities as well.
(However, note that since UK Universities are ran much more like companies than public education institutions, as is common on the Continent, they are also much much more careful about any legal liability their actions might cause. So it might be less enforced outside of the UK.)

The question was about payment, not privacy.  It is conceivable, though unlikely, that the payment is required but personal information is not.

However, the question also explicitly said "sign up". Any service that requires you to sign up -- even if you get to chose your own username and don't really have to provide any specific info to sign up -- would fall under this. It is forbidden to ask students to use any website that would require them to sign up or register. I am not sure if asking for payment is "even more forbidden" as they do not usually try to further regulate something that is already forbidden.

Talk to the student ombudsman about making a formal complaint.
You're paying for 13-ish weeks of education. If the professor's actions made it impossible for a large chunk of your class to receive the first week's lessons, I think that would be something that you would be justified complaining about to the relevant university authorities. Additionally, something like this would cause equity concerns, since a monthly subscription would cause more financial harm to some students than others, especially right now with the effects that Covid is having on the economy.
As a result, I would recommend that you talk to the student ombudsman at your university about making a formal complaint, and ask them what the proper process for it might be.

You might want to specify a country, as otherwise paying for 13 weeks of education does not really make sense.

@Tommi In my experience, in Australia, a semester is typically about 13 weeks long. Is that different overseas?

The paying part at least is country-dependent.

To provide a concrete example of what might/might not be allowed, here are the [abridged] rules governing "digital learning resources" at my university (Ontario, Canada). The reference to "Ministry Guidelines" suggests that they would be similar across the province. Most of the rules below seem fair and sensible to me ... it wouldn't necessarily rule out the situation you described, unless the web site fees were too expensive/unaffordable (I've emphasized relevant bits below).

In line with the Ministry Guidelines, [the University] permits the following:

Instructors may require students to purchase:

Access to DLR [digital learning resources] including e-textbooks, simulations, assessments, remote response devices and software for the duration of the course; ...

Instructors may require the use of DLR materials in the same fashion as they would use a printed textbook (i.e. as content that can be the source of assignments and assessments that are evaluated directly by instructors and their TAs. No more than 20 percent of a course grade may be from purchased DLR assessment tools (i.e. assignments assessed not by the instructor, but by the DLR itself), unless written approval is first obtained from the appropriate Associate Dean of the Faculty.
Instructors should endeavor to keep the costs of DLR and devices at a level that students can reasonably afford. DLR costs should not exceed the total costs normally associated with non-DLR learning materials (i.e. printed textbooks) for a particular course.  If DLR materials are in addition to printed learning materials for a course, they should not amount to more than an additional 10% of learning materials costs.
In situations where acquiring the DLR and/or device would cause undue hardship, instructors should provide students   with an alternative assessment method or a more affordable option.
Instructors must notify students if digital assessment is required or optional on their syllabus or course outline and/or on their course website before classes begin. There must be a clear outline of the percentage of the total course grade that relates to the use of DLR-specific assessments.
Faculty departments should maintain a record of all required and optional DLR used by instructors.

This is typically permitted or at least not forbidden.
It is much more common that you pay in one payment at the start of the course, as opposed to monthly, but it's essentially the same as a textbook rental, which is common and often digital.
If you think the price is too high, you can certainly complain.

Could you please explicitly mention a location in your answer? As it stands right now, it is incorrect, as I know for a fact this is explicitly forbidden in the UK.

"typically permitted" - never saw anything like that. Can you elaborate the jurisdiction?

I think it’s only “typically permitted” if it is an official university policy and the website students are asked to register and pay subscription for is officially sanctioned (usually by the department). For a professor to make such decisions as their own private initiative is most definitely not “typically permitted” anywhere that I’m familiar with. As I explained in another answer, the powers of professors to impose arbitrary rules of their own invention on their classes is more limited than many people seem to realize.

@penelope Multiple locations.


text:
Industry and academia collaboration
I'm currently a PhD candidate on leave, working in industry (full-time) tangentially related to research topics (deep learning) I had been working on. I'm planning on submitting a somewhat theoretical result to an academic conference once we're done with the project. There's a statement that I am close to proving, but my coworkers don't have the mathematical prerequisites to understand neither the statement nor the proof, and I would like to collaborate with someone I am certain can provide advice, for example my PhD advisor. There's 2 questions I'd like to know an answer to before asking both sides including my workplace.

If I ask my advisor for collaboration, would I have to secure some funding?
Assuming the first question is resolved and we agree to collaborate, is there any reason against doing so?

What field is this? Deep Learning could imply a lot of things.

I tried providing minimal information to answer the question; is there any reason the field of study would affect tbe answer to the question? If so, I could describe as much on my field of study as necessary.

Some things (math, some theoretical work) don't need funding beyond the participants. Other things need field work or equipment. The costs vary and you asked about funding. And you didn't describe what you needed funding for.

Thanks for elaborating. I am performing all the experiments using my company's resources, and the only collaboration I would be requesting would be in proving theoretical statements and extending theory. The only funding I was referring to was labor, unless there is something I should be considering otherwise.

Not necessarily. Sometimes researchers take on new projects without additional funds, simply out of intellectual joy (or the prospect of another publication may already be enough of a benefit to them). But if funding is needed, then perhaps your advisor could likewise offer him- or herself to apply for a grant. The allocation of tasks (including the application for funding) is variable, and you need to coordinate it with your advisor first.

No, I do not see anything that speaks against such a collaboration. On the contrary, as another post says: 'Prominent world university rankings give bonus points to "university-industry collaborations", which is generally deemed to be highly valuable for fostering innovation (e.g. see this document from the Times Higher Education, some further evidence here, or this OECD report).'

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I want to quit my PhD and it's only been 6 weeks
Long story short, I realise that I do not like the field of study I have chosen and I Cannot see myself having the ability to successfully complete a PhD in it. I studied physics and went onto enrol on an applied mathematics PhD- whilst it doesn't sound that far removed from physics, I am a physicist at heart and I do not have any enthusiasm for the field I thought I'd love.
I guess the number 1 rule was to listen to my true feelings- I feel genuinely depressed at the thought of having to carry out the work.
Moreover, I feel that my supervision team have taken far too much on as my principle supervisor takes over a week to reply to things I send them, even after they request I do so. I feel that the best option for me is to resign and take some time to evaluate what I really want to study--I'm a physicist at heart and still want to pursue a PhD, just not in applied maths. My question is two-fold:

How do I approach this with my supervisor?
Is it okay to quit a PhD?

If you are going to quit, earlier is better.

Yes, it's OK to quit if what you signed up for is really not what you want (professionally). Plenty of people who start PhD's don't finish.
That said, in your particular case perhaps consider finishing the year. Use the time to learn the kind of applied mathematics you could use when (if) you return to physics. It's too late for your department to use your slot for someone else. They might save a little money if they are supporting you - but if you are earning that support by teaching or grading then your leaving has  no financial value to them.
I don't think you should decide this rashly. You should be able to talk about it with your advisor. Perhaps try to set up an appointment (virtual if necessary) rather than discussing in email.

It's not something that I'm considering lightly- if I do change PhDs I'll be taking something more experimental and physical. I don't want to continue studying applied maths.

You only have one life. Don't waste it. Getting stuck in something you hate is a terrible situation.

Before you talk to your supervisor there must be people you can talk to in your department. At my university I had "annual reviewers" who I could go to when I had problems with my PhD. Discuss your feelings with someone like that before moving on to your supervisor.
The second thing to bear in mind is that PhDs are not fixed in stone and often go in all sorts of directions. If you as the researcher want to take your PhD in a more physics-y direction and you think your supervisor can advise you that is a possibility. People can also change supervisors: if you think there are academics in the maths department that do sufficiently physics-y things you could switch to being supervised by them. If all of these options fail then you could consider dropping out.

I should add that I had a quite similar crisis (see my profile) so I feel your pain

How do I approach this with my supervisor?

Honestly. This is a very good conversation to have with them. As an advisor, I would definitely want to know about my students' concerns.
Of course, you should try and suss out what kind of a person your advisor is, and what are the options you have if you quit.

Is it okay to quit a PhD?

That depends on where you are. No one can force you to stay in the program. However, some universities may ask you to repay scholarships or stipends you have received (which means a non-trivial amount of money you'll need to return). One option that you could discuss is whether you can leave after two or three semesters with an MSc degree. This transition is not uncommon (at least in US universities).
On the moral side of it - yes it's definitely okay to have a change of heart. Motivation and drive are crucial to a successful PhD. Ultimately, a PhD is a significant financial investment (see here), even in lucrative disciplines like computer science. You don't want to sink that money into something you hate.

“Is it ok to quit the PhD?”
Morally? Of course! It’s completely Ok to explore something, decide that you don’t like it and quit, before digging yourself a deeper grave and pulling down others with you. And frankly, if you really feel that way about your research, it’s better for you to quit- research can be hell for people who don’t like their work.
Legally? I don’t know about the rules governing these things for your university. Some require you to repay the scholarship money and that could be a problem if you are short on cash.
“How do I approach this with my supervisor”
Say to him what you wrote here. Be honest about this. You don’t think you are a good fit for this research and are not passionate about it. That’s it. You didn’t do anything wrong. Besides, any supervisor worth his salt would know that a de-motivated grad student is a drag on research.

It is absolutely too early. I do not know if this is a genuine feeling. In case it is the answer would be quit. But for what I know, and having had my own PhD experience as well as having witnessed the experience of at that time fellow PhD students as well as that of current PhD student, I can only say wait.

For the downvoter. I myself I have found relatively hard time at beginning. I did personally encouraged fellow younger students not to leave when they felt there was no way to go. Both are currently permanent researchers. Having a period of down at beginning is quite a common feeling. I can't be sure if indeed OP dislike so much what s/he started JUST 6 WEEKS AGO. If that is really deep and genuine one should downvote the OP :)) not me.

"Both are currently permanent researchers."
We do not know how much they suffered on their way there. Plus, if they had quit at the beginning and changed field, maybe by now they would be professor. It is not really helpful to point at the end of their journey.

@EarlGrey my point is that few weeks are absolutely not enough to quit a program such as a PhD. How one can change mind in a month is valid for every program. Critical period might even come in too early. I am saying in my answer that if I could made an assessment and the motivation are so deep then the answer would be "quit". I really don't understand the downvotes nor these critics. I tried to tell OP to reflect further, solely trying to help him. At the end nobody knows. This thread is opinion based, at the end.

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


text:
Does research require a certain kind of personal abilities or is it a matter of hard work?
I've failed to finish my master thesis, I thought this was attributed to the minimal supervision of my adviser - he/she wasn't an expert in the domain of thesis and didn't give me any kind of insights or help - only general advice - and I was let to do all the work alone and I failed to finish a good thesis (Another reason I thought was the lack of my background courses and again I had to study everything from start without focus on the target which took too much time).
Now I have a chance of interning at a good research lab, the problem that I face now is that I'm afraid that I don't have the ability/skill to do a good research. Does research require a certain kind of personal abilities or is just a matter of hard work?

An answer to your question title might be found here: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/37544/iq-and-probability-of-success-in-two-difficult-fields

I edited your question to make it less personal/opinion based. It still may get deleted as it is not directly relevant to academia (you're asking about research in general).

@Magellanea I just wanted to let you know that I disagree with RoboKaren's assessment of the relevancy of your question. It certainly is related to academia and others have similar concerns as yours. You are not asking about research in general. You are asking about the impact of personal abilities on research success.

"research success" occurs in many domains, not just academia. My flagging this question as too broad may or may not result in closure if others agree (StackExchange is a democracy in this regard), but I have no vested interest other than the quality of content here.

@RoboKaren The student asked for advice on his personal academic situation, I see absolutely no problem with that.

What does "failed to finish my master thesis"? Was there a hard deadline and you failed? Or do you just mean you didn't finish on time? Can you still finish or not?

@smci I'm about to pass the deadline, the only option to finish is to have some sort of superpower to finish in a period of time that's quarter of the time wasted already.

Just do your best in the limited time you have. Stay cool, be systematic. Submit something. After it's over, analyze why you procrastinate - be honest with yourself (perfectionism? disorganization? lack of motivation? etc.)

... or burnout?

I had the same problem with my MSc thesis which I will have to hand in this month: The topic was too broad and complicated, the supervisor gave me a topic which was actually supposed for another PhD student. So I failed (will not get very good grade).
But I dont think any conclusion can be drawn for my future work, my other thesis and seminars went all excellent. If you just failed on this one thesis (and otherwise have good results) and the people at the other lab like you, they will certainly help you so you will succeed. The supervisor is I think more crucial than the actual topic, because if you have a nice supervisor he will always help you and with the team together you can succeed.

Thanks a lot, the problem in my situation is that the thesis was my first research experience, the internship will be the second, that's why I'm a little worried about the result.

@Magellanea I think all your future work will be fully independent of your first thesis: If the lab team is nice, they will work together with you and help and explain everything (which my first supervisor did). If you dont like the team, you should not do it no matter how easy the topic.

Although the question is vague, the implicit distinction in it is perhaps the whole point: being able to focus and genuinely work hard over long periods of time, in the face of fatigue, frustration, etc., is itself a particular talent.
To explain, consider Mozart in music: it's not that he could magically play and compose, but, rather, that he was able to practice a crazy amount starting at an early age, and acquired profiency... So, a significant part of the "talent" was the capacity to practice long-and-hard. Yes, one can argue that also the ability to benefit from long-and-hard practice is important. And, all the more resoundingly, long-and-hard work is necessary, although one may fail to benefit from it, even if one does manage it (or is forced by parents or other circumstances).
No, it is not normal to be able to focus on anything at all at an early age, and perhaps even later it would not be normal to be able to entertain a multi-year project. To be able to do so _at_all_ I think (upon some observation) is a talent. To be able to succeed to some degree is a further talent, and there is an element of luck involved in "high success". But the latter "test" is not often reached. An example of sufficient focus but lack of other necessities is "crackpots" or "cranks". Even so, in some cases they are eventually vindicated! :)

The question was edited by @RoboKaren, I recommend to read the earlier version which is more clear.

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


text:
How can I publish an academic paper independent of work while working at a company?
I have been working on some independent research for a few years now, and I'm finally at the point where I'm seriously considering publishing a Computer Science/Mathematical Algorithm in an Academic Journal.
I presently work as a Software Development Engineer at a major tech firm. I have never published a paper before, though I do have my Masters and have gone through the process of writing a research paper before.
My specific questions are:

If my research paper is completely unrelated and independent of anything I do at work (nor am I even in a research type position), what - if any - obligations do I have to my work place? Do I need to seek their approval before publishing a research paper?
If so, do I need to supply them with my research paper - or merely
provide an abstract/description of the research to them?
Will an Academic Journal require me to submit evidence that there is no
workplace-conflict as an Independent Researcher?

Thanks :)

As far as I know, this depends entirely on your employment contract. In other words, I don't expect the journal to care, but your employer might.

That makes sense, thanks @AndreasBlass

I touched up your question to make the title clearer about what you are asking, and to fix the tags. Welcome to the site.

If my research paper is completely unrelated and independent of anything I do at work (nor am I even in a research type position), what - if any - obligations do I have to my work place? Do I need to seek their approval before publishing a research paper?

You would have to read whatever NDA you signed, as this is specific to your situation. IANAL, but I think the most likely answer is there is no problem with this. You aren't allowed to divulge company secrets, but this is something you worked on independently (somewhat of a hobby).

Will an Academic Journal require me to submit evidence that there is no workplace-conflict as an Independent Researcher?

The short answer is no. The long answer is that many journals would require you to disclose if you have any conflicts of interest that would affect the validity of your results. For example, if your paper is about the effectiveness of a particular algorithm used at Uber for matching riders to drivers, and you work at Uber, you would need to disclose that as a conflict of interest. However, as you have already said that your research topic is unrelated to your work at your job, it probably would not constitute a possible conflict of interest.
Submitting evidence would be even less likely, I wouldn't worry about that unless asked.
However, note that you will have to choose an affiliation when you submit, which means you probably will want to think about how you want your name to be listed. This is just for informational purposes. Perhaps you can be listed as affiliated with your company, or maybe you can arrange to have no affiliation.

Given the research is independt of your work, it is a hobby project. Anyone can (in theory) write and publish an academic article as a hobby project.
Supposing you do not have a particularly draconic legislation in your country, it is fundamentally your own business what you do while not working (assuming innocent hobbies here, not criminal acts, however defined in your country).
This all assumes that your work and hobby are indeed completely independent.
That said, if (but only if) you do have a healthy relationship with your workplace and boss, you might want to tell them, just as a matter of courtesy.

Talk to your employer:

they have a legitimate interest to check that the paper does not conflict with their legitimate interests.
That may be the case e.g. if the paper contains an invention and they may own copyright on a software implementation in the paper (at least where I am, copyright can go to the employer even for work done outside working hours) or otherwise touches their business secrets.
OTOH, they may be very happy to know that you do research, and it may open career choices for you if you let them know that you are interested in research.
Before showing them, decide for yourself what you answer if they ask you to publish under your work affiliation. I.e. would you like or dislike this?

I'd hand over a printout saying something along the lines of "Hey, I thought this may be of interest to you - I've been doing research in my spare time, and here's the resulting manuscript which I plan to submit to $journal."

Good points. I suppose I'm a bit protective of my work; I'd prefer not to give anyone the manuscript except as I must to get it published. Afterwards I'd be happy to share it and show off of course :P
I do like the idea of this potentially leading to new career choices; I think I would like to ultimately find myself in the role of being a professor or researcher. But I think for this first publication I'd like to do it in my own name.


text:
Can I send an email to the journal editorial board explaining a specific situation about the status of my paper?
I submitted a paper to an Elsevier journal, and the status is "Submitted to Journal". That was a week and a half ago. I know it's not a long time, but I have an additional issue. I just need the article to be "under review" to defend my doctoral thesis. Can I send an email to the editorial board explaining this situation? Would it be wrong to do that?

I see a small ethical issue with the nature of this request. Instead, have you discussed with your PhD committee if "Submitted to Journal" would be OK as well? Your eligibility to defend your thesis should not depend on something as arbitrary as whether the editor found some reviewers for your paper, especially in coronavirus times.

Are you sure that the defense requirements mean the journal must list your submission status as "under review"?

Thank you all for your considerations. Unfortunately, my PhD commitee does not accept other status than "under review". I have my thesis ready and I already have the members of the board. I'm just waiting for the status of the paper to defend it.

Pragmatically speaking, you have nothing to lose! I don't think it's wrong, either, as your situation seems unusual. So the clear advice would be to send the email.
However, to maximize the chance that this is effective, I do think you should be clear that this is an extraordinary request. Don't expect or demand that they will be able to grant it, and be sure to thank them for taking the time to consider your email. If you are polite and to the point about what you need, I don't see how anyone could take it wrongly, but there could be some logistical, technical, or policy reason why changing the review status is not possible.

Thank you very much for your considerations. I think I will send a very polite email explaining the situation.


text:
How do I know if I'm unprepared for my math PhD?
I earned my B.A. in the U.S. but felt unprepared to go right into a PhD program due to the (extremely) limited math courses offered at my undergrad institution so I went into a masters program. I ended up doing really well (3.9GPA) and gained a lot of confidence and expanded my knowledge. A couple years later I decided I wanted to apply to programs for my PhD. I ended up selecting a foreign university where it is assumed you already possess a masters degree, which originally I though was great since it saved me a couple years of additional schooling that I though would be redundant. Now that I am about 6 months in however I am seriously questioning the quality of the master's program I was part of. It seems that others in the program are much more advanced than I am and I seem to struggle with everything, which is a brand new experience for me. I spend hours and hours spinning my wheels reading and trying to understand papers, feeling like I just don't know the background I need to. I feel as though after 6 months I have learned nothing and have wasted a lot of time on things that ultimately never became clear before I had to move on to the next task. I have somewhat discussed these concerns with my advisor but they seem confident that everything is fine.
I also find that now that I am here the project I am part of is much more applied than I had anticipated and I am unsure about if this will evolve to more closely match my interests over time or if this is just another indication of a poor match.
I am not sure what to do. Is this a normal experience? If it truly is not a fit for me at my current level of knowledge, what are my options?
Any advice is appreciated.

EDIT: I have not discussed this as bluntly with my advisor as I am speaking about it here, primarily because it is just over the last couple weeks that it has become much more problematic. I do intend to speak to them about this more explicitly at our next meeting.

It is important to not compare yourself to your peers so harshly and to not look back on your masters for what its faults might have been. The only thing that you can do right now is focus on what you need to do to be moving forward. If that means that you need to retool your understanding of what you thought you knew then that is the task that lies ahead of you. If your supervisor feels that you are doing just fine, then you should have some faith in their experience. I don't believe you have convinced yourself that you need to drop out, so all you can do is learn and practice resilience.

Start a PhD, learn as you go along.

@CJR: I disagree. One does not have to be the dumbest person in a room to get use from the room. Moreover, I (and many other.people) have been in rooms where I was definitely too dumb to get something useful out of it.

Comparing yourself to others during your PhD can be seriously harming for your mental health. Do your best, trust yourself and your adviser, and have good communication with them. A PhD is (ideally) more of a discovery journey, not a race, let alone one against other people. Try to enjoy it the most you can.

Do you mean foreign university in the sense of foreign country? Which country? Also, at some universities, while not mandatory you can take master modules, maybe do so, to get more used to their culture.

I agree that you may be suffering from Imposter syndrome. That is, reading your post I see no evidence that you aren't prepared, and in fact, I see several pieces of evidence that you are prepared. Despite your accomplishments, you are underconfident and do not realize that many of your peers are going through the same struggles as you are; you see these as failures when they are perfectly normal even for someone with a high level of preparation.

I went into a masters program. I ended up doing really well (3.9GPA) and gained a lot of confidence and expanded my knowledge.

This is a good sign that you are a strong candidate, and well-fit for a PhD.

I ended up selecting a foreign university

Not only did you select it, the admissions committee selected you. Admissions committees are usually very good at what they do, and they will not admit a candidate who they believe is underprepared. They are aware of your background, including the master's program you went through, and they believe you are an ideal candidate for their program.

Now that I am about 6 months in however I am seriously questioning the quality of the master's program I was part of.

Different programs do vary in what material they cover, but the far more important factor in a PhD is not your specific set of knowledge, but your ability to learn, your ability to deal with unfamiliar material, and your motivation, creativity, and insight. It is possible your master's program didn't cover some things that others' covered; but it is also possible you are imagining at least part of it. Regardless, you shouldn't be surprised if it takes a lot of difficult work to learn all the new material!

I spend hours and hours spinning my wheels reading and trying to understand papers, feeling like I just don't know the background I need to.

This is what doing a PhD is like for everyone. The reality of academic life is that you often are thrust into new areas that you have no experience in; you have to learn to swim over and over again, every time you take a new class, every time you start working on a new research problem. Contrary to what you think, this doesn't sound like a red flag that you are underprepared.

I have somewhat discussed these concerns with my advisor but they seem confident that everything is fine.

This is the biggest sign (to me) that you have imposter syndrome: your advisor is still confident in your progress, but you aren't. Your advisor has seen a lot of students and they should be able to tell better than you about the situation.

I also find that now that I am here the project I am part of is much more applied than I had anticipated and I am unsure about if this will evolve to more closely match my interests over time or if this is just another indication of a poor match.

I am not sure how this could be an indication of poor match. You should talk to your advisor about this, though; your interests are important. See if you can figure out what aspects of the project you would be more interested in pursuing (maybe the less applied aspects). Recognize that it is common for people who join a new program, working on learning new ideas, to feel that everything is unfamiliar and to have a negative reaction to that.

I am not sure what to do. Is this a normal experience?

Yes, it is normal: I have heard the same things from many very strong students.

If it truly is not a fit for me at my current level of knowledge, what are my options?

You have been admitted, your advisor is confident you are doing well, and you have a strong background, so reconsider why you think it is not a fit. If there are things you are not prepared for, then you should consider taking the time to slow down, relax, and learn those things. It may take some time; don't worry.
Also, take some time for yourself. Make sure to look for a social group that you can find a sense of belonging in; it makes a world of difference. Consider seeing a therapist to discuss your fears of not belonging and not being ready.

The fact that your adviser thinks you're doing fine, in particular, suggests to me that you may be dealing with some impostor syndrome.
I think when most of us start out in PhD programs, we feel like everyone around us is doing much better.  Like they all belong here, but we don't.  This is usually accompanied with a feeling of "I had better keep my head down and stay quiet, so no one notices I don't belong here and kicks me out."
You don't say much about your conversation with your adviser.  Hopefully it was an honest conversation about why you're concerned.  As long as it was, consider trusting that they know what normal looks like.  You might also want to talk with some of your classmates more - you may be surprised to find that the ones who seem to be endlessly more successful than you are feeling identically.
PhD work is usually a whole new level of difficult, so it's not necessarily a warning sign that you feel like you have to study for hours to get anywhere.

What you have learned, I hope not too late, is that the undergraduate program in many places (Europe...) is very different from that in the US. The undergrad program in the US is a generalist degree, not one of high specialization as it is other places. Your description of your own undergraduate program may be unfair, for the US, but programs just don't compare in the degree of specialization.
But what you can do is find someone on the local faculty that you trust and ask them for advice on finding a successful path. Review what you have studied (and know well) and get advice on what steps you can take to fill in any gaps. You will need not just the advice of some local faculty but their support as well. You don't want to get left behind and then ignored by the faculty.
But all is not lost. Mathematics is a very balkanized field. You can be an expert in some small area while having little insight into other areas. One problem will be the likely need to pass some comprehensive exams to earn a doctorate, but even those cover only a few areas. And if you can be successful in the short term in a subfield, then you will be able to broaden your knowledge later as you please.
Mathematics is broad, but most mathematicians are quite narrow.

Personal note: I had good insight into Real Analysis and General Topology. I struggled with many parts of Algebra and even Algebraic Topology.

Your use of "even" in "even Algebraic Topology" differs from me, as I found general topology (have done quite a bit of work with this) and algebra (includes 3 semesters out of Hungerford's book, Lambek's "Lectures on Rings and Modules", and Atiyah/Macdonad's "Introduction to Commutative Algebra") rather agreeable, but algebraic topology was totally unagreeable (after two attempts). See the comments to Hatcher Algebraic Topology: I have all the prereqs, so why is this book unreadable for me?


text:
When applying for a PhD, is it okay for one letter of recommendation to come from a PhD student?
I am currently a Master's student and planning to apply for PhD. Now, I have directly worked with two professors for research projects. Unfortunately, those two are the only professors I have taken more than one course with too. With no other professor I had two or more classes so they do not know me well. I could be able to convince one of them to write letters for me. But surely that's gonna be a canned recommendation like "I taught him this course and he's got an A". Besides as an introvert, I am not memorable at all. I don't drop by during office hours to have small chats or ask many questions in the class.
On the other hand, I have a PhD student in my research group. He doesn't have the credentials or experience, but he can write a more personal and accurate recommendation letter for me. I have worked with him closely and he can give his opinion from both our personal and academic interactions.
Edit: just to be clear, the two professors I have worked with already agreed to give me LORs. I need a third letter.
Edit 2: I have another option. I have worked as a TA for one semester. The instructor can give me an LOR. But he is neither a tenured professor nor a Ph.D. degree holder himself. So I am not much sure about this option. Is it gonna "hurt" my application?
Edit 3: I collaborated with the PhD student before and we are co-authors of two papers.

As a third LOR, it's probably OK if it's well-written and the other two LORs are substantial, but that sounds like it might not be the case here. Another option is to ask the doctoral student to pass his detailed opinion of you on to the PI of the research group and have her write the letter.

@ElizabethHenning thank you. The thing is, our PI is the same and it is one of those two professors I have mentioned. Those professors will give me good references- I am confident about that. I did very well in their research projects and I also have good relations with them in personal level- like going out for lunch together or being invited to their homes for Christmas or Thanksgiving dinner. Another option is I can ask a professor for whom I was the TA for one semester. We had a lot of interaction. The thing is, he is not a tenure-track faculty. He is a lecturer. Does it matter much?

A "did well in class" letter from a professor might be actually better in this case, if you go and tell them a bit about yourself.

If you already have an LOR that would say most of what the doctoral student would say, then get the third LOR from another professor who knows you as a student, not just as a TA. For grad programs, a tenure-track letter is much better than a non-tenure-track letter from someone without a PhD. The point is that you want the most credible letters possible attesting to your likelihood of succeeding in a PhD program.

You could do this, though it might be questioned. It would be best if the PhD student has some supervisory function in your group, rather than just a "fellow" student. The letter from the student should make your relationship clear so that someone reading it knows whether they should follow up with you or not.
But you can also, as an introvert, work to increase your own visibility with the faculty so that this need not recur. Many of them are possibly just about as introverted as you are.

Thanks, @Buffy. No, he is not a supervisor or anything. But we have collaborated in the past and are co-authors in two journal papers. Does that help in any way?

Difficult to say. Just expect a question or two about it.

If you’ve already got a couple of strong recommendations from your supervisors, it shouldn’t be a problem, especially since you have a strong resume if you’ve already published. What matters is that referees can say something different to each other and that they know you well enough. A character reference is totally fine provided that you have worked with them enough that they can vouch for your work ethic and technical skills.
The position and reputation of a referee is not so important. What matters is its authenticity. Taking on a PhD student or postdoc is a serious commitment. A supervisor will be looking for someone who can be trusted to meet their goals and work well with others in the lab. In that respect, an authentic letter from a more senior member of your lab would help your application more than a generic template letter from a busy professor who hardly knows you.
With a strong resume, letters of recommendation are often a formality. What is important is to be honest in your resume and application. If you exaggerate, they will notice if there are inconsistencies or you cannot answer questions in the interview process. If you are polite and respectful when contacting potential supervisors (and when requesting letters of recommendation), that will also help show you can work in the lab.

When applying for my PhD in the UK with funding I needed two letters of reference.
The first one was my Master's Dissertation supervisor, I would really recommend trying to get a professor that has worked with you before in a research sense (if possible), if this is not possible I would try to open up the conversation with a great research proposal. If the Professor is interested in it and you do a good job then he would be able to see that you already have some good research skills, a good proposal is the start of the project.
The fact the you have co-authored with the Ph.D student is good, they can mention it in the LOR.
The second letter of recommendation I got was from a Senior Lecturer in Finance, I could have tried to go for another professor but I did think a more personal one from even a junior member of the faculty would be better (similar to a PhD writing for you).
I would recommend trying to work on the professors that you already have, if they send two great letters, the third one becomes much less important.
I am also extremely introverted, however, you have to try, you have to stop by there office hours, (it gets less daunting each time), you have to go back even when they are to busy on a certain day. Win them over with a good proposal, if at all possible try to cite them in your proposal. Do whatever it takes, getting a PhD place is not easy, there is lots of competition, other people will be persevering with the small talk. Its like you're in a race with them, run faster.
Also the fact that you have publications is already a big thumbs up. You have a proven research record, that is far more than the majority of PhD applicants.
It is also good for the PhD student to frame the letter well if they frame it as your co-author rather than pal that could be better.
A last note on your Instructor without a PhD. There are some people in Universities that don't have PhD's but are still world-class researchers. I have met a few that have come from industry and rightly or wrongly, they would never bother with the fees for a PhD and their publications speak a lot more than the title, so double check if your instructor has good publication. Also, teaching experience is extremely important...
So if it was me I would probably go with the instructor that you have been a TA for and the two Professors. The fact you have written papers will come up in your application anyway, the University can judge how well these are with reading them, looking at what journals they are published in them etc. It is much more difficult for them to judge if you are a good teacher or not, so signalling this to them by a LOR from an instructor would be my best bet.
In my PhD interview, I was asked a lot about teaching, its important for the modern academic. As there is so much competition, they want good researchers and good teachers, not just one or the other.
Best of luck!

What? Teaching experience of the writers is extremely important for their LoRs? "I have met a few that have come from industry and rightly or wrongly, they would never bother with the fees for a PhD and their publications speak a lot more than the title" Can you point me to the profiles of some of those people?

I meant teaching experience is important for the OP!

If a letter of reference can signal they are a good teacher this can only be a good thing

Ask your supervisor if the PhD student in question has the skills to write a letter that will help you.

NO.
The fact that you cannot find enough professors to write LoRs implies that you are some random unknown student in your university. Unless you are applying to a PhD program in a much much lower rank than your current university, you don't stance a chance with this LoR.

I disagree, let's say the OP has published ina good journal, the letter of reference become much less important. Surely the acceptance onto a programme is due to a number of factors, if you're strong in one and weaker in the author you still have a great chance.

Totally agree with Zarina here. Also the OP says they've co-authored 2 papers with the PhD student in question. If those were good papers that were well known in the field, an LoR from one of the co-authors could actually be a lot more valuable than from some random professor from a different research focus.

@ZarinaAkhtar The most mature co-authors in those journals are the ones to ask for LoR. You don't think a PhD student and a Master's student published in a good journal, do you? (I dare not to say it it impossible, but I don't believe it)

@qsp define good, a healthy number of PhD students publish in a 4* finance journals, the OP did not suggest whether this was written alongside a more experienced professor. Regardless, even a 2* journal would signal potential. When taking on PhD students surely universities of backing potential. Any publishing signal you send can only be a good thing.


text:
Is it okay to publish your dissertation as a book and are there things that you should leave out of the book?
If I have found a publisher that will publish my dissertation, is this ok, to publish your original dissertation as a book. if so are there things you should leave out of dissertation like appendix or signature page.

Do  (text)books have appendices?

The first thing every editor of a serious publisher (as opposed to a vanity press) will tell you is that a PhD thesis is not a book. I can't write a full answer now, but you should just google 'from PhD to book'. It took me several months to go from thesis to book, but YMMV.

Yes, just a warning: There are unserious publisher (Grin Verlag, AV Akademikerverlag) who write alumni that they want to publish there thesis. Be very careful and of course, discuss with your advisor!

Publishing your thesis (in a legitimate publisher) is the normal thing for certain majors in the humanities.  In fact you may spend the first 2 or 3 years after you get a university position preparing your thesis for publication, and only be tenured if/when it is published.

Following up on Haque's comment: just in case it is a similar situation, you might want to have a look at the following question (especially the accepted answer and the link within): https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2513/is-lambert-academic-publishing-a-reputable-company.

Other than warnings about predatory publishers and miscellaneous personal anecdotes, I do not think you will get a useful Answer to your question without (a) specifying your field and (b) giving some idea about the nature of your thesis. // In math there are famous examples of important theses less than an dozen pages in length; none of those would make a suitable book. The nature of introductory material, historical perspectives, footnotes, and so on may vary greatly between an acceptable thesis and a useful book.

@SolarMike Yes, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Appendix

@user2768 so don’t exclude them then... and my text books have appendices, so guess what I was trying to get the OP to see...

@SolarMike Now I can understand your comment.

From my discussions with professors, many that turned their dissertations into books rewrote most of it (because dissertations typically don’t fly off the shelves) and also had to adjust their citations because there were too many in the dissertation and the publisher didn’t want to waste the ink. Look more into the publisher and then ask your advisor for advice


text:
At what stage of computer science PhD should you start looking for post-doc?
I am exactly mid-way in my PhD in computer science. Is this the right time to start looking for a post doc?

I deleted the second part of your question, because it did not seem to have a direct connection with the main part of your question. If they are connected perhaps edit to make the link clearer or ask separate question about the funding aspect.

Around your last year.
So much of this comes from networking though, so it is important to be meeting people at conferences long before you are about to graduate.
In the US, many postdoc positions are filled quite late (often after faculty offers have gone out, so mid to late Spring, maybe even early Summer) but you should start talking to potential postdoc advisors maybe a year before your graduation to put a bug in their ear.

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


text:
How to obtain citation metrics for a low-profile journal that is not indexed in major journal databases?
I am interested in generating citation-metrics for The journal of the British Association for the Study of Religions using Google Scholar or such tools. (The journal is not indexed in almost any selective database, compounding my woes.)
Is there a way of doing this?

Not a full answer, but I just want to point out that you can to some extent retrieve citations from, for instance, Web of Science (WoS) to journals that are not covered by the citation index per se. For instance, by doing a "Cited reference search". There you will find citations to documents, based on the citation information given in reference list of WoS publications, irrespective of whether the "target" publications (the ones receiving the citations) are covered by WoS.
For instance, when searching for "BRIT ASS STUDY RELIG" (a generalization of "The journal of the British Association for the Study of Religions", which seems to be found in WoS) as "Cited work" I find a ten citations in total to the journal.
This is probably not completely what you are after, but might be useful to know.

Use Google Scholar and search for source:"JOURNAL NAME".

In your case, however, source:"Journal of the British Association for the Study of Religions" yields 0 results.
Using the abbreviation source:"BASR" does lead to more useful results (37 in total), albeit you need to disambiguate the Journal of the BASR (DISKUS) from other publication outlets from BASR.
The most fruitful query for your purposes seems to be source:"DISKUS"; it yields 256 results.

To gain citations for the articles published within JBASR, first you must get read.
Have both the authors and the journal board do their PR thing. Have them use all the social media, Twitter, LinkedIn and such; use all the sites like Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley etc. - have all the authors make profiles there and have them make their papers available. Ask authors to refer to both articles within JBASR as well as in priority journals. Use the editorial in every issue to properly cite certain articles within that issue and previous issues.
Think about what it is exactly that you mean to accomplish.

I read the question as asking about how to find out how many citations there are, etc., rather than how to get more citations.


text:
How to cite a thesis/paper when it's not available online?
In a published research paper, the author has cited a thesis/paper, which is not available online. The question is, when I'm writing my paper and I need to cite the corresponding unavailable paper/thesis, what should I do? Should I cite the original material even though I haven't read it? Or the paper that cited  the unavailable material, say in its literature review section?

Have you tried emailing the author or the author's PI? I've had to do that before. I had a funny feeling about citing something unseen.

@lafemmecosmique unfortunately, the author is not alive

In the body of your question, you say it's "not available online", which is very different from "not available".  Have you talked with a librarian about ways you could try to get it offline?

Indeed, the librarian of Whatever University is the way forward here. Especially for a PhD thesis. Otherwise search for a national repo of theses in that country, if it exists.

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7797/what-do-you-do-when-you-find-yourselves-with-an-unreadable-inaccessible-paper

Also related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/36444/20058

For what it's worth, a 1919 paper by Besicovitch --- Sur deux questions d'intégrabilité des fonctions --- has been cited numerous times (even by Terence Tao), but I suspect no one alive has seen a copy of this paper.

@DaveLRenfro Interesting.  Any idea why that particular paper would be elusive?  I recently had occasion to cite a paper from 1911 (written in German), and it turned out that not only was my coauthor able to get a copy, but that the entire paper had been made freely available online.

Possible duplicate of Is it unethical to cite a paper or book that you have never looked at?

If it was an accepted thesis, the university that accepted it probably has a printed or microfiche copy in its library, and should be able to provide a reprint.

@zibadawa timmy: The journal it appeared in, Journal de la Société de Physique et de Mathematique de l'Université de Perm [= Zurnal Fizikomatematičeskago Obščestva pri Pemskom Gosudarstvennom Universiteté], had only two volumes (1st in 1918, 2nd in 1919), and according to several sources (Taylor's 1975 biog. of Besic., Besic.'s 1928 Math. Zeit. and 1963 Math. Monthly papers on the Kakeya problem), copies of this journal did not reach outside of Russia due to the Russian Revolution at this time. I do not know whether any copies exist now -- all of the papers I've seen that cite it are silent.

@DaveLRenfro Might be worth a question of its own!

@Aaron Brick: From Besicovitch's 1928 paper On Kakeya's problem and a similar one: "Two volumes of this Journal were issued but they did not reach abroad because of the isolation of Russia at that time. Since then the publication of the Journal has stopped and there is no hope for the appearance of the Journal abroad." I suppose the first step in trying to locate a copy, if anyone is interested in whether a copy exists, would be to contact a librarian at Perm State University.

@DaveLRenfro indeed the library at Perm State University has a copy (in fact it appears to have three copies), and in October 2021 they held an exhibition featuring, among others, this particular magazine; the Facebook description strongly implies that the articles were then available for reading. So while it's not clear whether anyone had seen that particular article in 2016, many people would have seen it in 2021. I do wonder if it had been digitized, though...

Assuming X is citing the reference Y whose content is unavailable, it is fine to cite Y just as done in X. It is better to mention it as a secondary source by stating that the concept mentioned in Y is as claimed in X. @jakebeal's answer to this post is most apt solution for this problem.
Some sources may inaccessible or totally unavailable (as in your situation) but they are cited nonetheless in the conjecture that the content they are assumed to provide are true. For instance, if an important method was proposed long ago and you wish develop on it, you ought to cite the original author of the paper (in addition to the standard books you refer), even if you couldn't access the paper yourself.


text:
Should I (as a reviewer) ask an author to cite my work where I proposed a core hypothesis, when they have already referenced other points?
In a paper from two years ago I explored a general line of inquiry and identified an explicit and specific hypothesis for future research.
I'm currently reviewing a paper where the authors explore precisely that question, and find the hypothesis is strongly supported by their data. They cite me multiple times in the literature review, methodology, and conclusions, so they're giving me plenty of credit. But they don't cite me for proposing that core hypothesis.
Should I point out to the authors that they should cite that idea? Or can I not claim it as I only hypothesized it and did not explore it myself (and I have no future plans to do so, so it's not like they're planting a flag on my turf). Or should I just be happy that people are reading my stuff? Or should I let the editor know and let him make the call?

It would be wise to ask them as a probable suggestion. But, make sure they really need to cite your work to support their hypothesis.

Think about what would be appropriate if you weren't the author? I think the fact that you are both reviewer and author of the original idea is in some sense a distraction from the main issue. I.e., that whether the author should cite a specific work or not should not be affected by who is reviewing the work. Of course, in reality, authors are intimately familiar with their own work and also have incentives to obtain credit and more citations. Some reviewers are also concerned about the conflict of interest and the power imbalance, or even in maintaining blind review. But ultimately, if you can answer the question of whether the citation was needed had you not been the author, then you probably have the answer to your question.
So, does an author need to cite a reference where a hypothesis was proposed where the author's study pursues that hypothesis?
In general, this would depend on the circumstances.

Novelty of the hypothesis. If you were the first person to propose the idea, then this suggests a greater degree of novelty. Alternatively, if many papers touch on the idea, then there's less need to cite.
Intellectual insight to identify the hypothesis. If the hypothesis required a degree of insight, then it is more appropriate to cite. For example, suggesting that X may be related to Y or that more longitudinal research is needed are generally ideas that don't need a citation.
Were the authors actually influenced by the idea. If the idea is a fairly natural extension of the literature, then the authors may have independently come up with the idea. this also speaks to the point that the idea may have required less insight and novelty.
Degree of alignment between idea and their implementation. In most cases, research involves many choices. The expression of an idea can also involve a degree of creativity. Thus, the more the idea is aligned with how you expressed it, the more it is worthy of a citation.
Do the authors claim that no one has proposed the hypothesis before? If so, then this is clearly wrong, and needs to be changed by either removing such a bold claim or adding a citation.

Overall, whether a previously proposed hypothesis needs a citation depends on the details of your case and your field.
Speaking from a behavioural sciences perspective, I tend to think that many hypotheses do not need specific citations to references where a similar hypothesis was put forward. Discussion sections often are typically not the core contribution of a paper. The empirical study and their results is typically the main component. Discussion sections often include proposals for future research that put forward various ideas that could be tested in the future. Many ideas are relatively trivial to put down on paper (e.g., mediating and moderating variables; suggesting particular studies using particular methodologies). In many cases, the contribution of a study is less in proposing the hypothesis, and more in the collection of data to examine a research question, and the rigorous assessment of what that data means.


text:
What do you think about a part time PhD vs full time PhD, when the part time PhD involves working on my master's thesis research full time?
I am working on my masters thesis. If my full time job involves working on the same research project, will it be worthwhile to do a part time PhD?
Are there any things I am going to lose on? Is there any way i can make up for that? If I want to have a career in academia 3-4 years down the line, will it hurt me?


text:
A systematic review already exists in the literature. When is a newer one required?
Suppose that a systematic review on a topic X was published some (3-8) years ago by someone else, and it is currently still a useful source for what has been made before it was published. However, more recent works were also published later.
Generally, how can I decide whether it is a good idea to work on a newer systematic review for publication, taking into account that the newer review could be (somewhat) similar in methodology and would be based on extended and more recent literature (including that already reviewed in the published one)?

When?

Whenever there is a set of papers that has significantly extended or changed the topic of interest.
If you have to do it as part of your thesis.
If you are contributing with a new approach/method in a publication (the literature review would typically be part of the Introduction).

My advice: do not spend too much time on writing and trying to publish a literature review if the problem has not evolved significantly during this time. Most of this kind of works get lost in an ocean of surveys.

I would include only the work done after the other publication, with the occasional exception of including papers which would be too important to leave out. Of course, if you think the previous review was not a good one, you can do it all over again. Before starting, check what are the main implications of the other review: were there some open important question, which have now been solved; bad practises in the reviewed field, which have been corrected; etc.


text:
Co-authors not willing to publish after rejection. May I drop them?
We wrote a case report (1 + 2 co authors). The case report was not accepted. I tried to convince the other co-authors to re-write and submit.
I waited for 3 years and 6 months. The co-authors showed no interest after repeated calls. I wrote the case report completely fresh with review of literature.
Can I send for publication without the co-authors as they did not take part in preparing this revised manuscript?

If two manuscripts are different, why one guy should suffer. I think it is ethically ok to submit.

Are you saying that your co-workers have explicitly told you that they do not want to publish the paper, and that you can document this convincingly should anyone come asking in six months' time? Or have you simply not heard back after making two or three half-hearted attempts at contacting them, and you don't even know for sure that they got the message? See the difference between the two?

It sounds like you started fresh, discarding everything the co-authors of the original paper contributed, and did all the research and writing over again. If this is the case, I'd say that this new paper was written entirely by yourself and thus there are no co-authors. Document everything so you are prepared to defend this if it's ever questioned by the co-authors of the initial paper.

Why not just simply call or discuss in person? Certain topics are better discussed not over email.

It depends what the co-authors did. If they were involved in the work they should normally be authors of the paper. I think the important questions you need to answer are:

What exactly do you mean by "showed no interest after repeated calls"? I have never heard of someone who does not want a "free" paper published, unless they disagree with the methods or conclusions in the paper. What is the reason they are not interested?
Did you ask them if they agree to not have their name on it? If they agree: problem solved. If not, that means they do agree to be co-authors: problem solved.

Regarding 'I have never heard of someone who does not want a "free" paper published': A professor I worked with did not want to be included in publications unless he was involved in writing the paper, allowing him to ensure high quality standards (both in terms of ensured correctness of results and quality of the presentation). His argument is that publications make up a big part of a scientist's reputation and he considered it important that his reputation included "well-readable papers you can rely on".

@Simon : Not completely unrelated to that of quality is the question of time available for such projects. I just had to turn down a very interesting continuation of an old project a colleague and I had. But I'm working on my habilitation thesis (lots of field research), working as TA, working in a non-academic job (for the money) and caring for my wife and our newborn daughter. There's simply no interest in other projects due to the lack of time available.

A friend of mine didn't want to appear as a co-author of a paper because he felt its results weren't interesting. (The paper was fine in that it got accepted to a decent journal later.)

I think the point of view that @Simon brings up is especially common in math, where standards for co-authorship are relatively high.  People often don't want their names on papers unless they feel they deserve it (famously, Adleman from RSA).  However, I don't think this issue is so relevant here, as the people in question were co-authors at one point so presumably did work on the paper.

All persons that made a significant intellectual contribution to the paper need to be included as authors, even if they were not involved in the writing of the actual draft.
To still publish the paper without the co-authors, you need to remove all parts that contain a significant contribution by one of them.

No, this is not quite right. All persons that made a significant intellectual contribution to the paper need to be offered authorship; it is up to them to take it up but they can very well decline it without killing the manuscript.

@E.P. I think there may be field- or journal-specific rules that apply in this case, but such a right of declining authorship has clear disadvantages. In particular, the contribution of the remaining author(s) appears bigger than it really is, which is equivalent to having a team of "ghostwriters".

@E.P. It’d be great if you made this into its own answer so it could be upvoted and potentially be accepted.

@KonradRudolph I'm pretty confused by the broader question, particularly the 3.5yr wait, and OP's comment above. Mostly, I agree with Louic's answer, though.

The question about declining authorship was addressed in http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/19454/1010

I have no experience with such situations, but if for example the work (not writing) was done together (as in, joint discussions) in a way that neither of the authors contributed "solo" ideas, it doesn't seem possible to tell apart each author's contribution. In that case, it seems unfair to the author who wants to publish, since he did contribute presumably significant ideas.

@E.P. I don't think that rule solves everything. If an author doesn't like the current version of a manuscript*, is it really allowed/ethical that the other authors give them an ultimatum: either accept this version or allow us to publish your work under our names? (*For all I know this might be the case in this question.)

@JiK Both approaches have their disadvantages and lead to pretty tricky ethics situations. I don't think that there's more to say than some rough guidelines and then take it on a case by case basis. For the case you mention, for example, you're likely to also have strong disagreements on the facts of the situation, and then pretending to have a one-size-fits-all solution is not the way to go.

It is not ethical to remove them as co-authors if they have made an intellectual contribution, no matter how long ago, but nor is it ethical to include them as co-authors if they have not explicitly consented. This presents a conundrum.
The way I have dealt with unresponsive co-authors has been to give them an ultimatum and deadline. Something like:
"I will be submitting this manuscript on Tuesday next week. If I do not hear from you by them, I will assume that I have your consent to publish with the author list as attached." Depending on which way you have gone, add either "If you feel you should be included as a co-author, please let me know before then," or "If you would rather be taken off the author list, please contact me before then."

When delivering an ultimatum and a deadline, you need to have evidence that they received it.  What if they claim they never received your message?

@JoelReyesNoche it seems unlikely, since you are giving them every opportunity. At least you will be able to prove that you sent it, so proceeding was a reasonable action on your part. Unless you can speak to them in person, it seems there is no other option except yo abandon the paper.

It's possible that the e-mail address you used is incorrect or no longer active.  Or perhaps the addressee has moved to a different office or institution so the postal address is no longer valid.  It doesn't matter if you can prove you sent it, if the other party can prove it never received it.

@JoelReyesNoche for these reasons, you need to do your due diligence before proceeding: telephone them if possible, ask their colleagues or supervisor, if possible, or at least acertain that they are still listed as current employees on their institution's web site.

Well, you can't include someone else's name on a paper if they don't want it to be included. And their acceptance must be affirmative, i.e., there must be no doubt that they are OK with that. Sending them an ultimatum won't be enough if you can't prove that they read it (for example, you can't be sure some e-mail was delivered and read). It might even become a legal case, and laws might be different in your country/state, since in some cases it's required that an action must be done signaling that they are OK – simply not answering the ultimatum isn't enough to say that they agreed.
You can't take authorship for something that you didn't write. So if someone wrote a paragraph, you can't use it literally, but you could rewrite it.
Results, au contraire, are public to who was informed about it, and that person can do anything they want about it. If someone paints a wall blue, anyone can write a paper about the wall becoming blue. If someone tells you "I painted the wall blue and 53% of the viewers said it was better", you can write about that. Of course, you can't say that you did the painting and observation. The exception to that would be some non-disclosure agreement, where you explicitly had to agree that you won't disclose the information you are about to receive.
It's expected that you offer the co-authorship to everyone that was involved in the analysis and conclusions of the research. For example, a laboratory technician that just measured some variable and gave you a table with values won't be a co-author. But if the person isn't interested in doing so, well, use the result and publish your paper.
Edit
Also found this piece of interesting information:

But until the results are so widely known and familiar that they have become common knowledge, people who use them are obliged to recognize the discoverer by means of citations [1]

[1] https://www.nap.edu/read/12192/chapter/10

The matter is simple. Two authors did not want to participate or further improve the manuscript. They made the third one wait for 3 years.
If the third one wants to report the case without copying the matter from the first manuscript, then it is ethically and morally acceptable

That’s completely wrong. Contributions in science aren’t tied to the write-up of a paper. Even if a contributor never once touched a pen they may have a right to be include as co-authors. Your last sentence in particular seems to conflate copyright with scientific authorship. These concepts are completely unrelated (and additionally one is an ethical and the other is a legal concept).

I think the question is deep rooted. Always happens between the seniors and juniors. In my opinion the co-authors should be removed as second time around they did not participate in the writing up. It appears the co-authors gave up thinking it is not publishable. Moreover >3 years is a long time to wait to get an answer.
My vote go ahead and publish without their name.
Consultant

authors: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні


text:
How can you determine whether a journal is indexed in ISI or SCI?
What are the main difference between SCI and ISI Journals?
How  can you determine whether a a journal is indexed in SCI or ISI?

Did you google what do these acronyms mean? It would serve the purpose.

What are the main difference between SCI and ISI Journals? — The only difference is that one type of journal is indexed in SCI, and the other type is indexed in ISI, and even that is only significant if your local academic bureaucracy cares.  (Mine doesn't.)

International Scientific Indexing (ISI) has a list on their website. The same is valid for the Science Citation Index (SCI). You can search for journals by title.

The latter link (WoS) now gives only a list of SCIE journals (SCI extended). Is it possible to get a list of SCI journals (preferably downloadable in a standard format)?

The former (ISI) does not show many well-known journals in all journals list (while still showing less known journals and marking them 'not indexed').


text:
Device for writing a lecture with a stylus for video lecture recording
I would like to start recording mathematics lectures for students to watch on their own time.
I need to find a device that allows me to write out the lecture with a stylus and import it to a computer.
I suppose I could buy an iPad or something close to it.  But, that would be a bit of money.  I am looking at a Wacom Bamboo Splash.  The problem here is that the writing area seems very small (the class is a math class).

What is a good device for writing out lectures to a computer?
Is there a device that makes this work best and is not hundreds of dollars?

As I understand it, you want to film your lecture - i.e. you talking to camera/audience while also making a digital copy of what you are writing - e.g. equations that you would normally write on a blackboard. Is that right?

I edited the question.  I am mainly interested in making a digital copy of my writing.  I am unsure whether I will be able to film things via camera.

I recommend checking out the Khan Academy FAQ entry on what equipment they use, as their tutorials are probably similar to what you're interested in creating.

why not directly making a video of you, reading your slides? — Because that would suck.  Just like it does in person.

I bet he wasn't just "reading the slides".

I saw a seminar by Claire Mathieu where she uses both: stylus handwriting on slides. To me this is a very good way to maintain a compromise between the quality of the lecture and preserving one's shoulder/arm...

Would this post be relevant at Software Recommendations SE also? Yes, the OP asks about a "device" but in my limited experience, the device and software in several cases may be inextricable.

@drN - The first rule of migrating is, "is the question on-topic at the current site?" Given that the answer is "yes", a migration would not be appropriate here.

@eykanal Yes agreed. But software rec SE could provide specifics/unique perspective given the nature of this question? Feel free to enlighten me otherwise! :)

My physics instructor uses a Surface tablet to write in OneNote. His writing is sent to a projector, and he later sends us pdfs with lecture notes.

If your department has a document camera, especially a newer model, then you could use that. I currently use a document camera for my regular lectures. I write on the paper under the camera, the camera sends it to the computer and the computer sends it to a projector, where it gets projected onto the big screen in the lecture hall. This way I can look at my class the class the entire time and I do not have to worry about whether students in the back can read the writing on the whiteboard in front.
The document camera I use can also be set up to display the images it captures on the computer. Then, with video capture software, (CamStudio is an example of one with a free option), you could record a video as you write.
If your department does not have a document camera, you can set up something similar with a webcam, which would be cheaper to buy but produces lower video quality. Set it to look down on the paper. You write your lecture, and the computer records it. Alternatively, your institution may have an instructional technology office that could loan you a document camera (or may even have a more advanced set up).

What about using some kind of screen recorder that also do editing?
I find BB FlashBack Express, Wink and this to be good ones.

Yes, by all means use a Wacom (any device).  You need screen capturing s/w and audio capturing.  You can then post the video afterwards (which will just be the computer screen, and your voice talking over it).
Windows:

Use OneNote for your notes + Camtasia for audio/video capturing.  You might also use an external MP3 recorder for sound if your PC mic is not good and then blend them yourself after (more tedious).

Mac:

I use a series of Pixelmator images for "writing" math on a Mac. Create a 4096x4096 image gives you a fairly large canvas.  A new page can be added by adding a new "layer".  To record what you're doing, if you combine SoundFlower + QuickTime you can have screen+audio recording (see youtube for videos on how)

We went this path heavily some years ago with the Italian Math Olympiad organizing committee. (you can see some of our lectures, in Italian, on http://olimpiadi.dm.unibo.it/videolezioni/).
You will obtain the best results with a tablet pc with a Wacom active digitizer. The quality of the pen writing cannot be matched by iPads and the like. Unfortunately, that is a toy that does cost hundreds of dollars. You may get a used one off eBay for cheaper. I never used one, but I heard that the HP Touchsmart TM2 was one of the most appreciated models in the past years, and now it should be quite cheap to get one.
There is no cheaper option, as far as I know, that will provide the same overall quality. Graphic tablets such as the one you are considering are a reasonable substitute, but, apart from the size issue, they have a higher learning curve (since you have to learn to watch in point A and write in point B --- no problem after some training if you are the one teaching, but this will prevent you from asking the students to solve exercises in a class, for instance).
Forget about iPads and anything that does not have an active digitizer --- the writing quality will simply not be sufficient for your needs.
EDIT: clarification: I wrote "we" but I am just one member of the project and only a few of those lectures are mine.

This would need more preparation work before the lecture and would leave you much less flexible about what to explain and add to the lecture on-the-spot. Moreover, it is my opinion that it is easier to follow someone writing on a blackboard/tablet rather than reading slides: you can hear their comments while they write, infer things from the order in which they write, and you have some dead time to re-check things and catch up.

@user102: students absorb material much better by seeing it written out in "real time" than by having material already existing on slides. Also: when posting things like equations on slides, people tend to rush through them, which is prevented by writing at a natural pace.


text:
How do people who are not active in the academic community write papers? Is it possible?
I've recently finished grad school.  I've written two papers since that time, and I think that I have more good ideas.  However, I find it difficult to write now for two reasons.  First of all, I don't have access to the ACM / IEEE literature databases anymore (they were gratis from my university.)  Second, I have no one to review or even proof-read my papers.
So, how do people who are not active in the academic community write papers?  Is it possible?

Is your main problem the lack of academic resources (journals, databases) or just that you write alone?

My main problem is the lack of sources to cite and build upon, but also I wonder about the lack of review before I submit.

If not having access to the ACM is the specific problem, you can join and get full access to the ACM Digital Library for $198 per year. That's not cheap but it's also not a huge amount of money to spend on something you're serious about.

@David Richerby - I agree that I could find the money for an ACM subscription.  But then there's IEEE on top of that, with related work I would need to know about, to avoid covering topics others have, etc.

I see only two problems: 1) Access to data to find the limitations in the state of the art and evaluate your contribution (engineering) or verify your hypotheses (science). 2) Funding (and time) to attend conferences and such. Most papers can be found in open access or personal web pages of the authors (or mailing them) and I do actually feel more comfortable writing alone (both code and papers). Are you in humanities?

@Trylks I am in engineering

You can often find papers on either the author's website or a preprint archive. How common this is probably depends on the field.

It is possible.  After years away from graduate school, I am working on several papers, covering both old and new topics.  However, it is very hard to do it completely alone.
I have the benefit of some contacts acquired through one of the forums on StackExchange.  They are willing to spend a limited amount of time (say half an hour a month, to within two orders of magnitude) in email correspondence with me, to receive drafts from me (but not necessarily referee: just skim for a few minutes and find more egregious aspects which they kindly point out), and most importantly, endorse me for posting on ArXiv.  Before the endorsement, I spent some time convincing them I wouldn't be a drain, that I could help them out, and that I might hope for a favor regarding endorsement, literature search, and so on.  Realize that from their perspective, I could be a potential crank or downside on their career, as I have given them almost no verifiable information on what little credentials I have.  I consider their involvement as a gift, and treat it with care.
With their minimum involvement, I now can post results on the ArXiv, and use that as a stepping stone to loftier research goals.  Since your express purpose is to produce research for others to read, you need three things: the research, the others, and a means to get the research to the others.  Getting to know one or two of the "others" is key.  Getting them by being helpful on this and other fora is one of the easiest routes I know for this step, but there are other methods.  There may be other repositories besides the ArXiv which may help you more, but I don't know of them; ask the "others" for advice, and respect their time.  The research part, that's your problem, again with which "others" might be able to help.

Regarding proof reading, you might get some students at your former or local university to work for cheap.  They may not be able to referee, but they can catch some things that your eyes missed for the nth time.

How does uploading it to ArXiv help you as 'stepping stones'?

Even though ArXiv material gives no guarantee of peer review, the arxiv.org URL gives some cachet: someone had to endorse you to post there.  With that, you can mention it in your promotional material, so people who might not have thought to look for your work there can find it easily.  Further, in introducing yourself to others, sending a trusted link is preferred to an arbitrary link or large attachment.  Someone following up will believe they are not downloading viruses in clicking on the arxiv link.  When you have a respectable ArXiv presence, others can easily promote your work (and you).

Granted ArXiv is more for science and theory than engineering, but some may find the CS section suitable for such needs.  Again, "others" are more qualified than I to make that call.

Oh, I can't just post there, but I need to network enough to be invited?  It looks like my solo academic career doesn't have much hope.

Hope is something you manufacture.  For the path I recommend, having one or two "others" is key.  You will need them anyway to read your stuff, why not offer to help one of them in exchange for a small favor?  That's how I'm doing it, and I've been formally out of academia for over a decade and out of industry for most of a decade.  I've tried the fully independent route: it took years for anyone to notice my work, and more years to apply it and use it.  Promoting it and having some help speeds up the process.

the arxiv.org URL gives some cachet — No, not really.  (I'm an arXiv moderator.)

@JeffE , really? I'm not suggesting that ArXiv looks like an online journal, but if I were sending emails to prospective collaborators, wouldn't they put more trust in an arxiv URL than asking them to download from other repositories, or some personal URL ending with .docx or .gzip or .exe?  ArXiv might be a glorified bitdump, but I'm hearing from you there isn't even the glory.

Having an arXiv preprint means your paper meets the minimal standards to be a research paper: written in roughly grammatical English, with a proper bibliography, and on a topic relevant to the subject category. That's it. Physics has a slightly higher bar for endorsement than math or CS, but passing that bar says, at most, "not a flagrant crank", which is rather far from "cachet".   And no, in my experience, sending a link directly to the paper works just as well as sending an arXiv link, assuming you misspelled .pdf three times.

I don't know where you are, but in some countries public libraries have access to academic literature. You may have to deal with a large regional or a national library for this - for example, people in the UK can access almost anything through the British Library in London, but some journals are also available through the libraries in other cities.

I don't see a problem with either of your concerns if you have a good professional relationship with your former supervisor. Just contact them and ask if they would be interested to coauthor a research paper. Send them a draft paper or a description of your idea and a list of the ACM/IEEE publications you need for the research.

Why the downvote? I moved to the industry recently after many years in academia. My current job involves a lot of research. If I ever want to publish again, that is exactly what I am going to do - contact my PhD supervisor or some of my former colleagues, depending on the research area. It doesn't mean they are not going to do any work at all - if that is what the downvoter assumed.


text:
What's in a 'vita'?
A professor agreed to write me a letter of recommendation for a military program.  He said 'yeah, send me a vita'.  What is a vita?

I thought this was a silly question until I tried to google the (incorrect) spelling of vitae and saw all sorts of irrelevant stuff.

For your second question, yes--send him instructions (if the program provides instructions for letter writers) or a link to the program page.

This is simply shorthand for curriculum vitae, also called a CV or resume. He's just asking you to send him your resume so he can list stuff you've done when writing your letter.

Does he want to know just stuff I did in the university, or my career in general?

Probably both, with an emphasis on academic stuff.

A "vita" is just a short term for a curriculum vitae (i.e., CV) which is similar to, but not exactly the same as, a resumé.
There are many questions on this site, like this one asking about how to create a CV and many other webpages which can help with figuring out how to write one.


text:
Changed jobs. Email from last job is now dead and that is log in for my google scholar
I have changed jobs.  My email from my last job is now dead and that is log in for my google scholar account.  How do I get round this?

Sadly it is dead. The IT felt from last job scrubbed my accounts as is their policy after a few months

If it is just the "username" then it probably doesn't matter and you can continue to use it without effect. Many sites, at least, work like that. Have you tried to login and it failed?

The email is most likely not dead, you simply don't have access anymore. Ask your former employer to help you change the mail (by forwarding you the confirmation mail, for example).


text:
Is there a more gender-neutral and specific term for "Underclassman"?
Yale has changed their language, but I don't see a clear alternative here.
At this point, I think referring to students by their specific class years ( "First-Years and Sophomores" vs. "Juniors and Seniors") is the best alternative for now, particularly because of the ambiguity around what class years the terms "underclassman" and "upperclassman" really refer to.

Surely it should be “underclassperson” & “upperclassperson”?

This is nitpicky, but the distinction at Yale is first-years vs. everyone else (since that's how living arrangements work) not 1st/2nd vs. 3rd/4th.  That is "upperclassmen" always includes sophomores at Yale.  It's only ambiguous if you think the term is meaningful outside of its technical usage at specific universities.

I propose Frophs...

I've seen "frosh and sophs", even in official communications.

By underclass I would think of Lumpenproletariat.  I've never seen the phrase used to mean students of a certain year.

The phrases "lower-division students" and "upper-division students" are often used to refer to students in the first two years or the last two years (respectively) of a four-year degree.  See, for example, this page from U. Texas Austin:

Undergraduate students are classified as freshmen, sophomores, juniors, or seniors, based on the number of semester credit hours passed and transferred, regardless of the hours’ applicability toward a degree. ... Freshmen and sophomores are referred to as lower-division students; juniors and seniors, as upper-division students.

See also this page and this page from Cal State classifying transfer students in this way.  This dichotomy is also (and perhaps more frequently) applied to courses, for examples, see UCLA and U. Washington.

Referring to years verbosely makes sense to me.

First-years and sophomores

First and second years

Or if you want a different meaning

First through third years

I think Yales' terminology is appropriate, though I find it may be more prudent to refer to the program being attempted (undergraduate, graduate, master's, doctoral, post-doctoral, etc) and just append First-Year; is it important to dictate which year they are in aside from the first?
If more specificity is truly needed, Last(Final?)-Year may also be applied in that way, or 'Last-Year Graduate Student.' If in the middle years, state the year as suggested. That seems more than appropriate.
First/Last go together, as opposed to Initial/Final, so First/Last would be at least consistent in its lexicon.
Such as a First-Year Undergraduate being a literal first of the first year.
A First-Year Graduate student being the first year of the graduate program.
Etc.
My own criticism of my suggestion is that it may not translate into other academic systems cleanly if their progression structure is different. I can only speak for the American way.
I cannot yet comment so I apologize for responding to the other answer and if inappropriate can be edited out by whomever. In regards to 'themself', it does give me a bit of trouble in syntax. Despite being in both communities it is relevant (linguistics and LGBT), it feels wrong to say out loud. In my own writing and having to reference, speak with and about gender-neutral individuals, 'themselves' is read just as well and can be the same as 'themself' depending on the syntax of the sentence. "They completed the task themselves." as long as the article is defined already, it sounds appropriate. If it isn't, it will sound, again, a bit strange. "Ash completed the task alone." resolves the issue completely, and avoids repetitive pronoun usage.
This is a failure of English with the lack of a third person singular neuter. Many other languages have it. Apologies again for the digression, but it may still be valuable in gender-neutral academic writing. I would appreciate any comments or perpsective on this.

Funny, I'm a linguist too and have naturally produced "themself" even though I'm not super deep into LGBT culture.

I find it to be more of a kneejerk reaction to a highly ingrained grammatical rule from many years of writing without consideration to LGBT variety. It is just a pitfall of English as it is imo. It may change and I hope it does.

I doubt that you will find a widely used term at the moment. Language takes a while to catch up to social changes and the standards of what is acceptable differ around the world. Most new changes to the language are seen as clumsy at first and take a while to reach acceptance and it may initially be only locally in any case. Even this system, which tries to be gender neutral, balks at "themself".
Change will come. Do the best you can in the short term and be aware that some choices are exclusionary.
And even "underclass" has a social meaning outside academia, that may be unintended. Language is hard and only imperfectly mapped to thought processes.

What system? I'm find with "themself."

@AzorAhai--hehim, it is marked as misspelled in the editor here.

Haha, well I wouldn't take SE as an expert on gendered language ...

@Daniel I have no idea.