text:
Why do non-governmental organizations tend to publish non peer-reviewed "grey" literature?
Is there any reason why most non-governmental organizations (NGOs) tend to publish non-peer reviewed literature? I have seen some NGO scientists as co-authors, even in some important papers, but most of their production is reports which are not peer-reviewed. While it is true that most NGOs do not do basic research, some of their reports could easily be converted to reviews, and some of their projects to applied research.
Do they want to avoid peer review for political reasons in order to be able to convey the message they want? In my view their message would be much stronger if it came from a peer-reviewed article. Is it also a matter of time as peer-reviewed articles take a long time to get published?

Remember that NGO do sponsor PhD students and fund some  university research.

Why should they? The question could motivate a bit more what incentives there would be for NGOs to publish in peer-reviewed literature.

A NGO is not reliant on group consensus because the members are not elected. Instead NGOs are topic centric. Their aim to inform the public neutral about a subject. Peer-review doesn't make sense for NGOs because there is no need for a dialogue. Instead the publication workflow is equal to blogging. Somebody is pressing the submit button and the paper is online.

@Trilarion I mention that the science would be more sound if it was peer reviewed.

What's the average lead-time for publications in these areas? Are there fast-track journals with guaranteed lead-times? How long?

@HermanToothrot Formal peer review doesn’t make a paper more sound. It’s about increasing the credibility of the paper by saying “other experts looked at it and thought it was sound.”

@cpast yes and no, reviewers comments and requests can improve the science in a paper with sometimes substantial changes. But also what you say it's true. Nonetheless it's still more credible than non peer review.

Because they are not incentivized to.
Publishing in peer reviewed journals costs time, money, and is frustrating. These costs are more relevant in social sciences with a lower turnaround time than natural sciences, but are nonetheless a factor.
The main reason academics publish in these is because they are incentivized to do so by tenure and status. These incentives come from the need of measuring academics' performance (and that of their institutions). Among other things, academic institutions compete for the best researchers, phd students and funding -- and signal quality with their publications.
NGOs mostly do not have research as an intrinsic motive. The aforementioned competition is much less relevant for them. Therefore, many of them do not incentivize their researchers to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Given the lack of incentives, and the presence of high cost of doing so, few researchers in NGOs publish in peer-reviwed journals.

You seem to forget the whole point of peer review, it's not so you can advance in your career is about having higher quality science than non-peer review. With all its flaws, peer reviewing was created exactly for that and not for people to advance to tenure.

@HermanToothrot: That may be so, but in practice the main motivation for many modern academics to publish in peer-reviewed journals is the fact that funding and career advancement nowadays tend to be closely tied to performance metrics (like the h-index) that are mainly based on journal publication. If it wasn't for those metrics, many academics would be happy to disseminate their work solely on non-peer-reviewed platforms like the arXiv. Indeed, in some fields journal publication has become more of a formality, with the actual exchange of new ideas and results occurring mostly on arXiv etc.

I can think of a couple of reasons:

Peer review is slow. NGOs want their paper to influence policy now, not in one or two years from now.
Peer review journals have a different audience than grey literature. NGOs typically want to communicate with people like policy makers or journalists, and these are less likely to read peer reviewed journals.
Related to point 2: in order to effectively communicate with their intended audience they need a different style of writing and presenting their arguments than what is common and acceptable in peer reviewed journals.

There may also be a fourth, slightly more nefarious, reason. NGOs are political players, some of their findings may not withstand a careful examination of their methods. That is, I don't question the good intentions of a vast majority of NGOs, but they inherently have an agenda.

I agree with these points but not completely with point number 2, if you publish a peer-reviewed article there is nothing stopping you to create a separate document or report that presents the same results in a more accessible way.

@HermanToothrot Sure, but writing a peer-reviewed paper costs time and money (both not things that most NGOs have excessive amounts of). If it does not help them, why do it?

Another factor is that their staff do not require peer reviewed publications to keep their jobs, and to get new jobs.   Hence that don't need to play the "citation count" games that university staff do.

Sometimes, due to the nature of the work, there are no peers. This is especially true if the organization is breaking new ground. Sometimes the peer review goes on inside the organization before the report ever gets written. I think climate science can be like this. There is a lot of internal discussion (and argument) before the world ever sees the ideas.

@Buffy I don't agree, breaking new ground is called research and can definitely be peer reviewed.

@xLeitix Why would it not help them? Do you think governments or local politicians would be more pressed against a paper published in Science or a report written by an intern?

@HermanToothrot, I wasn't trying to cover every case, of course. Just a possible alternative answer to the one given here.

Also peer reviewed journals are very expensive to read. University libraries usually pay for access because that's the system they live in, but NGOs typically won't. And who wants to publish in a journal they can't read?

@HermanToothrot Given that they will literally never read the academic paper I would say the report written by the intern (which also happens to get dressed up pretty by the marketing department, put prominently on the Website, and distributed through press releases). Sure, you could do the same things to an academic paper, but what does it help you to jump through the academic reviewing hoop if your target audience doesn't care?

And usually they don't want to transfer copyright to a journal, nor pay an open access publishing fee.

@HermanToothrot Given the current rampant anti-intellectualism in the US federal government, I strongly suspect a peer-reviewed publication in Science would make the results significantly less politically credible.

Peer review is not that slow. If your methods are sound enough to pass peer review, you'll probably get accepted within the month, if not, you shouldn't be out there making claims that may effect policy anyway.

@OganM: That's an incredibly field-specific process -- some areas of mathematics average 24 months: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32768/average-time-alloted-for-manuscript-review-across-disciplines

Expanding on the answer by @Maarten Buis:
I think it is fundamentally about why people in different settings do research.
NGO's usually do not do research for the sake of research. They generally have a social mission to accomplish, thus their research is conducted to that end. It is not to increase knowledge, as it is in academia. To accomplish their mission, they need media, financial and public support. If you need as much as possible of those things, would a fancy infographic work better than a peer-reviewed paper?
Thus, they need to make sure their research is as accessible as possible for their base, and a broad audience helps too. Supporters for NGOs come from every walk of life. Whatever the people around here happen to think, most people are not turned on at the thought of peer-reviewed research, if they even know what it is. The audience of any one peer-reviewed paper is often very small. Peer-reviewed papers are usually locked behind paywalls, use complex terminology and are nearly always so specialised they cannot be accessed, let alone appeal to a broad audience. NGO's probably aren't going to add much to their audience by publishing an extra peer-reviewed paper.
Academics, on the other hand, get pay rises and positions based on peer-reviewed publications, even if the publications happen to be whatever bit of data They could maybe, possibly turn into a peer-reviewed paper. So, cynic that I am, I have to point out that NGOs are not the only people motivated by money.
Edit: As for the added credibility - credibility doesn't have one currency, that being peer-reviewed papers. Something is not made credible by peer-review (especially with the many meta-analyses showing all kinds of problems in the literature, from bad statistics to publishing results selectively leading to positivity bias). NGO's are subject to a whole suite of regulations and audits, not to mention public opinion, that most academics never hear about. So, maybe they don't have peer-reviewed credibility, but they do have other standards.

Both NGO's and governments routinely commission and use non-peer reviewed work. Often because of the shorter turn around but mostly because it is intended for a different audience. I worked in a large government research organisation where this was a hot topic amongst the scientists. The organisation was routinely commisioned to provide reports for government and industry & many begrudged the time  it took from the development of journal papers - on which their reputation and in some cases salary was based. However this was bread & butter work for the organisation. This is not to say the reports were not based on good science. Just that they were not suitable for journal submission.
When writing for government / industry journal style does not work. It needs to be more accessable to the non-specialist lay person.
While this may leave it open to criticism based on lack of rigor this need not be so. That is up to the author.
While it is unfortunate that many of the captains of industry & government are functionally illiterate when it comes to science this is the world we live in.
I have seen good policy set based on great work in this 'grey' literature.
Why? Because the freedom from publication strictures enabled the author to communicate key science clearly and succinctly. Would the work be accepted for publication - no. Did it have real impact and advance science, absolutely.
IMHO the key question does not revolve around the domain in which publication occurs but is it grounded in good science.


text:
Is it okay to open up the thesis file during the defense?
During the follow-up discussion during the PhD defense, would it be okay if I open up the thesis pdf file to answer some questions, for example to refer to a figure or equations? or should everything be already on the slides and prepared before?

It's ok. Don't worry, you are overthinking it. Just make sure that you don't have to browse through folders containing "files with unprofessional content" to get to it.

What you might want to do instead is to prepare an "Appendix" to your presentation which could contain some relevant figures that are not already in the main part.

@PatW That's standard practice in many if not all fields (in my case I may have had more supplementary slides than normal ones), but one can't expect to prepare slides for every part of the thesis a questioner might want to reference.

@DavidZ Yes of course. The point of my comment was just to emphasize on the possibility to add figures as appendices. Assuming that the presentation already includes some important figures, it's just a task of selecting some that could be interesting enough to have just in case.

While I agree that it would be OK to open a pdf of the thesis to show a specific part as an answer to a question I would like to add:

Opening up the thesis and show something in addition to the slides in the middle of the talk would show that the talk was not well prepared. So don't do that and prepare your talk such that this will not be necessary.
Having answers and arguments to questions ready without going to the thesis would appear better. Of course, nobody expects you to know every word from your thesis but it is expected that you know all results of your thesis and also all your arguments.
Opening the thesis when a question like "on page X in Theorem Y you state that…" comes is totally OK. Especially, since this gives the rest of the audience the chance to follow the discussion.

But finally: It's a thesis defense. It usually not an event where anybody fails terribly. If you know what you have written about and know what you are talking about nothing bad will happen.

My committee members all showed up to my defense with the printed copies of my thesis that I had left for them for their comments, so if we needed to look something up, there were 5 hardcopies already in the room. It's fine.

Bonus points for books is that they don't fail in the same way as computers, and you can stick your fingers in as bookmarks when going around in them.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Independent Research
I am really looking for some very open-mind answers here.
So here is the scenario. I have finished my undergraduation in Visual Communication Design from a premiere institute from my country. I couldn't get a chance to make it for post-graduation or further for any phd program, due to some health and financial issues.
But I have been working on a research paper that I started as a project during my design school days, that would come under psychology, art and design.
Given the fact, that I currently donot have much chance in terms of further formal education, what can I do best? I have been working on the research for few years now and would want to continue without any hesitation but what are my options as an independent researcher? Can I apply for phd programs later in life without a masters degree if my research is good enough? Can I send my papers to conference to get reviewed by people from the field?
What are the resources available for someone like me? What are the platforms where I can interact with other researchers?
Initially I was very upset about the situation, but now I think I have decided to do something about it. And I am looking for answers to make things better or rather find a direction, to make the best when life gives you lemons.

I suggest you look through the questions tagged [tag:independent-researcher] to get some understanding of what you can do as an independent researcher.

This answer comes late, but I hope it is still relevant to you, or maybe to others in a similar situation.
You don't need degrees to do research. Anyone can do it and anyone can publish their research, provided it is acceptable to reviewers and editors.
The difficult part, however, is to get feedback on what you are doing so that you get some assurance of both its correctness and its value. That is easier for graduate students and faculty members at universities and institutes. But it isn't impossible for an independent researcher.
The key is to build a circle of people (or even a single person) with similar interests, who is willing to read your work and give you feedback. One way to do this is to contact some professors at a local university and ask for assistance. Some will be willing to help, even to collaborate, but others won't want to make the effort. So it may take a search.
One of the most important mathematicians of the 20th century, Srinivasa Ramanujan working in India and with little formal education, made contact with G. H. Hardy in England, and it was that association that brought his work to the fore.

I think you can't get a phd without masters degree.
Regarding your Independent Research well if it some kind of out of this world research like Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity where it can be a world changing research it may get some support immediately.
Also the content of your research will not prove that your grab all the necessary requirements to be a master's degree.
If you can't get further, I suggest you should take another path. It's not that really important to get a PHD just to be the best in your choosen career.

Thanks Jay for the reply.
I'm already working as a designer. But the research subject is very close to my heart. Honestly, it really doesnt matter to me  so much if I donot have a phd except that its a conventional way.
I actually want to continue my research as I believe it has potential. All I want to know essentially is where do I stand as an independent researcher? How do I approach people/forum? Can I submit my papers for conferences? How do I get a review & get into discussions with my peers who are into research in the field?
What are my possibilities as an independent researcher?

"I think you can't get a phd without masters degree." Well, I did, and it wasn't at al unusual. This sort of thing depends very much on location and probably field of study.

It is very much possible to get a PhD without an MS.This is a very misleading answer on all fronts.

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

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


text:
Can someone continue her education in Germany if the first university degree is not recognized?
My sister is living in Saudi Arabia in a city that has very few limited education options for her. She has to stay there for certain circumstances and she can't leave for a different country. She has now been enrolled in an architecture program at a private University there for a year so far. Yesterday, she found out that her degree is only recognized throughout the middle east and not world-wide and we don't know why. So, her university is only recognized in Saudi Arabia and other middle-eastern countries.
I live in Germany and once I start working, I can afford to sponsor her and bring her here. She has the dream of continuing her education here in Germany. Now the problem is that we don't know what to do in that case at all.
I recall when I got my master admission in Germany, that they told me that although they didn't find my home university in their universities catalogue, yet the admission commission decided to give me the admission because I had good grades and good recommendation letters.
My question is:
Considering her situation, can she still continue her education in Germany after finishing her degree in Saudi Arabia?
Even if she has to re-do some courses. We are wondering if there is a possibility to get an admission from a German university regardless if they ask to redo a lot of courses or not,  we just want to know that there is a hope for her to continue her education in Germany.

The important question is whether she has something that is recognized as a high school degree. If she has that, then she can be admitted to a Bachlor's course in architecture - as a student with no previous knowledge of architecture. Once she is in, she could apply for getting credits for courses she did earlier. From what I have heard, architecture is a very special topic as the courses are built such that students can later join an architect's professional organization, which is required for architect work in DE. These guys are known to be quite picky, so she may need to start from scratch.

I'd suggest contacting some universities and Hochschulen that may be interesting (e.g., close to where you live), then discuss this informally with someone in charge of admission. They may be able to suggest what she could do between now and then to prepare.

@DCTLib she does have a recognized high school degree. The problem is that her grades in high school won't allow her to apply formally to a bachelor degree in Germany since they are low. However since she is admitted to a university, then a "transfer" might be possible, I believe. My sister is not stupid but she had really taught family situations during her highschool. Now I find hope that transfer could be possible, because my grades in highschool wouldn't let me study CS in Germany yet I studied CS abroad and then I got admitted to a master in famous uni in Germany.

I have edited your question slightly, to make your actual question more clear. I hope it is Ok with you.

@JackTwain For architecture, the concern of the high school grades being too bad may easily hold. For computer science, which you mentioned, I am really surprised to hear that. Most university departments that I know do not have any restriction for incoming students apart from having some high school degree. Was your case perhaps due to the university only endorsing visa applications for foreigners in certain cases (which required good grades)? For your sister, consider Stephan Kolassa's suggestion and contact a university that has a custom "Auswahlverfahren" - they can be more flexible.

@JackTwain: There are a few universities with pretty low grade requirements for architecture: http://www.nc-werte.info/studiengang/architektur/ (german). Some universities even admitted all applicants (those with green checkmarks).

If her high school degree is not recognized, then there is the possibility to apply to a Studienkolleg. They generally offer one- or two-year programs that teach German and enough other subjects to be accepted as an Abitur or Fachabitur. Then she can start a bachelor's program. Most universities have a quota for taking in students from foreign countries, this is generally 5 % of the places to study. But enrollments are down in Germany at the moment, so there are good chances of getting a position. Check the enrollment dates: usually July 15 for the winter term, January 15 for the summer term.

The question is asking about how to proceed if the bachelor's degree is not recognized, rather than if the secondary school degree is not recognized.

I had understood the question to be about admission to a bachelor's program. And for this you need a school-leaving certificate that is recognized in Germany. Even if one has studied at a bachelor's level in a foreign country, this is not always accepted. It depends on the country. If the bachelor's degree program is accredited and recognized in Germany, then there is a chance to transfer if there are at least 30 credits that are acceptable AND there are spaces available. You can see the previous grades / waiting semesters needed at the site http://www.nc-werte.info/studiengang


text:
How to convince and/or ask researchers to share data?
I'm currently working on gathering data for my MSc thesis. The problem is, for my type of research, there is VERY limited data that is freely available. Specifically, I'm looking to acquire baseline population data for wild animal populations.
I've contacted a few organizations and NGOs asking if they have any data available and if they would be open to sharing it for a specific species.
One person seemed reluctant to share their data and wanted more information on my project - how can I convince them to share their data with me? There is hardly any other resources that have this type of information so it would really help me.
Another sent me a number of papers they've written - but what I need from them is discrete locations (GPS coordinates) that they no doubt have as they have figures in their paper. However, for my research I need precise locations and estimating them from a figure is not ideal.
This is my first run at this, so I'm trying to figure out the best way to open up data sharing and collaboration. It's really important to me - but I also know that not all researchers think similarly. Especially when, at this point in my research I'm not 100% sure what I can offer them in return as it hinges on the data I can gather. Do I offer acknowledgement or authorship on my papers? Keep them updated with my progress and try to illustrate how I could help them?

Have you seen Asking for data as a student - ease the pain, How to ask other researchers to share their datasets?, Requesting raw data from previously published research, etc. I'm not sure there's any more to say on this subject.

There many GPS datasets online, either for vehicles or geographical entities. Search for GPS datasets online and you will find many.

@Alexandros I have, thoroughly. Unfortunately, in Canada for the data I require it definitely isn't freely available. Even though the USGS has all the data I need, but unfortunately...not the right geographic area ;)

First, I suggest you to be very clear with what you are working on (which is not evident to me yet), what is your  deliverable, your time schedule, and why the data they have are important for your project.
Then, there always is something you can offer in return, that may have value for them: from a bibliographic report to innovative mapping of the data. Many people work at nice data vizualization tools that rock. Just saying, because you were talking about GPS data. We have entered a world of data science, where you can do a lot with novel tools.
Whatever the option, I would suggest to take some data you have, work on some awesome analysis method, and sent them as a pre-gift

The link you mention gives me a blank page.

Corrected hopefully. Could provide others with more details

Thank you, I definitely think visualization of the data would be something I could offer them - time permitting. And it would be a fun project. Thanks.

authors: 3d全彩末日人生天下无双_3d彩漫末日人生无动于衷

authors: oppa35手机多少钱_沈浪苏若雪最新章节更新牌

authors: 沈浪苏若雪原著大结局在线阅读_沈良苏若雪最新章节

authors: 沈浪苏雪若最新章节人情世故_神级龙卫最新章节刚刚一帆风顺

authors: 神级龙卫刚刚最新更新_神级护卫沈浪最新章节

authors: 美团再被曝重大安全漏洞_3d末日人生漫画全集免费

authors: 美团定位怎么改定位英雄豪杰_美团工程师回应频繁定位声名狼藉

authors: 韩国瑜伽教练勇往直前_儿子教后妈练瑜伽水落石出


text:
How much do figures need to differ to avoid copyright claims?
It sometimes arise that I need to use, for an article, a book chapter or any other written work, figures that I have already published (not figures published by others). These are usually schematic figures explaining what a chemical or physical system look like, how an algorithm works, etc. Thus, instead of reusing the exact same figure, I can easily create another one, conveying the same message with (more or less subtle) differences in presentation.
However, I have no idea how to answer the following question: how different need two figures be to avoid the second one infringing on the copyright of the first? What is a good rule of thumb to be used? Is it enough to change one of the following:

color scheme
viewpoint of a 3D visualization
moving around blocks in a 2D diagram (or mind map)
changing axis properties (labels, tick mark positions, etc.) in a graph

In general, I would argue that the new plot needs to do one of two things:

present materially different content relative to the old image
present the same material in a different context.

Graphs are generally visual representations of numerical data. The numerical data itself cannot be copyrighted (because the data are "facts"), only the presentations thereof. However, simply changing axis labels or colors, and other similar "gloss" changes, don't really make the graph any different. Rotating a 3D graph, or changing significantly the relationship of blocks in a mind map or diagram to show off different features would represent a change in the message and presentation, and therefore would be OK.
However, chemical structures and mathematical equations are not normally considered subject to copyright, as they represent "facts," and cannot be arbitrarily drawn or represented; there's only so many "legal" ways to write them. That said, cutting and pasting somebody's figure from another article would be a copyright violation; recreating it yourself would not. (Otherwise, we would never be able to write E = mc^2 without it being a copyright violation!)
If there are doubts, however, you can always try to contact the journal in question. If needed, you can ask for permission to reuse a figure, especially if it's one you've already created. Most journals already permit self reuse, so long as you include an appropriate credit and citation of the original.

Graphs are visual representations, but not necessarily of numerical data. The OP mentioned "schematic figures", in particular those may not relate to numerical data at all, but rather to processes or concepts. And mathematical graphs probably rarely represent numerical data.

A figure showing mathematical formulae or concepts is probably very tough to copyright, since then you're visually illustrating a "fact" which has a precise definition. Then you're pretty much limited to not taking somebody else's artwork and passing it off as your own. But I've edited the text slightly accordingly.

@aeismail the question is specifically about figures/artwork that you have produced… not lifting figures from other people’s work

If you're reusing your own work, then look at the last paragraph of my answer: the journal in which you publish may let you write: "Figure reprinted from [citation] with permission," or something to that effect. You may be able to reuse the same artwork. Check the journal's online information about the rights of authors to the work they've published in that journal.

And yet, there are illegal prime numbers... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime

"are not normally considered subject to copyright, as they represent "facts," and cannot be arbitrarily drawn or represented" - this sounds like the same should apply to software architectures. It can certainly be considered a fact that a given prototype is structured in a particular way, and the set of options to explain that prototype (especially in a space-saving manner) with a UML diagram is limited.

@O.R.Mapper Hence why people patent software architectures rather than apply copyright (generally; the threat of copyright infringement can dissuade people even if no actual infringement can occur). Though the UML diagram itself may be copyrighted, of course.

First up, a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. This does not constitute legal advice.
I assume that your earlier work has been published and that the copyright to that work vests with your publisher.
I see two relevant possibilities here.
1. Your new work does not differ substantially from the earlier work.
A later work which is substantially similar to an earlier copyrighted work may infringe that copyright. From Wikipedia (yes, but the reference is to case law):

See, for example, Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Pub. Group, 150 F.3d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 1998) ("Since the fact of copying is acknowledged and undisputed, the critical question for decision is whether the copying was unlawful or improper in that it took a sufficient amount of protected expression from Seinfeld as evidenced by its substantial similarity to such expression.")

What substantial similarity means in your case will turn on the facts. I would not be comfortable saying that your proposed alterations to your previous work would result in a sufficiently different work.
2. Your new work has some element of originality over the first work
In this case, your new work might be considered a derivative work:

Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author.

I've written this from a US law perspective. I am more familiar with UK copyright law but the basic points above are broadly similar.


text:
What happens when a closed form solution to a research problem is not possible?
Say I discover an “interesting topic” (at least from my perspective), and I do all sort of work necessary to formulate and tackle the problem (it is an optimization problem), nearly a month of work, and now I suddenly come to realize that the close-form analytical solution to this problem is not possible (or that the solution is too complicated).
What should I do? Should I continue to solve the problem using a numerical method (using computer simulation tools from Matlab), or should I give up my topic?

Have you talked to your advisor about your problem?

This question appears to be off-topic because it is about mathematical research.  It's also stated in terms that are much too vague for anyone to give a reasonable answer.

@David why is mathematical research off topic? This is not a question on how to solve a particular mathematical problem, it's a question on the research process.

This question is lacking some information about the context; what is this research being done for? I can see some reason for concern if this is, for example, for a thesis with a fixed time limit of either 3 or 6 months, but if, on the other hand, you are doing PhD research and that was an attempt at trying something that might become a paper, "nearly a month of works" is not a long time for working on a particular idea - and possible dead-end - at all.

What is your field? As it is the question is too generic to have any useful answer.

To answer the title question: Then the problem becomes interesting!

I agree with the concerns about lacking context and being too broad. This is anywhere from "Now things get interesting" to "Jump ship" to "...nothing we do has a closed form solution."

What I am surprised at is that you expected this problem to have a closed-form analytical solution. Most of them don't, and you should never expect them to. Whether you should give up depends on why you were looking at the problem in the first place. If it's a problem that you actually need to solve, then there are lots of things you can do from here. If it's a problem that you were hoping to find a closed-form solution for in order to write some thesis, there's a deadline, and you know nothing about numerical methods, then it's probably more efficient for you to find another problem.

Asymptotics?  Qualitiative properties?

Most real world problems don't have closed-form solutions. Somehow, we manage.
You write:

the close-form analytical solution to this problem is not possible

If the impossibility of a closed-form analytic solution is in itself a new result, then that may well be a publishable result. If you can also find an efficient method to get a numerical (approximate) solution, that's either a heavier-weight first paper (combined with the proof of the non-existence of closed-form solution), or it's a second paper in its own right.
You then wrote:

OR the solution is too complicated.

If there may be a closed-form analytical solution, but it's just too complicated for you to find, then that's an entirely different matter. In which case, you've got nothing to publish. Just a very hard problem that you can either persevere with, or you can stop working on it for a while, and go do something more promising. There's no harm in stopping working on it for a while. Just keep the problem in the back of your mind, along with a handful of other unsolved problems: and every time you learn a new heuristic, algorithm, or solution pattern (or an enhancement to an old one), then try to apply it to the unsolved problems you've been storing up (kudos to the late Richard Feynman for this).

+1 for the distinction between not possible and too complicated. Though for some fields, "Difficult + Compelling simulation results" is publishable.

This depends entirely on the standards in the particular field, previous work on this topic, and the specific topic and problem domain itself.
A closed form solution is not always necessary in order to make a research contribution. Sometimes formulating the problem is itself significant; sometimes numerical methods offer useful insight; sometimes saying "we tried applying technique X to problem Y and found that it cannot work" is a contribution.
Another possibility in some cases is to simplify or modify your problem formulation to something that lends itself more easily to a closed form solution.
Reading the literature surrounding the problem is a good way to become familiar with what kinds of contributions are considered useful in this area. Then you can decide whether to proceed with numerical methods or do something else.  You should also try and find a faculty mentor (if you don't already have one) to advise you on what your next steps should be.

To support the "depends on the field", closed form solutions may not even be particularly meaningful, if a particular set of numerical results is what's going to be carried forward.

My topic is numerical (computational) mathematics. In this area we develop algorithms and apply them to (hopefully) important problems, which typically do not have a pen and paper solution. I am doing this for more than 15 years and see no reason to give up.

Never, never, never give up.

Never giving up is overrated. Sometimes you need to sit back and change tracks (but not until you know you have done everything you could).


text:
Purchasing books that are out-of-print
I've just returned Principles of Modern Thermodynamics to the library. However, it is a terrific book that allowed me to understand thermodynamics that I have never would had I not run across this book. I have tried to purchase it, but it seems that this book is out of print. Therefore, my question is: are there any vendors that might offer officially out-of-print books for sale?

Sadly, nowadays many libraries are actively reducing their print holdings --- so, just wait, and monitor used book market. It is likely you will see a used copy one day.

Have you considered the "sequel" written by the same author? I assume since you've read the original book, you can tell how closely this one matches that one. Not the same book, but might be just as helpful. http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470843160.html#

Whether or not there exists a sequel is irrelevant. I haven't utilised the entire book, only chapters pertinent to the learning of concepts. But given my experiences with the book, and seeing the book as a gem, I'd very much love to add it to my collection shelf. Surely, finding an out-of-print book shouldn't be a bleak affair, or is it?

Abebooks (a shared platform for secondhand booksellers) is usually as good a bet as any for OOP material.

finding an out-of-print book shouldn't be a bleak affair Well, in my personal experience, it can be extremely difficult. I have been searching a math book for over 5 years. I eventually get to see most of it on Google Books. But, it's not the same as a real paper book. I checked both ebay and Abebooks for you. Indeed, I couldn't find anyone who is selling this book.

You are allowed to make copies of out-of-print books for personal use, and you can have them bound.  Not as good as an original, but what else can you do for hard-to-find books.

@Kimball, your statement is not true in the US at all. Being in print currently has no effect on the copyright status. You might be able to make a Fair Use argument that since the book is out of print, your copying it did not impact the market for the book. But that's an argument that you would need to make in court when defending yourself against a lawsuit. The odds of such a lawsuit are low, but there is no provision that makes your suggestion specifically legal.

@BillBarth Hmm... some sites say it falls under fair use (e.g. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/academic-and-educational-permissions/library-photocopying/ http://ask.library.ship.edu/faq/17387 ) but some find it debatable.  I suppose one could request permission from the publisher first if one wants to be safe.

@Kimball, I agree there's a Fair Use argument to be made, but that's a defense in a lawsuit not a blanket permission to do what you want. Defending copyright infringement lawsuits is expensive.

In a class I took a long while back the professor arranged to photocopy and bind a OOP book for us, and we paid copying and a fee for the publisher for the copy. I have no idea how he arranged it, though. Probably the people at the library which has a paper copy will be able to help.

There is a number of websites that specialize on out-of-print or rare books. Those sites include BookFinder, used books section on AddALL, rare or out-of-print section on The Bookloft and others. In your particular case, the book that you're looking for (the 1995 edition of B. N. Roy's Principles of Modern Thermodynamics) can be easily found for sale on Amazon UK site via BookFinder and via AddALL. Here's the resulting URL: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0750300191.

Thanks. Now, I know how to better find an out-of-print book.

There's also Alibris, I've bought from them many used books (actually the books arrive from partnering bookstores).

@MassimoOrtolano: Yes, I'm aware of it, I just didn't want to list more, hence "and others". +1

You can also ask in a regular book store. Often they have access to special antiquarian databases.


text:
What does "The references in general are not current" mean?
I submitted a paper recently and one of the major revisions that they ask for was this: "The references in general are not current."
What does the reviewer mean by this?

It likely means you did not cite the reviewers most recent paper(s).

If you do not know how to find more recent literature, that could be an interesting question on its own (but be sure to specify your field).

Is that sentence correct English usage? I am not a native speaker, but it sounds unusual.

I think it's appropriate to note that @StrongBad is being sarcastic.

Might be easier to parse with commas: "The references, in general, are not current"

While @StrongBad might be sarcastic, it is unfortunately close to reality, though not a common one. Just don't ask me to prove the Theorem!

Your references apparently refer to literature that is too old, and probably superseded by more recent research.
Look for more recent work pertinent to your topic and include it in your paper.

In mathematics, papers are often cited when they are preprints (usually on the arxiv).
If your references cite the preprint version of a paper when it has already appeared in a journal, they are not current.

In the context of "The references in general are not current.", couple of things might contribute

authors might not have engaged literature study well enough. At least this is what is apparent to me when I review as a reviewer.

At times, it might be an oversight, or
it might be carelessness, or
author might genuinely not have access to (paywalled) academic literature,
in some instances, it's because of poor conceptualisation of the research itself

references superseded by recent literature as answered by @Stephan-Kolassa
preprints are now published in Journals as answered by @Aru-Ray

However, some reviewers simply scan through the reference list without connecting well with the literature/related work section of the manuscript. This is not well-founded nor ought to be, however in few instances it's a reality.

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


text:
I found another proof of my theorem. Can I present two different proofs in the paper?
My area is mathematics. I have just found another proof of the main theorem in my paper. It is slightly more elegant than the previous proof that I wrote, but the idea is very different. When submitting this paper, can I include two proof in the paper, or must I select only one? Personally, I don’t want to delete either of them, but I don’t know how the editor will deal with this situation.

It's hard to answer the question because we didn't read your paper. We don't even know the abstract of the paper - what is the intention of the paper? to layout this theorem? and others? what's the length of the two proofs? we don't know if putting the two proofs on the same paper will make the reader get what the reader was prepared to get after the abstract would be read.
assuming you include the two proofs, would you write in the abstract that you provide two proofs for your main theorem? is it important? anyhow, I think you should seek advice from someone who can read the paper.

One idea would be to include the second proof as an appendix.

Consider this question: Having read either proof, (why) do I want yo read the other?  If the answer is anything but "no", apparently both have merit on their own. Also, note that people publish new proofs for old results all the time: sometimes, the journey is the destination.

If the two proofs are sufficiently different, then it's entirely reasonable to include both of them in your paper.  You might, however, want to think first about whether the proofs might actually lead (easily) to different generalizations of your theorem.  If they do, then you get two benefits: It's then clear that the two proofs are genuinely different. And you have some more general results.

It would be worth taking a look at Stan Wagon's article Fourteen proofs of a result about tiling a rectangle.  It can be thought of as an extended meditation on the question of when two proofs are equivalent.

There are three alternatives here:
1) Include the original proof only, perhaps with a remark that you later found a different proof.
2) Include the more recent proof only, perhaps with a remark that you had earlier found a different proof.
3) Include both proofs.
All three of these are certainly acceptable, and depending upon the circumstances any one of them may be best.  There is a lot to say here about the nuances of various situations: here is an incomplete discussion.
When might 1) be best?  Suppose you have already written the paper and that you have been planning to submit it at a certain near date (and perhaps you have received funding for this work).  Suppose that both proofs are relatively long and that including both of them would make the paper close to twice as long.  (In fact, the second proof uses material which is not yet present in the paper, including both could more than double the length of the paper.)  Suppose that the second proof, although "slightly more elegant", does not have any other specific advantage to it, e.g. no further applications that you can see.  Or suppose that it suggests to you a new possible approach or avenue, but you haven't developed it much and would like to spend more time on this than you can spare in delaying the submission of your paper.
Then it is plausible to just submit your paper as is, possibly with the remark about the second proof.  Math papers have a temporality to them.  By that I mean that although it might be intellectually more satisfying to work out every aspect of a single problem before you submit a paper on it, in practice this is almost never possible, because (i) mathematicians, like other professionals, need to show evidence of work done and put out product in a reasonably regular manner, and (ii) mathematics is potentially infinite: there may well never be a natural stopping point.  Andrew Wiles settled for a special case of the Taniyma-Shimura Conjecture when he must have suspected that a few more years of work could yield the whole thing.  Pierre Deligne wrote a paper solving the Weil Conjectures and then another solving them in a better way (though the first was good enough!) six years later.  What chance do the rest of us have?
When might 2) be best?  Suppose you've already written up the second proof and/or you know it would be acceptably easy and fast to do so.  Suppose the second proof significantly shortens the length of the paper.  Then, in confluence with the rest of the circumstances above, it is plausible to submit the paper with the second proof only (possibly with a remark...).
In general, space in strong math journals is at quite a premium.  Journals like papers which have "no fat", and they especially like short papers which get in, prove a strong result, and get out.  My best publication is five pages long (for the non-mathematicians: this is really short for a contemporary math paper) and it was accepted as is with absolutely no revisions requested or critical comments made.  They often don't like papers which have "too much exposition" or "too little content for their length".  I hope you can hear my eyes rolling as I type out these sentiments, but I'm just telling it like I think it is.  If you write a paper which is "twice as long with the same content", then you risk a journal liking it less.
You can always try to publish the other proof later: one point in favor of withholding the better proof is that it will be easier to publish it later.  It will be hard to publish a "less elegant proof that I found earlier" in a journal of the same stature as your original publication, but there are other venues for mathematical content.  For instance you could put a longer version of the paper on your own website where you include both proofs -- or, if it seems preferable, a "supplement" to the paper containing the first proof.  How important is this work to you and to the community?  Maybe some day you will be teaching an advanced course and/or writing a book: that's a great place to include both proofs.  Or maybe this work is just one stop for you on the road of mathematical research, and it happens that you were perceptive enough to find two proofs and don't feel the need to publicize both of them.  (But please read the second bullet point.)  There are quite a lot of "less elegant proofs" that the rest of us do not see.
When might 3) be best?  If both proofs are relatively short, easy and fast to write up, and do not add substantially to the length of the paper.  Especially, if the proofs really do look different from each other and/or when it seems like each may have its own applications.  Or if the difference between the two proofs is itself interesting or is something you'd like to receive feedback on.
Let me end with two (relatively!) quick comments:

I have recently been in a somewhat similar situation.  About six weeks ago I submitted a paper -- relatively quickly after starting work in a certain subfield, for certain reasons that I needn't go into -- for publication.  About three weeks ago I found a different proof of the main theorem, say A, of this paper, which all in all I like better: it leads relatively easily to a stronger result B.  I am not completely decided on what to do -- certainly it depends on what happens with the submitted paper -- but I am leaning towards the first option.  One reason for this is one I didn't mention above because it didn't seem to apply to the OP: there are coauthors involved, and that makes the prospect of slowing down / jeopardizing the acceptance of the paper less appealing.  Another reason is that the second proof opens up the possibility of further improvements on Y: in fact, about two weeks ago, after doing some further reading suggested by one of my coauthors, I was able to get an improvement C.  I am pretty confident that adding an extra ingredient (which I have not yet mastered) would lead to a further improvement D, and there are still further improvements E that I aspire to but do not yet know whether they are possible.  Well, how many times should I rewrite one paper?  I also freely admit that researchwise I do A and then B,C, probably D and possibly E, then I am thinking in terms of multiple publications rather than just one.  And conversely: B and C are pretty good, but I would like to have the chance to see whether I can get to D and E before I publish B and C.  These are not easy decisions: perhaps I'll change my mind.
Publications aside, the experience of discovering a second proof of a theorem is a really important and positive one for a mathematician, more so than senior mathematicians seem to successfully communicate to our students and junior colleagues.  I have been thinking recently about the "bipartite structure of theorems and proofs": roughly, proofs are viewed as being secondary objects to theorems, but I think that rather both are basic, and the incidence relation between them is a key one in the traversal of the mathematical landscape.  If you two different proofs of a theorem, try to figure out whether they are actually the same.  If they are, then you'll have made a new (to you, at least) connection between two things you already knew: again, this may not sound so sexy but I claim that it really is.  Or if they aren't, then (well, it doesn't follow from graph theory, but I claim that's far more likely than not) you've actually proved at least one further theorem, which you should carefully write down and then look for alternate proofs of.  And so forth!  (Of course, now that you've heard my thoughts about this you know how hard my eyes roll when journals say that they are interested in new results, not "merely" new proofs.)

I very much understand your personal satisfaction here - it is a pleasure for a mathematician to "cross-proof" a result by two different methods.  But what is best for your readers? Are both of the proofs equally aesthetically pleasing and easy to comprehend? Are the ideas behind them really significantly different?
I would recommend you to discuss your proofs with a supervisor or senior colleagues, probably on a local seminar in your group. Collect their opinions on which proof is better and why. Then think again and maybe it will be easier to see which one is preferable.


text:
How can author deal with late reviews?
Another problem I personally struggle with in peer-review publication process is the situation when review takes really, really, really long. The precise definition of "long" is probably very area-specific: for example a paper in Maths will probably took longer to review than one in Physics. Many well-established journals and major publishers, sadly, prefer not to specify the "rules of the game" precisely, particularly how long the review process should normally take. Fortunately, I quite often serve as a referee with the very same journals and know the amount of time I am given to write a review. Unfortunately, when I am an author, I do not observe these deadlines to be always met. For example, a notable U.S. publisher would ask a reviewer to send a review in 2 months; but in practice a first review of my paper once took as long as 8 months.
As a rule of thumb, I usually start writing to editors with questions about "the status of my paper" in X+1 months time, when X is a deadline time for a reviewer to submit a review. This strategy is not particularly successful — what I usually get is a recommendation to be more patient. Since there is no "official" deadline time announced, there is no formal ground for complaints here.
Of course, such delays lead to a whole bunch of funny situations, particularly if a preprint is put online (e.g., on arXiv) and the results are presented in some conferences. Follow-ups with no official paper to cite, grant applications in which you can not justify by a solid publication, good research but bad bibliometrics or CV, to name just a few.
Could you recommend an efficient way to deal with this problem?

Until you have been flooded with reviewing or editing duties, you can not understand why reviews take long :-) I found, however, that lucidly written papers have a faster turnaround time, for obvious reasons - easy read, easy review.

Ooops. This question just reminded me I'm very late in reviewing some paper I promised to the editor long time ago! Thanks!

If this is "another problem", what is the other one?

This is very important issue at least in pure mathematics. Especially, the PhDs or postdoc candidates suffer due to long time review process as they need urgent publications. I hope some day the mathematical community should bring a regulatory based on contents and pages of a paper and give a approximate timeline to the referees.

@learner So true. Alas, academia is governed by administrators and established profs, none of which experience any major issues from this.

@DmitrySavostyanov, it is true that administrators governs academia, however, still I believe if a group of large numbers of expertise (subject wise) appeal to publishers and journals, atleast something could change. For example, in mathematics it is easier to build a group through mathstackexchange or mathoverflow forums and collect a signature program and send it to all math journals and their publishers. But to do it some well known mathematicians have to come forward. So it is difficult but possible.

@learner Well known researchers are established profs, who can allow themselves to wait until their papers are reviewed and published. They have many postdocs / PhD students to work with with, and they publish tens of papers per year. If one paper is delayed by a lazy reviewer, it won't sabotage their career in the same way as postdocs' one. They are largely happy with status quo and have no motivation to push for a change

I have found that a polite, terse e-mail to the associate editor with a clear history line often works in getting some response.  Occasionally, I have written the editor-in-chief if an associate editor is ignoring me.  As Peter points out, there may be legitimate reasons for a delay, including:

The editor is having a hard time finding a competent reviewer (maybe the area is too narrow).
Your paper is very hard to understand (sometimes, if it's badly written but seems to have some elements of novelty, a reviewer will try to plow through to understand what is going one).
The editor needs an additional reviewer in order to break a strong difference of opinion between the original reviewers.

When even the editor-in-chief does not answer in a timely manner (and I have had this only once in my career), your best recourse is to never submit future articles to that journal.  You will be doing your community (and the next submitter) a service.

There are plenty of reasons why reviews take a long time. First you seem to forget that the time from you submitting your paper until receiving the reviews is not only taken up by the reviewers. The manuscript is probably first scrutinized by a chief editor to see if it is on topic. depending on the journal structure the manuscript might be assigned to another editor who will handle the review process. The handling editor will start to look for reviewers and it is not unheard of that one must ask quite a few in order to get two that accept. Then reviewers have their stipulated time. Once reviews are back the editor needs to look through the comments and make decision on what should happen (reject/some form of revisions/accept) and then provide the author with these comments. So if all this works smoothly it will take a bit of time. Often it is hard to find reviewers and some reviewers may take more time than they should and so the process is extended. Add to that that the editors usually have more than one paper to deal with.
So what can be done? Well not much except try to be quick yourself and set an example. Of course if the time really drags on and there is no response, a well formulated request for status from the editor is in place but when that should be considered is a judgement call depending on the typical time for reviews to be completed in the journal. fortunately many electronic submission systems signal where the paper is in the process which can help judging the timing better.

One thing you can do is target journals that have efficient review processes. SciRev (https://scirev.sc/) is one website that collates "reviews of the review process", or you could ask colleagues about their experiences.
Other than that, I don't think there is anything you can do other than what you have been doing. As an author it is frustrating, and I can tell you that it's frustrating as an editor, too. When I receive queries of the sort you have described from authors, it does prompt me to check on the paper and either nag the tardy reviewers or invite new reviewers if I think the reviewers who originally agreed have become responsive (though rest assured that I do check on them regularly anyway). My journal asks for reviews to be returned within three weeks, but the average actual turn around is about 2 months. When I receive author queries less than 3 months after submission, I feel it is impatient on the part of the author and am slightly annoyed -- but I still check up on it. If a query comes after 4 months or more, I will chase it up more seriously and feel guilty.

Scirev.sc is not active, but it is for sale, apparently.

Sometimes a long wait is the result of conflicting reviews, because the editor has to restart the clock for a new reviewer who has been invited to break a tie. Other times, a particular reviewer is slow, but the editor prefers a slow review that is of high quality to a quick one that cannot be trusted.
The deadlines given to reviewers don't mean very much. Remember that there's no credit for reviewing, so reviewers may be inclined to put a review aside when they need to concentrate on writing a paper or proposal, teaching a class, handling personal matters, etc.
Of course, none of this addresses your question. The answer is that there is nothing you can do beyond what you have said you're doing. This is just a part of the academic life. It's frustrating, but not as frustrating as the silly deadlines given to authors at the galley stage (often 24 hours, in my field).


text:
Can I have a PhD in mathematics or physics after having a bachelor degree in medicine?
Can I have a PhD in mathematics or physics after having a bachelor degree in medicine provided that I score high in GRE physics or math?
I have had zero coursework in math or physics but I am not sure if I could greatly increase my chances into grad school by taking GRE and scoring highly in the test.
I'm not trying to show that I'm smart or anything but I think that mathematics is my cup of tea for I'm very passionate about it and I have studied analysis and algebra and quantum mechanics other things from standard textbooks getting help from resources such as MIT OCW.

Zero coursework? That'll be a problem. A Math or Physics minor, at the very least, is 5 courses. At my school of those were 300-level courses. As someone who's gone through the Bioinformatics/Pre-Med track, I feel like that jump is pretty big. I switched to CS, but I had 8 CS courses as supporting interest.

The hard answer is a straight no.
Doing research level Mathematics or Physics requires a broad set of knowledge and maturity that takes years to achieve. GRE exams are quite crappy, they just ask a lot of questions on basic knowledge and arithmetic; but you won't see an integration by parts (first year maths).
But not everything is lost. There are fields where medicine and maths overlap, and definitely your expertise on one field and interest in learning the other can definitely help. Look at Biomathematics, Bioinformatics, and perhaps, Biophysics. I myself am a Physicist working in Bioinformatics. I do pure analysis of the data, but in the group we also have a wet lab, where my colleagues are trying (among other things) to come up with new creative ways to gather data more suited for our purposes.

Another hybrid field you forgot to mention is Biostatistics, and to a point, Computational Biology. Bioinformatics, at least as our U interpreted it, was micro-level work (genome processing) vs macro-level (population analysis). Biostatistics I am not wholly familiar with.

+1. As to GREs: calculations and computations are not what you will be doing as a math Ph.D. - you will be doing proofs. So whether or not you find an integration by parts on the GRE is not really important. However, the OP mentions he studied analysis and algebra - if he means analysis and algebra as understood at the university level (not high school, even AP), then his aptitude at the proofs required there might be more informative.

@StephanKolassa well put. I mentioned integration by parts as a very low lower bound, needed both for Physics and Maths. But yes, from there, all the way up.

@Compass Bioinformatics does include CB, as well as things like Statistical Biotechnology (v.g. accurate statistical analysis of proteomics mass spec, nothing to do with Biostatistics). Biostatistics usually deals with "how many subjects I need for this study?" and "my patients seemingly got better, but was really because of my treatment?". They are much lighter on the maths, but possibly a good fit for a MD.

In the U.S., this idea is fraught with difficulties, but is not impossible, in part because the usual undergraduate math curriculum in the U.S. is pretty thin and slow in any case, so that the typical first year or two (or more) of graduate work in mathematics is still coursework, getting-up-to-speed. Despite rumors of "undergrad research" in the U.S., genuine such is quite unusual, although "research experiences for undergrads" do give a positive experience showing that "classroom math" is not what mathematics is eventually about.
But there are intangibles acquired by doing that undergrad coursework, including "being on the same wavelength" as one's potential cohort, and having practice understanding what the instructors expect. While it is true that some of this is not particularly constructive pure convention, it does affect communication in both directions. If you're missing this experience, this will be an added catch-up project.
Beyond conventions and standards for communication, there is also the potential issue of accidental self-deceit about the degree or depth of one's understanding, if one has not interacted with other people. It's not that the typical U.S. undergrad curriculum is terribly substantial, but in a way this makes it all the worse, insofar as the truly important points can be lost or misinterpreted in a context of vast ocean of seemingly uniform technical details. Or, from another side, a too-physics-y attitude about mathematics may generate lots of trouble for you in a "strict" mathematics context.
After these cautions, I guess the point is that it is nevertheless possible, if one really wants it, to pursue mathematics (e.g, in the U.S.) despite not having the corresponding undergrad degree. Your issues would be primarily two: (1) getting letters of recommendation from mathematicians with PhD's, (2) demonstrating some self-study knowledge/awareness despite lack of transcripts showing such. Prepping for the GRE subject test in math might be feasible, and getting a good number is plausible without the undergrad degree, but this wouldn't be sufficient.
Probably taking at least one, probably two or more, upper-division or intro grad level math classes at a serious university would help you generate letters and also demonstrate that you can do the work at that level. At many places in the U.S., it is possible to register for such courses as "non-degree student", paying a lower tuition.


text:
Can I add dropbox links to my resume for graduate school applications?
I am applying for Masters in ECE, since setting up a personal website at short notice is impossible,I wanted to provide dropbox links in my CV. For example:

Worst Outgoing Student Award         [Certificate]
Bachelors in Bunking Classes         [Relevant Coursework]
Book Report on Taming of the Shrew   [Report]

All the [**] fields are basically dropbox links, accessible to all. I wanted to know if this is recommended or not.

Is the website a requirement? If it isn't skip the DropBox. That's tacky in a CV, which should be considered a paper document, so no hyperlinks to long URLs.

@Compass If the issue is length of URL, there are plenty of URL shorteners out there. Dropbox even has its own.

Related: Is it advisable to have many clickable hyperlinks in an academic CV?

The website is highly recommended, especially in case you have a lot of projects to brag about.I am not one such person!!  The issue is not about length of the URL(latex typesetting), it is about whether the Admissions Committee would be interested in being fed with additional relevant information. For example, the certificate link in Point 1 would make my case more authentic. Another example, if I have done coursework in Physics, how will the Committee know whether I referred the books by Irodov or Halliday or Feynman? The {Relevant Coursework} link helps in this case.

setting up a personal website by the deadline tomorrow is impossible — [citation needed]

@ff524: The question to which you refer seems to apply to the CV of an academic, i.e. a faculty member.  The current question is about the CV that's part of an application for admission.  I believe those are used in very different ways, and that the application CV should stand completely on its own.

Your CV should stand on its own.  Admissions committees are likely to have stacks of material through which to look, and will almost certainly make a decision based on what you send them.  It is most unlikely that they'll be willing to hunt around to find things you should have told them directly, and even less likely if they have to download documents from Dropbox instead of just displaying them.
Spend your time making your CV as good as you can instead of spending time trying to take shortcuts, because that's what those Dropbox links will look like to the committee.

I agree with your view of avoiding Dropbox links.I felt that since my college and internships have been completed at relatively unknown places in India, I atleast wanted to add hyperlinks to the official websites of such places(just to help them save time in Copy-Search-Go) . Also, please let me know if I can add links to code in my github repository, since it would help professors judge my understanding of some term projects.

Can someone please look into this? It is kind of urgent.

@AgrimRaghav:  Well, I answered your question.  If you are now wishing for an answer that validates what you apparently want to do, you're going to have to wait for someone who disagrees with me.


text:
Does Canada have similar tenure-track system as the USA?
Does Canada have similar tenure-track system as the USA? Does it have around 6 years in a tenure-track position before getting tenure?

This study reviewed tenure-track positions across Canada. The time range from first probationary appointment to tenure is 3 to 7 years, with an average of 5 to 6 years.
Simon Fraser University's tenure track policy states that professors and associate professors shall be considered for tenure no later than the 4th year of the appointment, with options for early consideration or extensions. Assistant professors are considered for tenure no later than the 6th year of the appointment, with automatic promotion to Associate Professor if tenure is granted.


text:
How to use international experiences for a US faculty position?
I have studied and worked outside the US, now I am applying for a faculty  position in the US.
I understand that the competition is very tough, as search committees prefer candidates who have studied and worked in the US. However, I have a wide range of academic and administrative experiences, which might be unique (in comparison with other candidates).

How do search committees compare local and international candidates?
Do they care about my unique experiences? for example possibility for
building collaboration with my home country or attracting
international students?
Are my administrative experiences beneficial or it is a faculty
position and nobody cares about administrative works?

In general, how can I prove my competency? When my qualifications (publications, teaching experiences, etc) are better or as well as American candidates, how can I convince the search committee that my international credentials are comparable with the American standards?

Hi, and welcome to Academia.SE!  You question will be able to get better answers if you narrow it to ask only one question.  You can move other questions into their own, separate questions.

I have to agree that all of your questions are appropriate for asking here, except by putting so many into a single post, it is difficult to high-quality answers. For this reason, I'm going to place this question "on hold," and ask you to split them up. (For example, "How do search committees compare candidates?" and "How do I convince the search committee that my international credentials are comparable?" would make a good question together.)

I've had some experience in interviewing candidates from other countries, although my department has never hired a candidate who was not already working in the US.
The first thing to consider is what kind of position you're applying for.  It sounds as though you are not a relatively new PhD but rather that you have 10 or more years of experience as an academic in another country.
In practice, most academic positions in the US are openings at the assistant professor level, and most candidates for these positions will be recent PhDs (say within the last 5 years) with some post-doc experience but no experience in a tenure track faculty position.  It is not very usual for a more experienced faculty member from another university to be appointed to such a position.  Most universities would prefer to hire a new graduate from a top tier program with a couple of years of post-doc experience and then have that faculty member develop as an assistant professor at their institution.
Some positions are advertised at the "assistant or associate professor level", and you would be a better candidate for such a position.  In these searches, the committee is typically trying to hire the highest quality candidate that they can find, and a more experienced candidate with a good CV can be competitive.  On the research side you will need to demonstrate that you have been consistently productive throughout your academic career.   This means that you've been regularly publishing in good international journals and have published at a high rate.  A post-doc who has published 12 papers in two years in good journals will look better for this kind of position than someone who has published 80 papers over a 20 year career, particularly if not all of these publications were in top journals.  It is also important to have teaching experience in English (be sure to mention this in your CV and cover letter.)
At the full professor level the department is often looking for a distinguished researcher to fill a named professorship and/or lead a research group within the department.  Unless you're one of the top experts in your field, you're not likely to be competitive for such a position.  Often these kinds of positions are filled by recruiting a faculty member away from another university by offering them a higher salary, special facilities, and the opportunity to hire assistant professors in their area.
You might also consider applying for a department chair position.  These are typically part time (varying to essentially full time) administrative positions with some expectation of teaching and research.  The ways in which public and private universities in the US are funded are very different from other countries and their are many differences in university administration that might be challenging to someone coming in from another country.
There are of course immigration issues to consider as well.  Most of the more prestigious universities are generally willing to pay the costs associated with sponsoring a tenure track faculty member for a visa and ultimately permanent residency.  However, some lesser ranked institutions will balk at the cost.
In answer to your specific questions:

How do search committees compare local and international candidates?

Your research accomplishments should include conference presentations and publications in international venues.  Publications in journals that are local to your country or continent will not receive much credit.

Do they care about my unique experiences? for example possibility for
  building collaboration with my home country or attracting
  international students?

In my experience this is a relatively minor factor.

Are my administrative experiences beneficial or it is a faculty
  position and nobody cares about administrative works?

Only if you're applying for an administrative position such as department chair.


text:
One of the coauthors withdraws their authorship after submitting a paper
Is there a problem to change (reduce) list of authors of a paper after it has been submitted to a journal? I am one of the (ten) co-authors of this paper. After the review and changes we made in the paper, one of the coauthors withdrew as a co-author of this paper.
Is this OK? What is the procedure in such cases?

It’s definitely weird, and a clear indication that something is going on with a paper. Basically, I can see two cases were this could happen, and both are not exactly great signs for the quality of a submission:

The removed author was just a “courtesy author” without any real impact on the work. (S)he wanted to tag along at first, but now when people started to nag her/him to do real work, (s)he is rather out. In this case, it is ethically entirely okay to proceed without the additional author, but one wonders why the courtesy author was on the paper in the first place. While this does not say something about the quality of the paper per se, it leaves a certain sour taste in the mouth with regards to the ethics of the rest of the authors.
The removed author was a “real” author in the sense that (s)he actually contributed to the work, but now feels that the submission is either so bad that (s)he does not want to be associated with it, or that the results are in fact wrong or unethically generated (e.g., because the co-author assumes that all or part of the work of somebody else was fabricated or is otherwise inaccurate). I think I do not have to explain why this would be a very bad sign for the quality of a submission.

What I would suggest in terms of procedure is full disclosure. Don’t just silently remove the author — in this case, the thoughts of the editor are very likely to wander to the two cases above, and this will make him look very carefully at your submission. Explain exactly what happened, and make sure to explain how it has nothing to  do with the quality of the submission. If you can’t do that (e.g., because the co-author actually withdrew because (s)he thinks your results are wrong), it is simply better for everybody to withdraw.

I can think of a third reason, which is better if rarer than yours: The author did real work towards a section of the paper which has been dropped at the review stage - perhaps that section was off-topic for the journal, or it had to be culled to keep the paper within a page limit, perhaps as a result of reviewers requesting an extra figure.  This doesn't remove your need to explain, just makes it an easy job.

There is a possible fourth one: the author did contribute to the paper but after the substantial changes he feels that his contribution do not warrant a co-author position on the paper anymore. The contributions were (and still are) OK, they just became peripheral  to the core material. I also agree about the full disclosure which will make clear the case you are in.

There are many possibilities. Maybe it was marginal whether there was a sufficient contribution to merit co-authorship and someone just changed their mind having thought about it some more.

@ChrisH  I would not consider the scenario you describe sufficient grounds for removing coauthorship.

@JeffE I'm inclined to agree but done of the stricter journal authorship rules may not be. In particular consider how you'd word an authorship statement (where required).

@ChrisH "JE provided many insightful comments / performed several useful experiments that steered us away from techniques that don't work."

What to do depends first on the reasons for the author withdrawing:

If the person performed critical work, and the others cannot stand behind the full paper without them (e.g., the person actually gathered the data on which the paper is based), then the paper must be withdrawn and modified accordingly.
If, on the other hand, the rest of the authors can and do stand behind the remainder of the paper, then the paper can simply go forward with that author removed.

Different journals have different procedures for removing an author, depending on their submission and manuscript management system.  With some, the authors can edit the data themselves, with others, you need to do it through the editors.  In either case, an explanation of the withdrawal should be sent to the editors, so that they know why the change and can decide whether it affects their judgement of the paper.

Changes in number of authors is not uncommon. There are many reasons for it, not by far only because of problems.
If you submit a manuscript to a journal and you need to have the authorship list changed (not just re-arranged), the easiest way is to wait until the reviews have come back and you, hopefully, are in a situation to make revisions. You then change the authorship list and provide the editor with a clear explanation of why the list has been changed.
It is of course common sense to send an e-mail to the editor as soon as possible and provide the information on changes and reasons why. The editor can then act as she or he sees fit. It could involve providing the reviewers with the information or not take any action at all, but at least you have been up-front with the information.
Remember that when you submit a manuscript there is commonly agreements in place that concerns all authors so providing the journal with changes in authors can be important to the journal.

It should be okay to change the list of co-authors as long as you inform the Editor why you are doing so. In most cases, a change in the author list would definitely be noticed by the editor and he/she would probably write to you asking the reason (disclosure: I am employed by editage.com). Thus it is best to disclose the reason for the change at the outset.
You might find the ICMJE guidelines on authorship criteria useful. The guidelines also state that if someone has contributed to the work, but has not fulfilled all of the four criteria mentioned, he/she should be acknowledged. In case your co-author has withdrawn because a section of the paper was later dropped, you could consider including his/her name in the acknowledgments section.


text:
Is it a good idea that a reviewer recommend a paper to be submitted to another journal after it is rejected?
I am currently reviewing a paper, which is definitely not suitable for the journal where it was submitted (high impact, topics should be interesting for a broad audience). The content is not new and in this current state not sufficient for publication at all.
I would now recommend rejection with reference to some literature which covers the same results.
I would suggest some more detailed experiments for the authors, to quantify their results and then submit it to a journal with a more narrow focus.
Here my questions: Is it ok, if I write a precise journal, like

I recommend to submit a revised manuscript to Journal XYZ, which is
  more focused on the authors' topic.

or should I write;

I recommend to submit a revised manuscript to another journal, which
  is more focused on the authors' topic.

I wouldn't do it as it implies you think the authors do not know what the specialist journals are in the field

I think recommendations are always helpful. The authors don't have to follow your recommendations. It would be even more helpful if you could give reasons why you are suggesting that specific journal (or journals).

I've seen replies from reviewers like the following: "This is an excellent study on  and the study is better suited to some theoretical journal (e.g. JTCC). There is no physical chemistry or chem physics discussed within this paper and thus do not see any reason to accept it for publication in .

What happened to the academic freedom??? You can write anything!!! I strongly disagree with @StrongBad: everybody wants to try their paper in the flagship journal of their discipline (Science or Nature or PNAS for natural sciences, say), before falling back onto the topic journals. My immediate assumption for a paper that, in my opinion as a reviewer, does not have a broad appeal is that they authors were just trying a better journal, to see if it sticks.

@StasK I am confused as I agree with your statement and do not see what you are disagreeing with. I just don't see the reason to tell the authors which topic journal they should resubmit submit to.

You said that a suggestion for another journal implies that the referee thinks that the authors do not know what the journals are appropriate. I said that submitting a narrow paper to a broad, high impact journal is a reflection of the general preference to have papers published in cool journals. Some fields, like physics, have ~5 journals; others have ~500, so a suggestion by a referee saves some hesitation and indecision time for the authors. It is entirely plausible that a referee is an editor on that journal, or published a related paper there recently, and see the fit right away.

It's definitely OK to name one or a few journals you would consider more appropriate for this paper. Some web interfaces for reviewers even have that as a built-in option.
One thing I encourage you to do is to use the journal's publication criteria to back up your opinion. These may have been given to you along with the paper, or they can be found on the journal's website. If, for example, the journal X's guidelines say:

Articles should be of high scientific quality, originality, significance, and conceptual novelty that are of interest to the wide and diverse contemporary readership of X

then it's good practice, in your recommendation to the editor, to evaluate the manuscript following these criteria. For example, you could say:

The manuscript is technically and methodologically sound, and clearly written. The conclusions are, in large part (minor exceptions noted below), supported by the results. However, it seems to me that this detailed study of knee injuries sustained in wingsuit accidents may not be of interest to many of the reader of The International Journal of Transportation Research.

I think it's okay for you to make recommendation to the author as a reviewer although you don't absolutely have to do it.
If I were you, I would say,

I recommend to submit a revised manuscript to another journal with more focus on your topic, e.g. Journal XYZ or Journal ABC.

so that the author(s) would have more options.

I agree with scaaahu and F'x but will add the following.
It is not normally the reviewer that makes suggestions like these. If the journal editors have sent the manuscript out for review, it should mean they consider it suitable for publication in "their" journal. It is the editors (in Chief) that makes this decision to maintain a good publication standard. So the fact that you feel this ways about the manuscript might mean the editors have slipped up or they see something in the paper that you do not.
With the above in mind, I still think it is ok to make a comment like this since the journal is also there to serve the community and as part of that you can voice your opinion about issues regarding the journal. So if you want to make such a comment, keep in mind that you do not necessarily know why the manuscript was accepted for review (mistake or not).

It is often the case that the editor will explicitly ask the referees to comment on whether they feel the manuscript fits with the goals of the journal. Even if the question of fit is not put explicitly in the review request, I feel, but maybe you wish to disagree as an editor, that it is always an implicit part of the task.

Once, when I (as an editor) rejected a paper for a journal that wanted papers to be of broad interest, I recommended a specific, more specialized journal. The author took my advice and sent the paper to that journal, which promptly sent it to me to referee.

Well it made perfect sense -- you read the paper already, why waste anybody else's time :)

@StasK You're right if, when submitting the paper to the second journal, the authors named me as the editor who rejected it for the first journal.  But I don't know that they did that; I don't even know that they told the second editor that the paper had been rejected elsewhere.

Well I obviously wouldn't do either (say where the paper was before, and who read it). So in all likelihood this is the law of small numbers in action.


text:
Are there any publications that explain the origin of conventions of authorship order by field?
The conventions of authorship order vary considerably from one field to the next. In some fields, such as pure math, authorship order is typically alphabetical irrespective of the authors' roles. In other areas, including most biomedical fields, the first and last author positions are the most prestigious: the first author is presumed to have done the bulk of the work, and the last author is presumed to be the PI who obtained the funding for the project. There may even be a convention to place the statistician in the second author position. In yet other fields, such as paleontology, the first author carries prestige, but the last author has no special meaning. More examples are available in
What does first authorship really mean?
Are there any bibliometric publications that catalog and/or attempt to explain the origin of authorship conventions by discipline?

Related question: What does first authorship really mean?

That's very close the answer I was looking for -- and a very informative thread. (I'd searched for "authorship order" but this one didn't come up). Thank you!! I'd also be interested to know if there's anything in the bibliometrics literature on this.

You've hit all three conventions I'm aware of... I added the "reference request" tag to your post since I think you're looking for something definitive, though.

Can you edit your question to focus specifically on what you want that is not answered by What does first authorship really mean?.  Otherwise this might get closed as a duplicate. Is it that you're looking for a published article discussing the issue?

I believe that doesn't just be "by discipline", at e.g. Bell Labs they invariably used alphabetical order, which isn't uniformly used in Computer Science. I've met people who insisted in alphabetical order (coincidentally with last names staring in A ;-), I'm comfortable with (rough) order of "most to least work done".

The other question was extremely useful and does get most of the way to what I wanted. And frankly, I trust it at least as much as I would any bibliometric publication. But I am still quite interested to know whether anyone has published on this, so I've modified my question accordingly.

You might find this interesting: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/07/20/credit

I have found two works that I think are interesting and relevant.
First, there is a sequence of three papers by Beaver and Rosen from 1978-79 on the history of scientific collaboration: "Studies of Scientific Collaboration" (Part I, Part II, Part III, unfortunately all paywalled by Springer).  These articles document a relationship between co-authorship and "professionalization" of science, noting that although co-authorship has a long history of equal relationships, it surges when it becomes tied to access to facilities, money, and power particularly as judged by peers within the scientific community.
Ubiquitous co-authorship only emerged in the mid-20th century, and given the scientific economic environment in the US and Western Europe, there seems to be a plausible relationship to the three main authorship traditions that have been observed:

Biomedical research is very dependent on judgement of scientific peers, and thus would be natural to have the highest co-authorship and most complex and hierarchy-driven interpretation of author order, distinguishing "primary contributor" (protege) from "senior author" (patron).
Mathematical research, on the opposite end of the spectrum, requires little in the way of funding or access to resources, and thus has the shortest co-author lists and most egalitarian traditions for interpreting authorship.
Engineering research, although heavily funded and often strongly dependent on access to facilities and equipment, is less dependent on peers and more dependent on providing near-term results to government or industrial patrons, and thus it is unsurprising that it ends up in the middle state.

For comparison, then, we may consider the second paper, "What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications", a 2009 comparison of 10 different society authorship policies, which range from NIH setting forth a biomedical canon in which only the "corresponding" author really counts to the American Statistical Association, which says that the convention chosen for author order should be explicitly explained (no mathematical society is included, unfortunately).
Now all of this might be snapshots and "just-so stories" that are not the actual causality and history, but it's at least an interesting starting point for interpretation and investigation.

Just in case you have not seen it before (given your comment about the lack of a mathematical society in the comparison), the AMS has the following to say http://www.ams.org/profession/leaders/culture/CultureStatement04.pdf

Thank you for adding the reference: it is interesting that it ends with an acknowledgement of the downside of alphabetical order, but no suggestion of how to address this issue.

I actually see the paper as part of a solution to that problem (and I think that is a large part of the reason for its existence), since they also write that the reason for the problem is lack of understanding of the culture from people not in mathematics.


text:
Do I have a MSc degree if I did the work but did not pay tuition?
I have a BSc degree from a private university in Egypt. The university offered me a scholarship at the beginning of the program but that scholarship applied only partially to a subsequent MSc degree.
There's an overlap in the degree requirements for the BSc and the MSc, which means that the 5th year of the BSc is also the first year of the MSc. By doing research for 6 more months, the MSc degree is complete. The scholarship applied to everything but those 6 months, yet the tuition for that was very expensive.
Since I was a top ranked student, my dean said that if I did research at an associate research institute abroad he will ask the university's top management to

officially enroll me in the program,
delay payment of the tuition,
and consider offering me a scholarship for the remaining tuition

with one caveat: He will not know their decision until the very end of the program.
I took that risk, and successfully defended and submitted my thesis at the end of the program. While the university agreed to #1 and #2, my dean's attempts at #3 were fruitless. I have proof that I was enrolled as an MSc student and the university printed my degree's certificate but they will not hand it to me unless I pay the full tuition, which I can not.
My question is: Do I have a MSc degree or not? How should I address this on my CV/Resume?

Since your dean is so helpful, perhaps he could help you receive your MSc at the university where you got your BSc.

@earthling I did the work at the research institute but the MSc degree was issued from the same university where I got my BSc also.

No.
Unless your university is willing to provide proof that they granted you a degree, they didn't.  Listing an MSc degree on your résumé that your university is unwilling to confirm invites accusations of fabrication, which would be nearly impossible to refute and which could cost you your job many years in the future.
On the other hand, nothing stops you from publishing your thesis, or asking your dean for a recommendation letter explaining the unfortunate situation.

First of all, I agree 100% with everything JeffE wrote, so I won't repeat it here.
As for how you should describe this in your CV / résumé, I'd suggest describing your M.Sc. studies as in progress, with a brief parenthetical note explaining the details (e.g. "studies completed in 201X with GPA Y, thesis approved with grade Z; formal completion delayed pending resolution of financial issues").
After all, that's what your situation technically is: you haven't received your Master's diploma yet, but you've completed some of the requirements for it, and may receive it in the future once you complete the rest.  The fact that, in your case, the missing requirements are financial rather than strictly educational does not affect this main point.
I wouldn't dwell too much on the specific details in a CV, since it's supposed to be a brief summary of your experience.  In particular, you do not want to come across as bitter or accusatory, nor as financially irresponsible.  A short and neutral phrase like "financial issues" is probably best: if the prospective employer is curious, they'll ask you about it.  (Do expect it to come up in an interview, if you make it that far.)  Or just do as JeffE suggests, and get someone else, like your dean, to write a letter of recommendation for you explaining the situation.

Yes, I considered a brief explanation but doesn't that raise more questions than it answers given that I'm currently doing a PhD?

Depending on how you phrase it, it might. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if your CV looks good otherwise (good grades, etc.). So you're already enrolled in a PhD program without, technically, having completed your MSc? Some would see that as a good sign: it implies that someone felt you were good enough to make an exception for. In any case, having something unusual in your CV to pique the reader's curiosity just might help it stand out from the pile of other, competing CVs.

@user6864: If you finish your PhD, nobody will care whether you have an MSc or not.

@JeffE That is true. What are your thoughts regarding the in progress idea?

@user6864: It's not a horrible idea, as long as not much time has passed since you completed your thesis.  But over time, the claim "formal completion delayed [for whatever reason]" will start to smell, especially since there's no standard mechanism to verify your claim.

Agreed. My advice was based on the assumption that all this has happened fairly recently, and that in the foreseeable future you expect either to make enough money to pay off the tuition fees and get your diploma, or else to obtain a higher degree (or substantial work experience), rendering your missing MSc mostly irrelevant.