text:
What are the arguments for and against Open Access?
As a relative newbie in academia, I understand that there is a rather controversial debate raging about the benefits and negatives of Open Access policies.  Is it possible to summarize some of the arguments for and against Open Access?

Have you read all the posts in here about open access? If not then perhaps you should.

What OA policies? There are lots of them.

Not sure why this post was closed. Seems to be getting a lot of interest from the community. Typical SE.

@Shinobii  Agreed.  I deliberately made this rather broad such that answerers could explain the general arguments.  If I had just learned about this debate today, the other questions would do me little good if I didn’t understand the general debate.  The answers here are exactly what I wanted.

The answers here all address gold open access, but not green open access..

@DavidKetcheson What do you think should be different in my answer? My belief is that it addressed green OA as well, as part of the search for a stable business model.

@DavidKetcheson that sounds like a great answer!

@jakebeal Green OA doesn't require money for editing; just the minimal cost of hosting .  It's pretty clear from existing examples that green OA won't "create a bigger barrier for low-resource scientists."  So your answer, if taken to refer to green OA, would be very misleading in my opinion.

While there's a great deal of complexity in the arguments, the primary arguments basically boil down to a very simple core of inclusion vs. cost.
For open access: Science should be available to all people, including the large number of people who don't have the personal or institutional resources to pay lots of money to buy access to articles.
Against open access: editing and publishing quality materials requires significant resources, and these have to be paid for somehow. If readers don't pay, then somebody else has to (often, but not always the authors or article), and it's not clear if these alternatives will end up making a bigger barrier for low-resource scientists. Moreover, a stable business model hasn't yet been established, and in the meantime lots of scammers have been attracted, who are putting out piles of trash and giving open access a bad name.
There's a lot more here, as noted in the comments, but this is a pretty concise starting point for understanding the arguments for and against.

I suppose you mean the copy-editing part of editing, since the content editing is typically performed by experienced scientists without compensation. Regarding copy-editing, many researchers experience the copy-editing services of professional publishers as adding little value while introducing additional costs: with readily available article templates, it's easy for scientists to submit a decent-looking article. And then, it happens frequently that in the copy-editing phase some changes are performed that diminish the article's quality, making additional communication and fixing necessary.

@lighthousekeeper I think you have an overly optimistic view: in my experience, many scientists aren't able to prepare decently formatted papers, and I certainly struggled to review some horribly formatted ones which, luckily, were then retypeset by a professional copy editor into a good journal format.

@MassimoOrtolano Maybe it's just my field. As an author, I cooperated with the copy-editing teams of Springer and Elsevier, who messed up the formatting and introduced nonsensical changes. I was also the publication chair for an ACM conference, where I was responsible for checking correct formatting for all papers before they went to ACM. ACM just published the resulting PDFs without bothering to check them a second time.

@lighthousekeeper This site has frequently a too narrow viewpoint due to the prevalence of users from mathematics and computer science where, for instance, LaTeX is fairly widespread (but you can also produce badly formatted papers with it). But like it or not, the world is much more varied, and you can even find researchers (I have examples from acquaintances in the humanities) who have issues in writing emails, guess how they format their papers.

But even in STEM fields--I work between physics and engineering, and I review papers from both sides--the well formatted manuscript is the exception rather than the rule.

@lighthousekeeper Back when I was in academic publishing, I remember one author sending me a book manuscript, typeset using LaTeX (and our style files too!). The author literally expected us to send the manuscript directly to the printer - he even said printing a book is as simple as pressing Ctrl + P. Even neglecting all the other stuff we do (like prepare a book cover), I pointed out a page where TeX had put the figure on one page and the caption on the next. Thankfully he let us get on with the standard process afterwards.

@lighthousekeeper Even when most content work is done by volunteer labor (which is field dependent), there is still higher-level quality assurance and curation work that is done by publishers.  For example, despite all criticism, Springer, Elsevier, and ACM do have quality control processes that actually do matter.  Somebody has to pay for these.  And volunteer labor isn't actually free, it's just a business model that makes the cost more indirect.

@jakebeal Maybe there was a time when quality curation was a major argument for these publishers, but nowadays it appears that the name of the publisher says little about the quality of a publication venue. Of course voluntary editing work is not for free, but that's neither an argument for or against open access, since the current paywalled publication models rely on it as well.

@lighthousekeeper Again, I think you're thinking too narrowly within your own scope of experience.  In many disciplines, there are indeed paid content editors.  Likewise, "publisher says little about the quality of a publication venue" is entirely simply not true.  Publisher is not sufficient to establish that a publication is high quality, but it is a strong indicator, particularly when considering the full range of poor-quality publishers out there.

@jakebeal Differences between disciplines do exist, I'm just sharing a perspective from mine -- which happens to show that some drawbacks/benefits are not inherent to OA/non-OA, but depend on the specific model.

Reminder that SCIgen is a thing.

Nature article on this very topic.
Pros:

Proponents of a move to open access argue that this will benefit science and society in general. A report published last April by the UK Wellcome Trust assumes that "the benefits of research are derived principally from access to research results", and therefore that "society as a whole is made worse off if access to scientific research results is restricted".

Counterargument:

But even where research is publicly-funded, taxes are generally not paid so that taxpayers can access research results, but rather so that society can benefit from the results of that research ... Publishers claim that 90% of potential readers can access 90% of all available content through national or research libraries, and while this may not be as easy as accessing an article online directly it is certainly possible ...
  Funding for scientific research also comes from a variety of sources – in some countries such as Australia and New Zealand around 80% of R&D funding comes from the public purse, while in Japan and Switzerland only about 10% is government-funded. It is therefore not necessarily the case that taxpayers fund most scientific research.

Cons:

Another criticism of open access is that payment for publication could create conflicts of interest and have a negative impact on the perceived neutrality of peer review, as there would be a financial incentive for journals to publish more articles. The importance of the role of peer review does not diminish under an Open Access model, and structures need to be in place to ensure that peer reviewers are not unduly influenced by the needs of their publishers.

Counterargument

In some ways though this argument can apply as much to the current subscription-based system as publishers often justify price increases on the grounds of an increase in the number of journal articles published. This suggests that there are financial advantages for both Open Access and subscription-based publishers in publishing more articles.

All these quotes are from the first section. The later sections of that article delves into more things which are in my opinion quite interesting, such as the argument that open access depresses profits (I'm not convinced it does, but the author apparently is), and depressing profits means less development of information services (such as Scopus and Web of Science) as well as information databases (such as Cell Signaling Gateway). The two points above are, however, by far the most commonly cited arguments for and against open access.

These arguments are specifically about gold open access.  But it's pretty hard to argue against green open access.


text:
Can I be a professor just by publishing scientific papers and teach 2 or 3 courser per year without writing a proposal (Electrical Engineering)
I am an academia person having some good publication records. It seems that I may need to spend most of my time in writing proposal if I join as a university faculty in North America.
I have reservations on two aspects of the proposal writing:
Worthiness:
Does a proposal evaluate the true skill of the candidate? My answer (with high probability) is No. This is because, if the candidate is an excellent one, his knowledge is exploited in several of his past academic records. The first is his publication record (especially from the reputable journals). This record (along with the review comments) will almost show the true skill of the candidate. And I did not see a reason to ask the candidate to submit an extra cover letter (proposal).
To my knowledge, the proposal is the very important component for funding. And I am not aware of any colleague getting funding just by submitting his/her CV?
Please note that if the idea of the proposal is shiny (evaluated by experts in the same area only), it should be publishable as a technical paper.
Evaluation Method:
It is known that funding agencies require proposals to provide support for research. However, most of the evaluators of the proposal are not working in the same research area, and in most cases they fail to understand the true contribution of the proposal especially if it is a deep rooted concept. Thus, such a system will benefit those who are not knowledgeable in their research area which I believe is a bit unfair. One may claim that that the reason could be a luck of expertise in the area. However, this can be circumvented by requesting detailed information about the candidate. For example, one of them is by checking the peer review comments of the previously published papers from the reputable journals.
It looks that these evaluation approaches are not integrated in the current system for the reason that I did not understand especially in the academic environment. And I prefer not to involve in such kind of competition. I am also not interested to perform some administrative works such as department recruiting as these activities have their own complications.
I am a bit fan of doing research and teach few courses per year, and organizing conferences, workshops, and peer reviewing papers. Thus, my question is that is there any institution who can hire professors so that their responsibility is just publishing scientific papers and teach 2 or 3 courser per year without writing a proposal (Electrical Engineering)?
Thanks for reading this long question.

Well... is  your research such that you can carry it out and publish papers without any funding?

Oh, and: I am also not interested to perform some administrative works such as department recruiting as these activities have their own complications. I think that alone rules out all positions in the US having the word "professor" in their title.  Likely other countries too, but I couldn't say for sure.

Dear Sir,
Thank you for providing the answer. I strongly support the idea that a university professor should be funded. What I did not agree is the way a professor is evaluated to get a fund. I have the same reason for the department recruitment issues. It is not because I simply dislike it, it is just because I did not support the way it should be (like funding).

As with previous "questions" of this OP, this is a poorly disguised rant against the way grant proposals are evaluated.

Do you want a pony with that?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it describes a proposal/suggestion (to whom?) instead of a question looking for an answer.

If your field is pure math, yes, it is possible. You don't need funding. All you need is pencil and paper to do research. You can fund your students by giving them TA. You say your field is EE, then you have serious problem. You need lab. You need equipment. You need to hire people to maintain the lab. You and your students need to use the lab to do research. How can you do your job without funding? Where would the funding come from? You need to write proposal to get it. Nothing comes free. There is no free lunch!

The question is posed from a perspective of almost complete ignorance. To think that the evaluators of proposals are ignorant about the proposals they evaluate makes no sense. In truth, the people who review proposals are typically among the best in their field, and they understand a great deal about what is being proposed.

I'm also going to add that it is simply not true that professors spend "most of their time" writing proposals.

Dear  Wolfgang Bangerth,
Thank you for replying. I am not ignoring the people effort in evaluating the proposals. I understand that the evaluators are experts in the area and they are doing their best to get the best candidate. However, given the vast majority of disciplines (I know in EE), it is almost impossible to sharply understand the true contribution of the proposal unless the evaluator is working in the exactly the same area. The other thing is: Is it really important for a professor to write a proposal to get grant?

Why did not he/she spend the same time to contribute to the scientific community a new article. This will add value to the scientific community.
I have also many experiences from friends (and mine) stating that your CV is excellent but you do not get scholarship/funding just because of luck of “not-so-good proposal”. And the people who get award do not have strong CV like me. One of my professor said me that, these days it is better to improve your skill on how to “sell yourself” rather than doing excellent technical paper.

I also know how much tough for a person to get an accepted paper in reputable journals of IEEE (in such a case the reviewers will see the true technical contribution of the paper rather than how you present it). Also they will give you a chance to explain your technical contribution (and in most cases the paper will not be accepted if the contribution is not enough).

"given the vast majority of disciplines" -- yet again, you insist on claiming something is universal but don't indicate any supporting evidence. Once again I'd like to point out that there are many different subjects and disciplines that make up academia, and many different countries in which academic research takes place

If you can do your research without funding, than sure. However, even in "cheap" fields professors are expected to train PhD students, and these are expensive, so hard to get without funding.
As to administrative duties; universities are typically "self-administered". That is good, as that way we make our own decisions and not some external bureaucrat. But that also means that we need to do that.
Think of it this way: everywhere where people make a career (in academia and elsewhere), their set of duties change from substantive to increasingly bureaucratic duties. If you don't like that, then don't make a career.

Dear All
Thank you again for answering my question. As mentioned in the question, professors must get funding to do research. In fact, it is impossible to perform any kind of research (at least in EE) without getting any fund. What I am questioning is the way a professor is getting funding?
According to one of my questions (why prof spend more time in writing proposals), there is a consensus in these two issues:

Professors usually prefer to spend more time in their research area
Professors do not have any other choice other than spending their time in writing a proposal.

This will ultimately affect the overall productivity of the academic environment. The 10% success rate of a proposal makes things even worse.
If what I am stating is correct with high probability, why do not the academic society create a scheme to provide funding without writing a proposal (for example just by CV). To my knowledge, I did not see any effort in this direction.
In my opinion, it is sad that we all academicians accept proposal which is an “infertile culture” as a norm to get funding.

Please note that the academic environment should be a place where people will debate their ideas, learn new things, show their intellectual ability, develop their thought etc. I think these are the pillars for a university professor/graduate students/postdocs to work with low salary (compared to most other disciplines).
I would appreciate to get more details if I misunderstood something.

NOTE: I am not ignoring the people effort in evaluating the a professor's outcome to provide funding (I would also do the same if I would have been in their place). But what I am suggesting is a new way of Evaluation.

@AngryAcademia: Well, that is not what you asked.  You asked whether it is possible to hold a professorship without writing proposals, and the effective answer is no, it is not possible in today's world.  If you want to propose alternative models and discuss their pros and cons, that is great, but this site is not the place for it: here we are focused on question with answers, not ongoing debates.

As you move up on the hierarchy of any organization you will be more involved in the planning and less in the actual production. In academia that is organized in such a way that professors write proposals to fund PhD students and postdocs who do most of the research. While it is true that the professor could probably do each single task faster than those students or postdocs, they would not have the time to do all those tasks. Moreover, they also serve the purpose of training the next generation of researchers. So I don't see anything wrong with this division of labor.

On a practical/political level: it is not our money. The tax payers deserve a level of accountability. It is more sensible to distribute money based on what you want to do with it than on what you have done in the past.

Writing proposals is not lost effort, even if it is rejected. Those tend to come back in one form or another in other proposals.

@AngryAcademia It seems that although you are asking questions, what you really want to do is to tell us your own answers, or have a debate. If that is the case, then I suggest that your own blog or some similar forum would be more suitable. StackExchange sites are not meant as places for extended debate, or reiteration of one's own views in the guise of rhetorical question

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it possible to be admitted to CS PhD programs (in the US) with scholarship at age 18?
I have a son (currently 16) who is a junior in computer science at a well-known university. We are Canadian. He is very passionate about AI research and has published several first-authored papers in highly ranked journals and conferences (top 1-5% in Scopus).
Given the competition in graduate applications in AI, does he stand a chance to be funded in CS Ph.D. programs at 18 (I cannot afford his graduate study)? Will his age be a problem to be admitted to top programs? Should he apply for Master programs first? He has a perfect GPA and GRE.

Has he had any contact with some of the people under which he might wish to study? I don't know about computer science, but I'm pretty sure many people in highly ranked universities would already be aware of such a person if this was mathematics. It'd be kind of hard to keep secret someone age 16 who has already published and attended strong conferences --- those attending will talk, others hear about it, emails are written, . . .

I suggest that in the US and probably Canada, that a PhD program is the better choice, not a separate MS. Many places give an MS along the way simply by asking for it or writing a mini-thesis. Not a consolation prize, just a waypoint. Direct movement from BS to PhD application is the common path (US, anyway).

Has your son been living away from home during his bachelor's degree studies? Does he plan to live away from home for the PhD? I am asking because graduate students generally get less support and less supervision than undergraduates.

One thing I did not hear, does your son want to go into a PhD program? Plenty of research type companies that may not care about a PhD given the youth and passion.

@Buffy In Canada, having separate MSc and PhD programs is far more common than in the US (wherein the MSc is often pro forma, as you describe). So in Canada, one typically applies first to an MSc program, then, near its completion, to a PhD program (often but not always at the same university as the MSc). Disclosure: I am more familiar with mathematics than computer science.

Relevant xkcd

Does the son even want to do this?

[For context: I am a professor of mathematics at the University of Georgia.  I've served on my department's Graduate Committee, which does graduate admissions, for about eight years.  From 2016-2019 I was the Graduate Coordinator, hence the faculty member most directly involved in the graduate admissions process.]
Regarding your son, you told us:
1) He is a junior studying CS at well-known university.  He has perfect grades and GRE scores, and he has multiple first authored papers in highly ranked journals and conferences.
2) He is 16.
To my mind, the first point is highly relevant.  In mathematics a student with that profile would probably get into some of the top PhD programs in the country.  I am confident that the same holds in CS. Moreover, in both of these fields, admission to a top program comes with full funding the vast majority (over 95%) of the time.
I am also assuming that since your son is 16 now and in his junior year, he will be 18 -- i.e., an adult -- when he starts graduate school.  Given this, the second point does not seem relevant to me.  Some people will find your son's achievements (even) more impressive given his age.  Others will have some concerns about the maturity and readiness of such a young student for a PhD program.  But when it comes to admissions and hiring, times have changed: in the last few years faculty have received much more training and specific instructions (including on legal obligations) regarding admissions and hiring than in years past.  Deciding not to admit a qualified student because of his age sounds like a discriminatory practice to be avoided.  Conversely, giving more weight to a student because of his age sounds like a discriminatory practice against the other applicants...also to be avoided.  A small number of committees may still be influenced by such thinking, but overall it should be the case that your son will be considered only on point 1) and I think that it will be the case.
In summary: your son has an excellent profile that will most likely lead to multiple fully funded offers at prestigious CS programs in the US.  (By the way: yes, he should apply directly to a PhD program.)  You do not need to, nor do I think you should, do anything out of the ordinary because of his age.

Just as a note, some programs (in math, at least) have admitted students this young for many years.  I agree that this would not be a barrier in such a case.

I love it that you can ask a question on SE and get a first-hand answer from a professional in the field like this. @Chris good luck to your son, and I feel saying congrats even though being a father myself I often think "I didn't do anything really, it's his own doing" ;-).

I strongly recommend that your son (or you) speak with the professor he is working with at his university for guidance on your questions. With that being said...
With regards to funding age restrictions, it should not be an issue. Also, funding for CS PhD programs (at least in the United States and Cananda) is almost always guaranteed with acceptance and is thus not a separate competitive process. For example, University of Toronto's CS PhD program explicitly states guaranteed funding periods with acceptance (link: https://web.cs.toronto.edu/graduate/about). There are other sources of funding that are competitive, such as the United States' NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, and do not have age eligibility requirements; however; the NSF Fellowship I just mentioned is restricted to US citizens.

Would it be a bit awkward to ask his adviser, as he is planning to continue his graduate study in the US?

Hmmm, in the US, funding for doctoral studies is normally a TA position, not a grant without other responsibilities. But I doubt that the age would be a large impediment for such a position - most good places anyway. I was once an advanced grad student and one of our fellow students was about 18 and a TA.

There shouldn't be any awkwardness about asking. And your son should look at a lot of universities on both sides of the border (and elsewhere). He sounds like someone who would be desirable.

TA positions would work, as he is doing TA in his department.

Funding could also be a Graduate Research Assistantship, though TA tends to be more common (this depends on school). Chris - I considered putting this in my answer, but since you asked: it would not be awkward. Professors that mentor students tend to want their students to succeed regardless of where they are working, and going to graduate school somewhere else is quite common.

WRT "awkwardness and related". For someone who is really excelling at a young age, there are advantages in not staying at the undergraduate institution. He has probably learned about as much as he will from their faculty already. Move on. Move up. Work with people who have a fresh perspective. Maybe not true for someone who is fragile in any way and needs nurturing, but otherwise, seek new horizons.

My academic friend told me that in his field (Mechanical Engineering), it was considered a little suspect when you got your Bachelor's and Graduate degrees at the same school. Even though my field is CS, I don't know what the thinking is about that in CS, but still it doesn't seem like it should be awkward to ask his advisor. And, in any case, if his advisor wants to keep your son in his program, he should have to sell it!

The other answers speak effectively to the general case, and I agree with them, but thought an answer focusing on the specifics might be relevant too.
I suspect you are already aware of the strong parallels between your son's case, and that of another Canadian student with an interest in computer science, Erik Demaine, who was admitted into a funded PhD program in computer science at the age of 14, and went on to become MIT's youngest ever faculty member. Admittedly this was in Canada, but it would be difficult to imagine a US school turning down a similar opportunity.
If funding is a concern, your son may also want to look into fellowships and scholarships. If your son is a US Citizen, he may be competitive for an NSF Graduate Fellowship.
It sounds like your son may only have Canadian Citizenship however. Luckily, NSERC provides two sources of funding that your son can take with him to a US School: The PGS-D award, and the MSFSS award. The PGS-D, as I recall, can be taken at an institution outside Canada. The MSFSS award can be used to cover the cost of an exchange, rather than a permanent position.

Thanks for pointing out some possible funding sources and an interesting role model to inspire my son in CS research. He enjoys doing research and wants to apply his research for societal changes. I don't know if he could be that successful, but it would be nice to see him doing research at the right place and gradually realizing his dreams.

I'm going to give a Canada specific answer.
Since your son is Canadian, I'd highly recommend that he do a MSc before pursing a PhD. There are a few reasons for this:

A PhD is a long, huge, often painful commitment, and someone who is 18 might not know what they want to do with their life. If he decides he'd rather do industry than academia, an MSc will allow for that.
Doing an MSc is common, almost expected, in Canada
A Masters in Computer Science will be funded at pretty much every Canadian university, probably guaranteed to 18000 a year.
Doing an MSc will give your son more publications and experience, which will increase his chance of getting extra PhD funding. There's some prestigious scholarships like the NSERC CGS-D and Vanier awards, and doing an MSc first might help bolster his application.
PhDs require a lot of "soft skills." Things like networking, pitching your work at conferences, defending your work against criticism, giving talks, etc. Even if your son is a genius, which it seems like he is, there are some things that you are just better at with more years under your belt. I know at 18 I wouldn't have been mature enough to deal with these things.
The social differences between an 18-year-old and his colleagues will be less pronounced in an MSc program. Many people with PhDs are married, having kids, etc. It's certainly not universal, but I suspect he'd have more in common with Masters students.

You might be interested in something like UBC's PhD track Masters program, where you start in a Masters but then can transfer into a PhD if all goes well. I suspect other schools have similar things.
As a singular data point, there's someone in my research lab who can't have been more than 19 when they started their MSc. I've never known someone to start a PhD so young.

Ignoring the son's age - a person who already has significant published research may not need the extra experience and publications. Just saying.

In Canada, lots of undergrads get publications through the USRA program, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're well prepared for the rigors of PhD work. O certainly wasn't.

Currently a CS PhD student in the US in a highly-ranked program. Anecdotally, there is a student in our department who just started at age 18 and is fully funded. I can't speak to how Canada's departments will view such an application, but I can't imagine it would be any different than here based on my interactions with faculty there. As mentioned in @Pete L. Clark's (super awesome) answer, your son's age will not matter.

I'm in a similar position. I'm a junior (also at a well known university) at 15, set to graduate at about 17 years old. I'm also working in the field of AI, with 3-4 publications to my name, one first authorship, in good journals and conferences. I've also done a couple of internships (though this is not so relevant to PhD applications).
When I entered university early, I became aware of a few other people who had done similar things - several of these people DID go to graduate school at 18-19. Though I can't speak to the funding levels, I do know it is possible.
From my own personal experience, advisors for undergraduate research may encourage the student to join their own graduate teams, particularly if the student is of high caliber. That may be an avenue to pursue.
I would even consider this to be an advantage - it certainly is uncommon (though I find it funny that your son is in nearly exactly the same position as me!), and having quality publications shows that his age has not held you back in the past. Good luck!

Every university in the U.S. has different policies regarding each element of your/your son's predicament. Some accept students into Ph.D. programs immediately from undergrad; some only accept into Masters programs; some accept into Ph.D. programs provisionally-- that is, they must meet some benchmark of performance at some point during their first few years before they're approved to continue into the Ph.D. level. Part of your task in researching all this is to pick out a few prospective universities (btw, the use of diminutives such as "uni" is an unfortunate and rather vulgar practice), research their specific policies regarding their Ph.D. program, and let that influence which universities you apply to. Funding will not be an issue; even in the super-commodified U.S., the university will work that out (some combination of teaching or research assistantship or stipends)-- and, given your son's accomplishments, they may even offer financial incentives to attract him. Oh, and-- if your son receives a teaching assistant award, is he qualified yet to teach? Teaching is itself a skill which requires time and effort to acquire, and your son would want to work on those skills, out of consideration for the educational welfare of his students (skills such as "public speaking", group dynamics, leadership, empathy, patience, etc.).

@Buffy pointed this out in their comment, but allow me to expound on what getting a PhD in the sciences in the U.S. looked like financially.
Getting into a PhD program in the US in a well-funded field like biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, engineering, mathematics, physical and mental health studies that are funded by the National Institute of Heath, etc., provides the following:
1) You don't  pay tuition.
2) You work as a teaching assistant and receive a stipend (and fellowship if your field is particularly well-funded and/or you are an exceptional candidate) which is, in most instances, plenty to live on.

I haven't the necessary reputation points to comment on the post below (jmite's) so allow me to offer a rebuttal here. Getting a MSc in CA is certainly a good option, but only if your son DOES NOT want to go to the US. In the US, the structure of a PhD is very different from what it is globally. Globally: PhDs are not course-based at all, they are all research. Thus they require a masters. And so your son getting a masters from the awesome unis in CA would be a huge step towards getting a PhD in CA or Europe or Asia.

However, in the US: PhD programs combine masters and a Global PhD into a (roughly) 5-7 year program. And from my own and many friends experiences, foreign students coming into a US phd WITH A MASTERS still have to take the courses like everyone else anyway (unless they can ace the qualifying exams on the spot — which is not rare, but it certainly hard). Thus, paying for a masters in your home country (while is no where near as financially detrimental as it is in the US — seriously, no one (even US citizens) in the sciences should get a masters in the US) could be wasted money and time.

Canadian CS masters at the top universities, which it sounds like OP's son is almost certainly qualified for, are almost always funded (comparably, but perhaps somewhat less than, US PhDs). I knew several people who had done a 2-year Canadian masters at a top school before doing a PhD at my top US PhD program in CS. They certainly on average didn't finish 2 years faster than those starting from just undergrad, but neither did they feel they had wasted those two years; they were able to get up to speed on research faster and focus less on courses even if they still had to take them.

This is absolutely valid @Dougal and I am currently getting my masters (funded) abroad for that very reason ;) Moreover, OP's son, given his aptitude, and the increase in his amptitude after residing for a year or two at UBC, Toronto, etc. other world-class unis for CS in Canada, it is very likely that he could take the quals on the spot at many US phd programs and thus past over the "masters component" of a PhD in the Us

First may I say what a legend your son is. For context, I'm a funded PhD student in the UK and I'm currently VP Lead Cloud Engineer for the central banking and regulatory arm of Barclays Bank (a division known as RFT). I also advise the UK government on national security strategy and countermeasures to cyberwarfare affecting critical infrastructure. At the heart of it, I'm just a guy who loves my craft. I jumped from a junior engineer to a VP in less than a year (something I occasionally have regrets about). When I finished my MSc I was admitted to the faculty at my university because they wanted to perpetuate our relationship, I began teaching on the apprenticeship, MComp and MSc Cybersecurity courses.
Your question reminds me a lot of Akrit Jaswal, otherwise known as the 7 year old surgeon. He applied for a PhD at Imperial College London as a young child. He was refused admission, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he was performing surgeries at that age. The reason he was refused admission is because he was deemed to have insufficient life experience to make a real contribution. They also thought that he needed to be allowed to have a childhood.
Granted your son is a bit older, this does remind me a lot of Akrit Jaswal. Whilst at the core of it, theoretical computer science is heavily mathematics and totally impersonal, many of the problems that research contributions need to address have a temporal dimension to them. Many of the innovations we see are not as a result of a genius finding the solution to a difficult mathematical problem, but lie in the humanity of what we do.
Before I entered software development and cloud engineering as a full time commitment, I had programmed since I was 8 years old and started to sell my skills at 14. Ironically, when I left school I trained to be a nurse and then became a lawyer (I'm far from a perfect man) - totally different professions. Unfortunately I didn't take the path of CS until much later in my life. The experience life has given me though allows me to be a good researcher. That isn't to say that to be a good researcher you need have lots of life experiences, but it helps significantly. My research area is trustless security, an area which is a hot topic right now given the increasing use of computers as weapons. The problem I'm working with goes much more beyond mathematics and founds itself in human nature, something that is very complicated indeed.
What I would say is that you should consider what you want the endpoint for your son to be. Does he want to be a researcher and only that? Or does he want to take his time to enjoy his youth and figure things out as he goes?
In the UK your son would be turned down for a PhD not because he isn't absolutely fantastic (which from what you say he clearly is), but because his contributions would be limited by his age. Many PhD students worldwide are considered successful if they publish just a single research paper, many PhDs can be submitted with just two good journal publications in solid journals. One of the final tests however is a viva which taps much deeper into the context of your research. A good admissions tutor would be able to detect the likelihood such a young man would be prejudiced through a lack of life experience and wider context. Another measure of a successful researcher is a wider understanding of the implications of their research and an ability to network and promote their research - I think this is where your son would fall down at his age. I don't say this in a negative way, but purely to give you a realistic view of what is required.
I began publishing as soon as I started my MSc, but this is not a measure of success. The reason I have been the leading author in the publications I have been involved in to-date is because I have networked with a large group and collaborated in a way that would not have been possible had that collaboration not existed.
I hope this provides a better view of where your son would sit in relation to a PhD. Ask yourself this, what are you trying to achieve? Is your son trying to obtain a qualification or make a wider contribution? If the latter, is he in a position to do that right now?
This is the fundamental difference between a PhD and any other type of qualification. It's not a benchmark, its an award for contributing to the state of the art, going much more beyond core academia but to the connection between the output of the PhD and the benefit of that output to the rest of the world and the impact it is able to have.

This doesn't seem very relevant to the US, which is what OP is asking about. Here, it's fairly normal that a PhD student begins immediately after finishing their undergraduate degree. Whether that happens at 18, 20, or 22, they are not expected to have substantial life experience.

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


text:
(Re-)entering UK academic system after a long time abroad
This is a sort of general existential question, but I hope it's specific enough to be welcome here.
I'm a reasonably successful not-quite-exactly-young-any-more researcher in my field, but I don't yet have a permanent position. I'm aiming to move to the UK to (re)establish my career there, but I'm becoming a little despondent about my options.
I did my PhD in a UK university, and after a short postdoc in Europe I secured a fellowship in Japan. When that ended I moved to another Japanese institute. I've been in Japan for seven years in total, as an independent researcher for all of that time. My rank is approximately equal to lecturer in the UK. This all probably sounds great, but my issue having never had an academic job in the UK it seems strangely impossible to enter the system.
Part of the issue is that so far my career has been research only - I've never had teaching duties or supervised a student. As I understand it there are no permanent UK academic jobs without a substantial teaching component, so it seems that no matter what comes up I'll be massively underqualified on that front, even if I'm a good candidate as far as research goes. (Not that I have anything against teaching - I imagine it's something I could enjoy a great deal - I just don't know the first thing about it.)
My other problem is that my research field is in basic science and is quite far from any applications. It seems to be a 'hot topic' in the Japanese and US funding systems, but it seems to be quite hard to get funding for it in the UK or EU.
So my question is simply, what kind of jobs might exist in the UK for someone in my position, and what might be a sensible strategy for re-entering the UK academic system? I'd be quite happy to have a non-permanent job at first (such as a fellowship), but I'd be very unhappy to give up my research independence. My first priority would be to get my foot in the door, but presumably it's also important to get the teaching experience that would be necessary to move to a professorship position eventually.

See also https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90121/pursuing-a-research-career-in-a-university-without-teaching-duties-is-it-possib

Universities in the UK provide teaching training. Not having teaching experience puts you on a more junior position, but does not preclude you being hired, of course you may need to compromise on ranking of the institution. Note that there is a new evaluation round coming up in 2020/21 which may, if your research is promising, may your research portfolio attractive to a hirer.

"Not that I have anything against teaching - I imagine it's something I could enjoy a great deal - I just don't know the first thing about it."  You need to get formal training in pedagogy before you start teaching.  If in STEM: http://cirtl.net/

It is not true that there are no research only academic posts. There are post-doctoral researchers, research assistants and research only professors in many places within the UK academic system. There are also research institutes outside universities and affiliated with universities who wholly perform research.
It's just that there are fewer advertisements for  these posts as there are fewer of these types of vacancies than teaching lecturer posts. You could get the impression  that they do not exist based on reading job advertisements alone.
You would need to research more carefully what institutions are performing the research in the specific area of your skills and try to find out how they advertise.
You should  be aware of the UK Universities own vacancy notification site www.jobs.ac.uk as traditional advertising of vacancies (such as in scientific journals and newspapers) is no longer performed due to budgetary reasons.

This is going to be very field dependent. What follows will be applicable in the life sciences:
There are positions at research institutes that offer the chance to do independent research without teaching duties, but they are few and far between. They are most people's dream position and competition is particularly fierce.
However, I wouldn't feel to despondent about your chances of a teaching position - In my experience, if you have a good research record, universities will hire you into a research and teaching  even if you don't have teaching experience (personally i think this is a bad thing, but still...). You will need to be prepared to learn how to teach though, and probably do a substantial amount of it.
I also wouldn't worry about being "basic science", plenty of us are basic science, and manage to eek out and existence.
One thing you might look at are the Future Leaders Fellowships, which are specifically targeted at retaining or attracting top researchers to the UK. As with the URFs mentioned by @Ian, there are very competitive.

If in a suitable field it may be worth looking at one of the long term fellowships, such as a Royal Society URF or an STFC Rutherford fellowship.
To quote from the URF page

The scheme offers you the opportunity to

build an independent research career
focus on your own research, with a limit on administrative and teaching duties
hold your fellowship on a part-time basis to suit personal circumstances

Given the length of these fellowships there is usually time to build up the experience and contacts within the UK system that you need.
There are two crucial problems with this approach. First, a lot of the application work is done by the university, so you have to find one that's willing to work with you. Second, all of these fellowships are incredibly competitive, so the chances are small.

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


text:
The choice between changing advisor or just ignoring her and do the PhD research alone?
I'am 2nd year PhD student and I'm in the phase of problem definition and exploration for my research. Other than research, I also do both RA (working on paper review, grants, etc) and TA jobs as well. On the TA job there are many things that I do, and she only recites the PowerPoint in front of the class.
I had a good (or OK) experience with her in the first year and I done pretty well in the courses. Recently I've started my research and as I work with her I find her more of judge, an angry boss than an advisor/mentor. And in my response to let's address this shortcoming she plays too late scenario.
I agree that I'm not perfect but I think that I'm dedicated, motivated and smart enough to do a PhD. However, these believe has come to question recently as I am working with her and now I'm full of doubts.  To try gives more clear and less subjective statements:
The Downsides

I'm working 8hr a day (56 hr a week) and she thinks it's not enough. So she demands more and signals (implicitly) me to cut my stipend. She demands something around 80+ hour per week at least.
I think she like more of an employee than collaborator and I feel she has no appreciation for creativity at all. She just like to be given some solved problem then she gives some feedback and the less time this process take, the better.
When I do something good, she is very reluctant to say anything positive but when some mistakes or shortcoming happen she is very quick to give you an entire speech about her experience and how good she were during her PhD etc.
While she put me in the not good enough mode, she doesn't give me clear feedback how can I improve it. When I offer a solution, her response is basically: "It's too late, but go on, surprise me (and don't think of less workload)".
I join the group with high confidence, fully funded, good records, grades, etc. I was proud of my ability in problem solving and now during these specially last 3 month I am full of doubts. I sometimes think she might be completely right and these frustrations all stem from the fact that I'm bad at doing PhD.
Not only my experience but for other lab member she is more of a Boss, a judge who can tell you're good or bad (binary feedback) and low tolerance for mistakes. This situation has a history before me and probably after me.

The Upsides

I have shortcomings and fragments in my foundations which I love to address. However, I'm in doubt that she thinks it's late. Or not willing to be patient with me growing. In my defense, I'm an independent and quite quick to grasp the concept, I think. However, I need time to address those (and not by 11hr/day all year)
She pays me well in relative to others, as far as I know.
I am not sure since not my field of research but safe to consider her as recognized in the field might not be top 10 but probably top 100. She is also affiliated with reputable university. However, I'm working in a field (a bit relevant to her but distinct) which he is not an expert by any means.
She has years of experience in her job and I respect her record of publications. She only demands good publications from students and try to force it.
All these confusing and cruel judgements? Sometimes I think this is her way of mentorship. She probably wants few one or two which survives this hardship as @buffy pointed out. But since she is pretty indirect I'm not sure about her intention it's always a mystery. One reason is when she gives harsh un-improvable judgement after a few days she become a bit kind...quite confusing for me....
She is hardworking, herself and I respect that.

My worries to change my advisor

It's possible to do so (and there is a good record of it) but since the professors are usually taken each other side and I probably need his recommendation for funds etc I'm afraid of the change because financially I'm depended heavily on this fund without the money I will be in an extreme financial hardship.
As @Buff pointed out, in recent months I had this idea that I can manage to prove myself to her and surprise her. However, it's extremely hard when you don't believe her well intention and sometimes frankly I think she doesn't like me to be succeeded. The only way, is to some great job that surprise her in a big way. I genuinely consider that, but mentally I feel too weak to do so.

The questions
I probably don't have enough experience or might not think it through but I'm considering change my lab. So here are my questions:

Are this scenario pretty bad or something common in a PhD?
If I change  my advisors what are the consequences?
She once said for a job in Academia you should work more than 11 hours per day (including weekends) to survive in academia. How accurate is this claim?
Let say by whatever reason I'm not compatible with this advisor. Is it wise to just ignore and do my research independently and forget about her? I mean just considering having no advisor and do my own PhD by myself since she clearly stated that I should define my problem and I think I can solve a problem as long as she leaves me free and give me some time. The downside is that, I don't feel mentally good during this process.

Find another advisor... There are better ones around.

Honestly, what you're writing does sound a bit scary and definitely not sustainable in the long run. Do you have a PhD student representative at your university who you can talk to? Like the academic director of research or something similar? Maybe they can give you relevant advice that takes into account the rules/regulations of your university(and country).

@Morgan-Rodgers, From the points I said, I'm sure about them. However, there might be some other points in her defense (I tried to address them above). However, since she has this attitude that someone do the job done with the least possible amount of hassle for her and specially in the first year I had many positive moments through courses with her I think this is also a choice. But as you portray it, I should not consider it as a choice.

@SolarMike, I know someone but I'm afraid of the current one and disprove of the other ones. I feed the other kind of trying not to support the student in this conflict over their coworker.

she has this attitude that someone do the job done with the least possible amount of hassle for her — Nope, nope, nope.  Fire her and find another advisor.

Is it wise to just ignore and do my research independently and forget about her? I mean just considering having no advisor and do my own PhD by myself since she clearly stated that I should define my problem and I think I can solve a problem as long as she leaves me free and give me some time.

This is probably the worst thing you could do.  In order to graduate, you have to have your advisor (and committee) approve your dissertation. If you completely ignore her, you might spend three years doing something and at the end find out that she won't approve it.  At that point, your options would probably be either start over (taking another 3-4 years) or give up and walk away with nothing to show for years of effort.  You do not want this to happen.  You want to be completely in sync with your advisor at every step of the way, so that when the time comes to submit your dissertation, the approval is just a formality.
So your options are either work out an understanding with your advisor now, or find a new one.  Finding a new advisor will be very painful now.  But if you don't switch now then things could be 10X more painful in the future.

"you have to have your advisor approve your dissertation."  This isn't always true.  But if it's not true, it's still a bad idea to skip it.

Should I change my lab/advisor?

Yes.  All your complaints suggest you have the wrong advisor.

Thanks, I added two points in her defense with my justification. But I am afraid of the consequences because the professor are powerful and the student like me is almost had no power.

@SodreLedog Not true, in many fields if all the PhD students quit, the professor is left with no ability to do research.  The power comes, in part, from the hard working students.

True. But I think not applying here. This is one student against a system not a whole PhD student strike. The hosting professor likes to not bother himself over a student with a long-term coworker.

You paint a pretty bad picture. I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. It is common enough to be worrying, but not universal. But, you haven't written any positive aspects - any upside. I suggest you consider whether there is an upside. If not, you would be well-advised to find another advisor or even a different institution.
Some advisors can be extremely painful to work with, but have so much standing in the academic community that a positive recommendation is worth a bar of gold. Students of such advisors may just tough it out, looking beyond the short term to long term goals and how to best achieve them.
As to ignoring your advisor and just getting the research and dissertation done: it may be possible or not, but will be difficult. Again, some students thrive in such an environment, being very self directed, hard working, and full of vision. But it also requires an advisor willing to go along with this and, in the end, approve of your work and sign required paperwork. You have to judge whether that is possible in your case. Most students need continuing support from the advisor as the answer of Daniel K implies. Only a few students can really be independent and it depends on both the student and the nominal advisor.
But first, look to see if there is an upside. Pain in the short term may enable bliss in the long term. But that isn't guaranteed. And the pain of switching institutions might be less than the pain of staying. But you need to assess that.

On the points I made, they're accurate as much as I can see. Being a judge or boss rather than a supervisor/teacher/mentor is pretty accurate portrait of her and pretty well known in the lab. She is also a very bad teacher, for sure. On the recommendation, she is not the best in the institution but since my university is considered a top university she has recognition but in a field that is not my topic of interest, I'm working in another field (not totally irrelevant) which she showed lots of interest when she hired me. However, I will try to update my question to reflect some upside points.

I updated my question in accordance to your answer. One bad thing that I'm dealing with is I don't know and can not trust her intention. I go for 2-3 month with the mindset you just said but right now I lose my trust in her intention. I am wiling to pay that price of hardship, but I am not sure if she really wants me to do so. She seems seeking already excellent students. I join as one of such students but seems mentally hard to keep myself in the green zone. It's very dreadful.

Change advisors. Some highly successful professors (highly published/cited) are both terrible bosses and terrible human beings. Remember, while you may be treated like an employee, you aren't--you are an apprentice, and a minion. Expect abuse.
TA/RA positions are funded so professors can dump some of their workload onto graduate students, and actually keep sane hours. That said, you can't get a PhD working 40 hours a week, or even 60. You need to be constantly working in order to make progress. Smart is good, motivated is good, but the proof is in the pudding: both putting the hours in, and getting something useful out of the hours.
But make sure you get enough sleep, regular food (brain runs on glucose), and regular exercise. (Every academic I know is a religious about regular exercise, whether it's tennis or running or yoga or whatever). People adapt all sorts of weird schedules--I've read of academics that work strictly from noon to midnight, others which take mandatory midday naps. Regardless, forget about 'free time'.
I know of one guy who managed to get his PhD done on a sort of 40-hour basis--work diligently all day, and teach nights 6-9. But he was sort of ruthless about not doing anything absolutely necessary, never volunteering, and relentlessly asking others to help him do things.
As an aside, classes no longer matter. Grades only sort of matter. So if you've been devoting a lot of time to doing well in classes, it's a waste. The research is the only thing that matters in a PhD program.


text:
How to change path from field of IT to field of Space sciences?
I'm now at the final (4th) year of completing my bachelor's degree in IT. Four years back I haven't had any idea about what I'm choosing and in my country there were no space related degrees, therefore I enrolled in an IT degree. But I always had the passion for space and now I really need to chase that dream. I thought of applying for Masters' in space related programs but I'm afraid I'm lacking that university level engineering basis. And I don't know if I can afford to enroll another four year degree from scratch in a space related program, possibly in United States/Canada.
It's not that I don't love the field of IT, I'm having good grades and all but my passion lies in space industry. I had to make a wrong choice four years back and I want to make it right. The problem is affording to start from scratch. I'm 23 years old now.
So how can I still do this?
Thanks everyone for taking your time to read and reply :)

All rockets / shuttles etc have computers / IT... So apply...

I would get out and work for a while.  Don't go to school forever.  Get some real world time.  You can make a change a few years from now if you still want to.  But you might even like work better.
Try for something in the aerospace industry, very broadly defined (aviation, airlines, defense, suppliers as ell as OEMs, etc.).  But I would consider normal IT jobs also.  You are an entry level person.  Any good experience will be good experience.
And you actually may prefer other industries (telecom, retail, software, heavy industry, natural resources etc.) more than aviation which can be rather bureaucratic because of the intense safety concerns and long product life cycles.  (But you don't know what you don't know.  Because you are 23 and haven't worked much.  Get some experiences.)
Note, that getting a "space degree" (whatever that is, I assume aeronautical/aerospace engineering) is no guarantee of a space industry posting.  Space remains a small industry.  I know a lot of aero grads who get normal engineering jobs.  And there are more MechEs designing planes and rockets than aero types (mechanical is the most general engineering degree, electrical second).  And planes and rockets and satellites are complex machines with different people developing and building different parts.

Getting in any neighboring field is not always a matter of basic education. Space agencies indeed need engineers, but they for sure have a huge demand on IT specialists as any modern tech company. But you need to first search what kind of ITs are engaged in space industry (automation, simulation, modeling, integrated systems etc.). Then if you would like to do a master degree, choose one which will give you necessary skills. Furthermore, you can try searching internship/practice in a space-related company during your study. It is very probable they would hire you, if you did well.
Having an IT degree gives you pretty a lot of perspectives, but nowadays it is really about skills and what you learn by yourself. Google, visit career days, make personal contacts, learn and prosper.

Yeah I think you're correct. Thanks friend :)

@NoobGuy then if you think this answer is correct, you should accept this one... You can change ...


text:
Professor wants me to accept his school's offer early
I just received my first offer to a Mathematics PhD program at a reasonably good US institution, where one of my recommenders is also working. He sent me an email saying he "hopes I can accept the offer quickly". I love working with him, and have told him his school is my top choice, which is true, but I have some very close second choices whose results are not yet out (expected within next two weeks). The official deadline to accept the offer is in April. Should I politely tell him that I wish to wait for a month before accepting this offer, stating "I'm a bit nervous to accept the first offer without taking a look at one other first" (which is also true)?

Are you perhaps reading too much into the prof's comment?

Thanks for your comment. If you think I am overthinking, what is the best way to reply to him?

I'm just asking if there is anything other than that one comment that makes you think he wants you to accept early. If not, then you should consider the possibility that he didn't mean anything other than "I hope you accept".

If this offer is your top choice, then what do you have to gain by waiting?
Or is it that you think one of the others might offer more money or something?

In the US, "hope you can accept the offer quickly" has become a set phrase in graduate admissions letters. You have the right and their explicit permission to wait to accept an offer until the deadline they give (such as the April 15th common US graduate school deadline), and you almost universally will not be penalized in any way for taking that time if you need it (i.e., waiting to hear from other schools, going to visit days to see the place in person, etc).
When I say set phrase, I mean that every offer I received from every graduate school had this term in it, so it is actually part of form letters now for many (most?) places in the US.
What does it mean? Simple - everyone would ideally like to know as soon as possible what your decision is, so they can know who is joining. That's it. They would naturally want to know, so if you have already made your decision they would like to know and have you lock it in rather than exhibit the common behavior or waiting until the day before the deadline to submit your decision.
That's it! So don't worry about, at all. All you need to do is is reply and thank them for their offer, perhaps state your excitement at having received the offer (if you genuinely have that reaction!), and let them know you will let them know of your final decision as soon as you have made it. No need to give excuses or be sorry, that's just how this works. No need to feel pressured into deciding sooner, its a big decision and you have the set deadline for lots of good reasons. Make the decision when you have the responses you need, and if there are visit days feel free to wait to accept the offer until after you have gone and met them (especially true if you have multiple offers you are trying to decide between).
Congratulations on your offer, and good luck in your future career!

Great answer.  Also, given the guy has close second choices it certainly makes sense to wait for them and then go through some decision process.

But/and, again, in the U.S., no prospective grad student's acceptance of an offer is binding until April 15, as in @aesmail's answer. In my opinion, faculty should not attempt to exploit kids' unawareness of this.

@paulgarrett: Uhh, the answer says something else than what you're saying. The answer says the student can delay the decision to April 15, whereas you're saying that an earlier decision is not binding. I have not heard of what you're saying before.

Many graduate schools have subscribed to the April 15 Resolution which says that accepted applicants are not required to make a decision until April 15. If the school you have applied to is one of these schools, then you should feel absolutely no compunction to report a decision until then.
I would basically just tell him that you hope to be able to make a decision soon and will keep them informed. You don't need to mention that you're waiting to hear from other schools if you don't want to say that; it's implicitly understood that most applicants may have to decide between multiple offers.

Yes. Evidently many grad school applicants are simply unaware of this policy in the U.S., ...

@paulgarrett I have seen the policy violated by institutions who have agreed to it, also.

Before you do anything, ask yourself what is the best possible outcome here. You have an offer from your top choice school and someone you like to work with. If the other parts, such as grants etc. are acceptable, this may be it. But I can't make that judgement. But if it is the best choice no matter what, then why risk it? What more do you hope to achieve?

The applicant could get a much better offer from one of the other schools, which might be better suited to the applicant's goals or which could be used to negotiate a better offer from the first school.

@ElizabethHenning, yes, of course. Anything is possible. The candidate needs to do the calculation, of course.

I would slow pedal it.  You don't need to explain anything.  It is very unlikely the offer gets pulled.  It's OK to communicate some gentle positivity and keep #1 positive.  But I would not let yourself get influenced to early decision given "close seconds" exist.  You need to string #1 along.
Just wait and see what comes back from the other schools, especially on the money front.  Check on deductions also, some places pull for healthcare, gym access, etc.)  This kind of dynamic with offers, competing offers is normal, especially for top candidates.  Without making a big deal of it, you need to look out for you.  It is possible some places offer you small incentives.  You may also have the option of paid or at least subsidized visits to some schools to assist your decision.
Same dynamic will hopefully occur when you job interview in 4 years.

My first guess as to the reason that he "hopes I can accept the offer quickly" is that he genuinely wants you to come to his school. If so, any delay on your part would only increase the likelihood that you end up going somewhere else. If he is at all reasonable then there should be no problem in politely explaining to him that since you applied to multiple schools, you want to see how it plays out before making your final decision. I thus interpret his statement as an indirect testament to you potential, rather than an unreasonable pressure that should cause you anxiety. It is nice to be a sought-after student. No need to overthink it.


text:
Paper status changed from under review to Awaiting Decision
I submitted my manuscript to a journal from 1 month ago in scholar one. The status changed to admin check to under review after one week. Now, it shows Awaiting Decision.
Does this mean that the paper has passed the editorial check and the external reviewer completed?

If it has been "under review" for some time, then yes - the external reviewers are done. If you didn't see "under review", then the editor is making a decision without consulting reviewers, which is usually a bad sign.

It depends. If you know that in this journal (and you discipline) the papers are typically reviewed fast (e.g., one month), then it indeed likely that your paper is already after peer-review. In contrast, if in this journal the peer-review typically takes several months, then it might be long desk-rejection. It is indeed not rare to get desk rejection after several weeks. Also, keep in mind rejection rate without review in your journal. If it is low, then it more likely to be already after review.


text:
Co-author university affiliation on a paper while on leave as a student
I am currently not an active student at my university since I decided to go on leave, although I plan to return Fall of 2024 to finish my undergraduate studies there.
After of a variety of circumstances transpired, I managed to obtain a position assisting a professor at another university for a research project and they want to include my name in a paper for this project.
Now it was said it would be preferrable to include my university affiliation as part of my authorship, which would be the university I plan to obtain my degree from. However, as I said, I am not an active student at the university. I am wondering if it would be proper to include my affiliation or not. It can be verified that I am indeed part of my university and on leave, and as I said, I intend to return next Fall. However, I am wondering what would be the proper way to go about this. Does anything have suggestions?

Did the new university give you an email address? Are you being paid by them.

No to both for the new university (at least right now). @Buffy

Who said this sentence "it is preferable to include your original university"? Who is "it"?

Ask the Dean (or maybe the department head) at your own university what they think. If they suggest that you don't (which I wouldn't expect), then ask the same question of the new university.
Sometimes it is possible to explain such details in a footnote to the paper.
Sometimes it is appropriate to give your affiliation as "Student on leave from ...". Lots of possibilities.
Assuming that you aren't corresponding author, which I also doubt, it doesn't matter too much. But note that "affiliation" is a mutual thing. I've done consulting for IBM in the past, but it would be improper for me to list that as my affiliation without their permission if a new project came up.

Usually, you should only include the affiliate(s) that are involved. "Involved" means you

Use university library resources
Use university copy-editing or advising resources
Use physical/virtual spaces, (e)mail boxes, equipment, computing, or other facilities, or,
Use their funding, fellowships, or other resource
Get help with seminars, meetings, classes, discussions, networks, and research assistances.

If none of them apply, then it is possible better to not to include that affiliation. But different journals have different rules. Some journal asks for all affiliations, and some only ask for the current affiliation.
Consult your current advisor for more details.

I think these are decent rules for "secondary" affiliations. It doesn't really answer the question though. Students (and faculty for that matter) should really list their current university in almost all normal circumstances -  this student is in a bit of a grey zone since they are on a temporary leave. So a bit different.


text:
How to find who cited a researcher the most
I'm doing some history of science research. I want to build networks of researchers that cite each other (or otherwise do similar research).
I'd like to search: For a researcher X, find which researcher has cited them most frequently.
Is there some tool that can do this kind of thing? I've tried Google Scholar and Web of Knowledge.

At least two people down-voted, but didn't explain why.  I'm guessing it's because the poster didn't do enough to find out on their own.  Come on, guys. A blind downvote is not helpful.

Thanks, I'm also surprised. I've tried Scholar and WoK. They let you search "which paper cites this paper" but it's not clear how to search "which researcher cites this researcher/paper the most".

Yes. Google scholar is your best tool and friend. It will tell you how many times a paper was cited and by which papers.
Here is the help site, it is directed towards your own papers but once you check any paper you can see the cites. https://www.google.com/intl/en/scholar/citations.html#citations
You can search for any paper or topic and under each result, besides the star symbol and " it says 'cited by/citado por' and a number, that tells you how many people cited the material in other materials, and if you click on it you will get a list of all the other materials that cited it. The name of the researchers are under the titles. You can do a discrimination analysis based on the papers with more cites. Which you can get the numbers for in the statistics section top left.
Other option, is the 'related articles/articulos relacionados'right to the 'cited by', that one open a page with all articles that are related by citation.
Besides that, you can go top left on the 3 lines symbol to open the list and go to 'statistics' for the  whole list of publications related and how many times it was used/cited by who. You can sort it too by field.

Thanks. I know this feature, but it doesn't let you see which researcher cites a paper or researcher the most.

@Smind It actually does. Search for any paper or topic and under each result, besides the star and "  it says 'cited by/citado por' and a number, that tells you how many people cited the material in other materials, and if you click on it you will get a list of all the other materials that cited it. The name of the researchers are under the titles. You can do a discrimination analysis based on the papers with more cites.  Which you can get the numbers for in the statistics section top left.

Thanks. I can now see the number of times a paper was cited by a researcher by using the "search within citing articles" feature and searching for "author:,name.". But this only works if I already know the author's name. I'm still not sure what you're suggesting. Can you elaborate?

@Smind Sure. Ill try to clarify and expand the answer


text:
PhD advisor bullies me because I refused to give him total ownership over my research and help him copy it before it's public
I developed an innovative method about which I wrote an article (not published yet) and a complete open-source library implementing it. The field is Applied Mathematics. I showed the finished work to my two PhD advisors but I was clear about the fact that it is my work alone and that the article would contain my name only (the Hardy-Littlewood rule doesn't even apply here).
One of them, which we will call A, told me it was a very good idea to do a single-author publication and that it would add more value to my PhD thesis as a whole. He was very enthusiastic and supportive about the whole thing. So that's awesome.
The other one, which we will call B, was extremely grumpy about it and didn't like the idea that he was taken out of the equation (i.e. that I worked on something alone). Yet, and this is purely my interpretation of course, he never had a problem with articles where I worked alone (just like in this case) and added his name on them, his issue is thus clearly the fact that he isn't listed as a co-author.
I am aware that co-authorship problems are a classic, and I know that I could avoid all of that by adding him as a co-author. But even though I did it with the previous articles (where he did 0% of the work), I refuse to do it this time. It doesn't sit right with me to gift someone credit he doesn't deserve, and PhD advisors expecting their students to always list them as co-authors should be ashamed of themselves.
So I pushed forward, with the encouragement of prof A, and included my work in my PhD manuscript even though prof B was actively harassing me and trying to make me have second thoughts on including a work in which prof B wasn't involved.
The dust settled after a few months, and now prof B has some academic partnership with a company called C. Long story short, he wants me to literally give him all the keys to my research (which ironically he was angry about), show him how to do every single thing I did and how to do more so that he can impress company C. He wants to do this way before my work is published, thus clearly disrespecting the fact that it's still my work.
I told him it's uncool to try to copy me in order to impress company C and that I won't help him with that, and that he should show some scientific integrity and respect the fact that my work hasn't been published yet.
Today he harassed and bullied me by phone. He kept telling me "it's not your research", thus clearly stating that he doesn't even recognize that it's my work, and when I finished talking he basically told me to go "f*** myself". His language was violent and inappropriate.
Many questions here:

Am I in the wrong with how I insist on ownership of my research and that someone who didn't contribute anything should not be a co-author?
My PhD manuscript has already been submitted, the jury selected and the defence scheduled. In theory prof B shouldn't be able to sabotage my defence out of spite. Is my assessment correct?
What disciplinary measures can I take against prof B for harassing me to give him something I do not owe him at all?
What actions can I take to protect myself without compromising on the ownership issue?
What do I risk?

No, you're not wrong to insist that only people who have authored the work should be listed as authors.
I'm a bit hesitant to confidently declare that you should be sole author, because sometimes students are confused about authorship standards in their field, and discount the value of discussions that lead to and inform a work. Instead, they think that "they did it solo" because they are the person who wrote the code or collected the data or made the figures or put the numbers into an analysis program or wrote the text of the manuscript. So, indeed, if this is solely your work, you should be the only author, but do make sure it is actually solely your work. In this case it sounds like Prof A might be a good person to help provide a second opinion that indeed this should be considered solo work.
If prof B is on your thesis committee, they absolutely can sabotage your thesis defense. However, as one member of the committee, hopefully they will be overruled by others, and of course it is unethical for them to do this out of spite or as leverage for authorship. Not everyone sees ethics the same way or is equally committed to ethical behavior, though.
As far as measures you can take, that entirely depends on how things work in your department/institution. If there is a mechanism to remove someone from your committee, I would suggest that route rather than trying to punish them somehow. However, it seems like it is very very late to do this if you've already submitted, and especially if this person is considered a co-advisor. I think for now I would just document the conversations you have (and have had), and be prepared to use that as evidence if you need to appeal an unfavorable result with your thesis.

I told him it's uncool to try to copy me in order to impress company C and that I won't help him with that, and that he should show some scientific integrity and respect the fact that my work hasn't been published yet

This episode may be justifiable, but it sounds like you lost your cool a bit and behaved rudely. People don't typically take these sorts of accusations well, even if they are deserved. It'll make it harder to make your case to a neutral third party if there are further episodes like this, so I'd try to limit your reactions.
If this work is in fact your own, you don't need to do anything with prof B about it. You don't need their permission to publish it, so publish it as soon as you can. You don't need to work with company C, so don't work with company C. If you are being harassed or bullied by phone, do not answer your phone. Document when you are called and what is said so you can use it if you need to in a future hearing.
It sounds like prof A is someone that can advocate for you; if you trust them, I would calmly bring these issues to their attention and ask for their advice. They'll know the local systems better than anyone here can know. Try to avoid accusations against B beyond what you can prove without a doubt: don't speculate about their motives, only discuss their actions, and focus on the things you need. Things you need might include a) successfully defending your thesis, b) publishing your paper, c) getting your next position.

Thank you. When I say I am the sole author, I mean that in the literal sense, there were no prior discussions or anything that indirectly led to the article. My article is very far from his main research interests too.
I discussed things with my advisor A and he told me in principle that he agrees with me that I owe B nothing, that he'll take care of it, and that at least it is formally known to him right now that B cannot be objective. He also told me that there would be no more direct communications with B and that he cannot harass me anymore.
I feel much more relieved now, thanks a lot!

This is a messy, complicated, potentially emotionally charged situation. My first advice is to try to remain calm. Brace yourself for any related interaction and prepare well in advance to keep your emotional balance. Find your "happy place" and keep it in mind.
Bryan Krause gave good advice when he suggested confiding in Prof A. (If not him, then hopefully there is another faculty member you can trust.) The complexity here is such that it is unlikely to be possible to give a definitive answer with just a few paragraphs of information. Some general areas to explore are the following.
What is the relationship with Prof B? Is he your PhD supervisor (advisor, etc.)? Does Prof B (or his grant, fellowship, etc.) provide you with financial support? Are you expected to be doing some particular amount of work (per week or per month etc.) for Prof B? Or is he just one more person on your PhD panel?
The less Prof B is your supervisor, the less support and guidance he has given you, the less he should be trying to put his name on your work.
Is the paper you wrote on your own in a topic that is strongly related to Prof B's work? Does it flow out of his work? Is it something that came about because of work you did with with him? Or is it unrelated?
The less related to Prof B's work, the less he should be trying to put his name on your work.
Did you tell him you were working on this idea? How do you project he would have responded then if you had told him you were?
If you did the work without telling him, it's going to be a strain on the relationship.
When I was in my PhD I took a course on a subject I was interested in that was completely and totally unrelated to my PhD. I did a particle physics PhD. I took a course in radiometric dating because one of the faculty in the department was a well known researcher in the subject. How often do you get the chance? As part of the class I got to "fetch and carry" while they did measurements on rocks taken from above and below the layer of rock the fossil "Lucy" was found in. Lots of fun.
This class gave me an idea for a paper. So I went to my supervisor and asked him what he thought about me writing it up. He was fine with it and said he thought I should be the only author since his input was zero. I wrote it up and submitted it. Relationship with my supervisor remained strong. Sadly the paper was rejected, but it was still fun.


text:
Writing sample requirement for PhD application - submit something you assisted in writing?
I'm applying to PhD programs and some require writing samples with a reminder of prioritizing works that are related to the phd program or to my research proposal. The only related writing I have is the paper I'm working on now as a research assistant.
The research topic is my professor's of course, and I'm sure I will not be listed as a co-author. I did write the paper from scratch, but the professor has constantly reviewed its structure and content, and provided comments on things that need to be changed. I did the literature review (research, reading, synthesis, writing), the data collection, statistical analysis, and discussion of results.
I would say that for the current version of the paper, content is 80% mine. Of course, the seed idea was the professor's, but the concept of the paper has changed based on my input after I did the literature review. Would it be okay to submit a portion of this as a writing sample for my phd applications? Or is this not allowed since I'm just a research assistant and not a co-author? Also, the paper is meant to be submitted to a journal for publication so will it be illegal for me to submit a portion of it as a writing sample? I will definitely not send the results sections.
Thanks!

You should be co-author on the paper, even if you are "only" a research assistant. Look at other related questions for more info and, if required, guidance.

Would it be okay to submit a portion of this as a writing sample for my phd applications?

Yes. (Personally, I'd submit the whole paper.)

Or is this not allowed since I'm just a research assistant and not a
co-author?

You should make the circumstances clear, e.g., the seed idea was the professor's, the literature review is yours, your literature review influenced the concept of the paper, you wrote 80% of the material, and anything else that's relevant.

Also, the paper is meant to be submitted to a journal for publication so will it be illegal for me to submit a portion of it as a writing sample?

Sharing preprints is fine.

I will definitely not send the results sections.

You can send the results section. If there's concern over IP theft, just make the entire paper available as a technical report.


text:
I did at least half of the work, I am not cited in the presentations
For some context, I am enrolled in a PhD in applied mathematics.
There is a recent work where I, my thesis adviser and a friend of his in industry have worked together, with at least half of the work done by me, I even tutored the colleague to help him start at the beginning.
This work got presented by the two of them at different conferences. Each time I wasn't cited at the presentations (except just once when my adviser decided to put my name in the first slide, but the colleague then uploaded an identical version without my name). My adviser still gives me credit whenever he exchanges with attendants or other academics, and yes I got my name on the paper, but two things still bother me:

the colleague never mentions me, he remorselessly talks about the work as being his and my adviser's only (he can't easily get rid of my adviser since he's well known, but at least he can get rid of me and no one would notice), the damage is beyond just talk as he also writes that in his updates to his network;
being a PhD student or not, and even if my name is on the paper, removing it from the presentations is unfair and damaging and just feeds the idea that maybe my name is on the paper just because I did secondary work or scripting/plotting.

This kept happening for a few months now and will keep going if this issue is not addressed as my adviser and his colleague keep submitting the work to future conferences. Some might see me as overreacting but this is impacting me in a lot of ways and the feeling of betrayal is hitting hard, I even stopped working with my adviser's colleague altogether without notice and started pursuing some of my own research goals alone without notifying anyone of my progress.
I just started my PhD half a year ago, so surely I may be lacking experience with regards to these issues of authorship and citation, but is it common practice to assume that a PhD student should just be content with his name being in a paper, but not expect to be cited when the work is presented in conferences, even if he put more than half of all the combined work? What would be the motivation of keeping me out during conferences ? Better to split the cake in two rather than three ? Should I bring this up with my thesis adviser even though the one who is clearly dishonest here is a friend of his?

Your advisor is supposed to be on your side - there's no need to walk on eggshells around them.  I'd just politely - and casually - ask if they would mention your name on the slides.  Probably it was just an oversight.  If they do react badly, this is a sign of a terrible advisor.

I think you should first meet your advisor,and maybe in second time the other colleague. I would not tell him directly the problem but instead asking a question like "I don't get why I am not mentioned for this work. Is it usual ? Didn't I work enough on the problem ?". And if his answer does not convince you, request that your name appears everytime needed like "I would like to be mentioned, I think it is not fair otherwise."

OP is cited, just not mentioned in presentations. That's very different from an ethical perspective.

CS/AI perspective: the name on the presentation matters far less than the name on the paper. You are listed as a coauthor on a paper less than 6 months into your PhD, that's a big deal I think. In other words - while not being mentioned during the presentation is annoying and hurtful, I don't think it actually hurts you as much as you think it does.
That said, this line is a red flag:

[...] my adviser decided to put my name in the first slide, but the colleague then uploaded an identical version without my name.

This sounds like a (borderline unethical), willful omission of your name as a contributor which needs to be addressed.
I can only guess as to the motivation of this colleague: they might feel that your contribution is not as great as you think it is (doesn't make this ok, but this could be their passive-aggressive way of dealing), or that they want to present themselves as more independent than what they really are.
That said, quoting Hanlon's razor -

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Could be that it was a simple error/omission (say, they use beamer to typeset slides and their configuration is weird when listing authors).
This brings us to your last question - should you talk to your advisor? Absolutely! Willful or not, your colleague's behavior is not okay, and you should be credited.
I would reference the specific instance where they omitted your name. Take a polite tone and don't be accusatory. How about this - "hey Prof. Advisor, Dr. Colleague uploaded slides but forgot to add my name, did you notice? I'm just starting my PhD and it's really important for me to get my name out there, would it be okay if you let them know about this? I'd really appreciate it!"
See what their response is, and take it from there.

Your concern seems quite reasonable to me, so I would suggest you raise it directly with your supervisor.  If you have indeed contributed substantially to the project then it is not appropriate for anyone in the group to discuss the project in a way that misleads their audience about your contribution, whether that is by leaving your name off the slides, or taking full verbal credit for the research.
Tell your advisor exactly how you are feeling, and don't pull any punches.  Don't speculate on motive of the other party; just state the facts and explain how it has negatively affected you.  Have in mind an outcome you want that will satisfy your concerns, and tell your supervisor what this is.  This is something where your advisor is in a good position to fix the problem by communicating directly with the other party.  (Your decision not to work with that person anymore also sounds like a good decision, but keep if open to reconsideration if they fix the problem you are having.)
It is highly likely that a simple conversation will solve this problem.  In the unlikely event that your supervisor and the other author are unwilling to fix the problem, it will be possible for you to escalate this as a formal complaint to your university.  Failing to properly stipulate the authors of a project in public presentations of work is a form of plagiarism, and can amount to academic misconduct (albeit of the milder variety).


text:
What makes a good academic CV?
What makes a good academic CV?
In theory, it should be the quality and novelty of your research, but I hear that often it is also simply the number of papers. I would imagine this is because it may be quite difficult for a given hiring committee to evaluate the impact of your work, and so they use number of publications as a proxy for quality or novelty.
To what should we, as aspiring academics who want to push our research further, aspire? How can we convince a committee that our research line is promising enough to warrant a position?

Background:
I will be graduating with my PhD in Engineering soon, but only have 6 conference papers and one journal paper. I am graduating because some external circumstances dictate that I should.
The method I have published is novel, broadly applicable, and very effective at certain things. I have some solid analytic performance guarantees and solid experimental results.It may not be a panacea, but it can solve an important practical problem with great precision. It is just not in a hot field like ML or something like that.
The world is large, and there is lots of ways to apply the results, extend them, and contribute positively to humanity. I am afraid however that my lack of publications will bar me from academic positions, despite the fact that I have an original line of research that is ripe to explore and currently published results indicate that is it effective at a certain class of problems.
I just want to push my research further and dont have much interest in becoming a post-doc to work on other people's problems...
Edit: Also, this is my throwaway account, so I've asked some dumb questions haha

This is quite subjective.  Personally, I am only after 1-2 high quality papers in which a candidate is the first author.  I also look at the research taste of the candidate.   A high number of papers simply means the candidate belongs to a group, and a key issue here is, if you take the candidate out of the group, will his/her publications trend continue?

@Prof.SantaClaus I know it is quite subjective, but I was hoping to get answers just like yours. I'd like to see how real people make these decisions.

There's obviously not a single answer to this question.
How many papers you have published may dictate to whom you send the CV, but how you write it is something different. You can always try to apply for a position as you are, or you can try to do a post-doc and get some more publications.
Other than that, the CV advice is the same as any CV. Emphasize the skills that are relevant for the position. Try to elaborate on your role in projects that didn't produce papers if you think the experience is relevant. Obviously some institutions/PIs will be biased by papers and the prestige of the paper journals, but you won't be able to overcome that with a good CV because those people will just look directly at the publication list, and they don't need your CV for that.
Don't fight a losing battle. Try where you have a possibility of getting in, and detail the work you have done appropriately. The bias is out of your hands so I don't think there is any point in thinking about it or imagining confronting it.