text:
I am looking towards getting into a good PhD program in Germany. How can I convince any professor to take me as a student?
I'm a non-EU resident and I want to pursue a PhD in pure math in Germany. I am currently in the process of writing to as many professors in my field of interest (functional analysis) as I can requesting that they take me as a doctoral student under their supervision.
I don't want to do research in the same area that I specialized in during my masters education (in fact, I want to switch from algebraic geometry to functional analysis). My question is how can I convince someone to take me on as their student if I'm making such a big leap and hardly have a clue as to what research in functional analysis entails? Professors naturally look for students that are already very familiar with their research area and don't need much training before they start working.
Usually when I email a professor requesting them to take me as a student, I attach a short CV (not that impressive either) and transcripts of my masters education. I don't have a research proposal for them and I feel that's hindering my likelyhood of getting an acceptance letter. I'm sure I'm not the first student with this problem and people in my situation do get admitted into a PhD program doing work unlike that which they did during their masters so I was wondering how do I become one of those people?
Thank you for your help.
@PaulGarrett: Since I can't comment below, I'll clarify here: I have some research experience in the area of fixed point theory (which is close enough) working as a research assistant for a professor in our department. I can get a reference letter if there is a need. I don't have a paper published, however, but I did learn a lot and so this is how I believe that that's what I want to work on. I of course realize that saying I've read a few articles and enjoy the work is one thing but convincing someone to pay me for 3/4 years to do some work in this area is something else, but that's all I can say and I can sense it doesn't really sound very convincing. I hope my situation isn't so hopeless that I either have to force myself to learn to enjoy algebraic geometry or start again with first getting another masters degree.

If you hardly have a clue what research in X entails, how are your confident at all that you want to do it? The people you're applying to will wonder the same thing. Just having the experience of studying Y and deciding you don't want to pursue it further is not an argument in favor of X... Clarify?

@paulgarrett The OP can't comment, but edited: "I have some research experience in the area of fixed point theory working as a research assistant for a professor in our department. I don't have a paper published, but I did learn a lot and so this is how I believe that that's what I want to work on."

@aeismail, ah, ok. This should surely be edited into the question... is it pending approval, or something?

@paulgarrett Someone's tried to reply twice through suggested edits (1, 2).  ...ohhh, I see, the OP's an unregistered account.  OP, can't you just use your account to edit or comment your reply?

@Nat I’ve edited it in.

The professor you worked with seems like a great resource to ask exactly this sort of questions. That person might also be able to help you make contact, since they might know some relevant people.

Write a good research proposal. Look at your professors work and see if you can make an extension. Thats how I got my funding!#

I work in computer science, but I think it doesn't matter in this case.
Please don't think it's a stretch to say that, but how do you achieve attention of someone on an online dating site? That's right: by standing out. As a professor, I get occassional emails from prospective students. They differ a lot in terms of content, language and attitude, so they make very different impressions on me.
There is no, and there can be no universal rule: people are different, and it is not possible to give a recipe that works for everyone. Some professors are simply not interested in getting new students (it's a "load"), and thus won't reply positively regardless of the quality of your mail.
For me, "a request, a CV, and a transcript" looks like something that you send in bulk, to dozens of people. Why should I react? Basically, I treat any bulk mail as spam. Yes, I get it: as a student you might simply want to enter a certain resonable university and study a certain field you want to work in. But what should be my (professor's) motivation to support this endeavor of yours? It is a commitment both for you and for me.
What works for me is when people are genuinely interested in my research project, and they wish to support it, so they will be not just a burden, but my assistants. Fake interest ("I am very impressed by your work and want to be your student") is easy to spot, BTW. I have no interest in studying random people's CVs and transcripts; if I wished to do it, I would work in HR.
Bottom line: connect what you already studied with something that you want to study, think how to present your previous experience and obtained knowledge as a valuable asset for the prospective professor's lab. Find a person who does something that you genuinely like. Read his/her research papers (i.e., do your homework), try to propose a possible direction for your studies. Try to be a collaborator, not a burden.
I must also say that things become more complicated when you need more than just "an approval". If people just wish to come and join our lab, it's different from asking to fight together for their scholarship, for example.


text:
The Downsides of Doing Undergraduate, Masters, PhD at the same institution
A bit of background: I attend University A. I have done all of my studying so far at University A. I completed my undergraduate degree in Faculty 1, I will complete my masters in Faculty 2, and I am considering applying to do a masters (track to PhD) in Faculty 3 to study a new field. (I can clarify the field jumping if needed, but not sure if it's necessary)
I understand that if somebody started out in chemistry, for example, that doing an undergraduate, masters, and a PhD at the same institution could have some career downsides (smaller network, access to the same resources, etc). In this case, it seems clear to me that there is an added benefit of doing a PhD at another institution.
In my case, however, I have been in multiple faculties within the same institution. If I were to apply and do a masters/PhD in a different faculty at my university (University A) then it's not as clear to me what the potential downsides would be for an academic career after the PhD.
So I am curious what the opportunity cost of pursuing a new field at the same institution is, and ultimately, having finished ones entire academic career at one institution.

Are "faculties" like departments, or more like colleges/schools within university A? E.g. are you moving from the Faculty of Chemistry to the Faculty of Biochemistry or from the Faculty of Science to the Faculty of Engineering?

How widely different are the fields?

@AzorAhai Faculties in this sense would be like the Faculty of Science, and then under the umbrella of the Faculty of Science would be the Department of Chemistry, Department of Physics, etc.

@Buffy My undergraduate major/minor are economics/math. My masters focuses on renewable resource economics and bioeconomic models(renewable in this context falls along the lines of animal populations and forest resources as opposed to something like solar energy or wind energy). For my PhD I want to focus on more of the biological aspects of bioeconomic models, so I would do an applied math PhD in the area of mathematical biology.

Normally the downside of studying at a single university is that the student sees and interacts over the years with fewer ideas since they keep coming from the same people. Once a person gets a degree from a university department, they may have been exposed to a set of viewpoints smaller than what is available if they looked wider. In other words, you can get into a mental rut.
But that doesn't seem to be the case here since, I expect, that your set of contacts even though in a single university is quite wide.
But you might, just for fun, talk to a few of your most trusted faculty contacts and ask them whether it is time for you to move on or good to stay. If you are a highly valued student, then there may be a bit of selfishness in their answer, so watch out for that. But if you detect such, then it is surely time to move on.
Over your career you want to develop and maintain a wide network of collaborators. If you can do that while still based in a single place, then you should be fine.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How Might The Pedagogy Of A PhD Supervisor Differ From That Of An MSc Supervisor
An MSc and PhD are quite different both in terms of the length and the expectations placed on the students undergoing the program. First, let's just assume that the 'students' I reference below are hard working, want to be in their programs, and make an effort to be a good mentee.
Trying to put myself in the shoes of a supervisor, and all else equal, I would expect (in the general sense) more from my PhD students than I would from my masters students - although I recognize there are probably instances where supervisor expectations might be similar, but I doubt they would expect more of a MSc student than a PhD student.
What I am curious about is how a supervisor might approach their end of the student-supervisor relationship from a pedagogical point of view when the student is a PhD student in contrast to being an MSc student. For example, what values or attitudes might a PhD supervisor try to impart on their student that might not be warranted for an MSc student, or what type of expectations might a supervisor place on their PhD student that might not be appropriate to place on the MSc student?
I say pedagogically because I think the question can be answered without needing to reference a specific field. I'm not sure if it really matters or not, but if you think it does, one can use Canada-US as a place of context.
While some might view the question to be ambiguous, I think it is relevant enough for the forum because it can help shape a healthy student-advisor relationship.

It might/should be that the universities have some official document about the programs which says "The goals of the phd program are X" and "The goals of the master programs are Y". Then X and Y are the things you are looking for or am I misunderstanding your question?

You appear to be asking two questions; pedagogy (how the teaching/instructing/mentoring is implemented) and outcome (what the desired ends are). The two are related as specific pedagogy can be more or less beneficial for various goals.  Can you clarify if you are more interested in the potentially different pedagogy or the likely different desired outcomes?

@Cardinal What I am asking is a combination of your comments. From your POV, what I would be asking is "how does the pedagogy of a supervisor achieve the desired outcome of producing a successful PhD student as opposed to a successful MSc student". Where success here would be defined as satisfactory completion of the program. Essentially, I want to understand supervision from the perspective of someone providing supervision, and how one provides supervision would differ ( I think ) on the class of student they have.

I guess one way in which, traditionally, the pedagoy for a PhD student might differ from a master's student is, in some ways, the absence of formal pedagogy for PhD students.
I appraoch every supervisor-Phd student relationship as a unique relationship that will be a mutual process of discovery: what they need from me, and what I need from them. To a much larger extent, I expect PhD students to articulate to me what their goals are, and what I can do to help them achieve those goals. This is, of course, a two way process.  I have goals that they can help me achieve and I need to learn with each student how best to articulate them.

I think that one of the largest differences between advisement of a PhD student and a MSc student is found in what the end goal of the degree in question is.
In my field (Math/CS), most MSc students are trying to augment their undergraduate education with a bit more experience and higher level topics. It is an extension of the undergraduate education. Yes, there is a research component, but that is not usually the main focus of the degree in my opinion. The focus is more on application of advanced concepts in an existing sphere of solutions.
On the other hand, a PhD student needs to learn to be an independent researcher. They need to be able to develop new and novel techniques, all with decreasing levels of guidance as they progress through the program.
Advisement of the respective degree programs would follow what I have outlined above. A MSc student should be aided in augmenting their existing knowledge; a PhD student should be guided towards independently led research.

I don't disagree with your answer. What I would hope you can maybe elaborate on a bit more (because this is what I am trying to get at)  is how a supervisor might approach supervision when they are trying to guide their PhD students towards 'novel creation' as opposed to their MSc student who they are trying to guide towards 'novel application' of existing knowledge. I think your answer is provides a good skeleton, but could be additionally fruitful if you expanded just a bit further.

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


text:
Asking same professor for rec letters for 2 different grad programs?
I'm an undergrad applying for graduate programs next year. Is it a bad idea to ask the same professor to do two different letters for two different programs (Philosophy programs, and Law school)? My gut says no, since this would require the professor to kind of "lie" to each grad program about how dedicated I am to each. However, I do know this professor very well as I did research for him and the programs are somewhat related. Thanks!

Not at all.  We realize that students typically apply to more than one program.  I encourage my undergraduate advisees to apply to five or six graduate programs.
Given that reality, I don't mind writing a letter of recommendation and submitting it (with few changes) to a half dozen graduate programs.

I think you may have misread the question?  OP isn't asking about the normal situation of applying to 5-10 places in the same field, he's asking for two different letters to two different kinds of programs.

@NoahSnyder Yes, I now realize that I should have made that more explicit - just edited the question. The programs are in two different areas, philosophy and law.

It's not uncommon for students to ask me to write letters of recommendation for different kinds of programs, (e.g. they're interested in both applied mathematics and data science graduate programs.)  However, Philosophy (an academic discipline) and Law School (a professional degree) are really fundamentally different.  I'd still write a letter in such a circumstance, but I'd also encourage the student to think more carefully about what they want to do since those are very different kinds of programs.

@BrianBorchers Ok, thank you! Good to know. I do think it would better to narrow things down first as you suggested though.


text:
CS Masters Prerequisite Courses
Most Comp Sci MS programs in the US require certain undergrad core prerequisites in order for a non-CS major undergraduate to be considered for admission (usually 4 or 5 including data structures, discrete math, computer systems, etc).
If an applicant has all but one or two of these on their transcript when they apply to MS programs (e.g. late fall 2020), but plans to take the rest of the core in the semester following the application deadline (e.g. spring 2021), will their application still be taken seriously?
Is it worth mentioning plans to take the rest of the core in the statement of purpose?

Which country/countries are you asking about?

@Buffy The US. I will edit the original post.

If you're paying nobody cares. Being rejected from a self funded masters program if you have demonstrated a degree of competency is pretty low.

Generally this should not be too much of an issue.  For graduate classes once you enter the program, they only make sure that you have the prerequisites right before you take the class.  But since you are talking about admission here, you could mention your upcoming plans to take/finish pre-requisites in your statement of purpose.  Depending on how class registration coincides with the application deadlines for your programs of interest, the classes you intend to take may even appear on your undergrad transcript (as part of the Spring 2021 semester) when you apply to your graduate programs.  Although, the only way to get a sure answer would be to check with the particular graduate programs that you plan on applying to to see if this will actually be an issue.


text:
Bringing your own grant as a postdoc to a group that has rejected you
I had an interview for a postdoctoral position with a group with a big grant, who later rejected my application, the official reason being that "some [...] important aspects of [the project] might require intensive
cooperation and supervision" and that "the supervision capacities of the PIs are limited" even though "[my] background [...] fits well to several of the research directions" and they were "overall positive about [my] application."
It so happens that the county in which one of these PIs is located has a call for individual postdoctoral grants.  As is customary with these grants, I am to find a host that could support my application.
Would it make sense to write an application for this grant focusing on the aforementioned project's "research directions" to which "[my] background [...] fits well" with this PI?  Assuming they were honest in conveying their evaluation to me, this idea seems somewhat reasonable, but I do not know if I can take their response at face value; it would a waste of time if they actually think that I am good for nothing.

Sure, if you have the time for it, why not make another application. They can tell you no, again, of course, and it is pretty hard to predict the outcome. So effort spent here might well be wasted.
You will need to address their stated reasons for rejection as well and if you do that it is possible (possible) that they will reconsider.
But your time and effort might be better spent elsewhere.

I might have misunderstood the OP, but the answer to "Can I come and work in your group?" might well be different to "Can my big pile of money and I come and work in your group?" In most institutions the size of the pile of money largely determines the answer, no?

I clarified my post;  I was suggesting focusing on the aforementioned project's "research directions" to which "[my] background [...] fits well."

Yes, but you still need to address the "too much supervision needed" comments.

@DavidA.Craven, I understand what you are saying, but nothing is assured. Don't put all the eggs in one basket.

@Buffy The idea is that I won't need much supervision if I exclude some tasks that I don't have background in.

That is good. It is what I meant as addressing their concerns. Good luck.

Let's our imagination run wild.

Suppose you decided to apply to them again with your own grant and they supported you (well, hardly anyone won't accept a postdoc coming with their own grant).
The PI capacity is limited, so you are left to your own devices to write your application, while your competitors have training sessions provided by their potential hosts and significant help from their prospective PIs in improving and contextualising the proposal. But you persevere and put a lot of your own effort in it. Eventually you finalised and submitted a proposal.
Your competitors got colourful letters of support from their hosts, explaining in details how their proposals match and extend the research done in the department, how the postdocs will be supported by PIs and the Department, what training and resources they are going to receive, and how this project will transform them into a world-leading PI. Maybe also a promise that on successful completion of the grant they will be offered a permanent position in the Department -- a line that took quite some effort from the Head of Department to push through the resistant University HR. You also got some letter of support, which your busy PI adapted from some other template for you, with a small typo in your name, perhaps.
Despite all odds, your proposal idea is brilliant and you've got the funding! Yay!! Now you can pack your stuff and go work with them on the research you proposed.

Ask yourself -- do you really want to? If your idea is so outstanding that it wins funding in a tough competition with other brilliant postdocs-to-be, and without much input from your busy PI, do you really want to bring it to fruition in a research environment which only values your ideas if you bring your own funds to execute them? If they are happy to take you with an idea and a pot of money, but not ready to take you with an idea, what do they really value here? If the PI is so busy to support you based on the idea you bring, what are the chances you will have decent supervision when you bring your funds (which the PI won't get, actually)?

The idea was that I can just re-use large portion of the pre-approved grant application that they used for my own.  But perhaps you're saying that that's not how it works.  Re "a promise [...]  they will be offered a permanent position in the Department," does that ever happen?  To me it sounds like a shady employment practice.

@Pteromys Thing that looks good in a grant: "Oh cool, this person is going to work in a group that already spent the money on ExpensiveScienceMachine, so this cycle we can get all the ESM benefits without paying for it" Thing that looks bad in a grant: "This is the same thing that was already funded separately."

@Pteromys I definitely know people who brought their postdoc grants to a Department and have clearly stated in their letter of support that the Department will offer them a permanent post on successful completion of their grant. This is totaly legit in the UK and I see nothing shady about it. Gives a successful postdoc a peace of mind and some job security while they are doing their excellent research. Only fair.

@BryanKrause My field is mathematics, so your good example doesn't work for me.  Does this mean that I cannot get funding with this group?

@Pteromys It means don't plan for anyone to be impressed by you copy-pasting a different grant.

@DmitrySavostyanov  I guess that means I'm doomed anyway because nobody approached me saying that they'd write such a letter to me...

@Pteromys My example is explained through the lens of how things are done in the UK. YMMV. Just ask yourself what is that you want. What drives you to apply to the same place that already rejected you? The rest is just details.


text:
How to obtain a teaching letter in a research-only institution
I am a postdoc at a research-only institution in Europe now.  I am applying for US postdocs in research university in mathematics.  Even though not all job advertisements mention this, but it is customary to include a recommendation letter in the application dossier.
When I was a graduate student, I taught several courses, but most of them were as TA, and the only course I taught as the main instructor was during the lockdown, where no faculty oversaw me.  The instructor of record on paper for the latter offered to write me a letter that basically just says that I indeed taught in my graduate school, but nothing more.
My current boss suggested that our institution could issue an official letter explaining the lack of teaching duties or opportunities.
What should I do in answering job calls that formally includes the teaching letter requirement and that don't?

My current boss suggested that our institution could issue an official letter explaining the lack of teaching duties or opportunities.

This seems like a bad idea to me; these letters aren't a place to make an excuse that you don't have an opportunity to teach, they're a place to highlight your qualification for teaching.

the only course I taught as the main instructor was during the lockdown, where no faculty oversaw me. The instructor of record on paper for the latter offered to write me a letter that basically just says that I indeed taught in my graduate school, but nothing more

Someone is responsible for the course you taught: that's oversight, even if they weren't literally in the room observing you. In some cases that might be the leadership of a department that assigns courses to particular instructors and would manage any complaints if they arose; however, for you it sounds like the most relevant person is this "instructor of record on paper" who is clearly the person overseeing your teaching (again, whether or not they actually stood in a room or whether there was a room at all).
However, they should also know that within the US if you write "I can confirm that Pteromys taught a course" and nothing else, this could easily be taken as a negative letter (a colleague of mine likes to use the joking phrasing: "of all the students I've met, this applicant was one of them") unless the person reading the letter recognizes this as a style from a different cultural context.
Recommendation letters do not necessarily need to be based entirely on first-hand experience. If I was the instructor of record for a course you taught in, I would ask you to give me your resume that includes all your teaching experiences, and I would write a prose letter about these experiences, mentioning the specific subjects of the courses and scope of your duties and punctuating it with how I personally knew you and vouched for your work. Critical to this letter would be your independence, which you phrase here as "no faculty oversaw me" when an appropriate positive spin would be that no faculty needed to oversee you, or rather that you taught the course independently and did not need require day-to-day supervision. It would be further worth mentioning the circumstances under which you taught and any special preparations you needed for that teaching: for example, if you had materials designed for in-person instruction and you successfully adapted these for online instruction, congratulations: you've successfully passed a pandemic test that many more experienced instructors struggled with mightily, and I'd sure hope a recommendation letter would highlight that.

The letter about teaching may be "customary" but probably not "mandatory" at most US research universities. But, in a situation like yours, you use what you have. Make sure that your research recommendations are very strong and that your application supports you strongly in research.
I doubt that you need a letter saying you've had few opportunities. You can say that yourself, and then have the third (usually) letter give additional support to your research.
But if your research has aspects that might be useful to undergraduates then it would be good if someone says that.
For a TT position in the US, you will have six years to develop in all aspects that the university values. You probably aren't being hired as an undergrad instructor at an R1.
But, make the best case you can. Put your prior teaching experience in the CV even if no one attests to it. You can explain things in any interview.

You can also reach out the the institution you TA'd at and ask for student reviews. They tend to store that information. It can be provided to your letter writers along with your CV and any other important elements of your portfolio. It also helps that "evidence of teaching effectiveness" request that is very common.


text:
Can I get a teaching experience that matters to potential employer in this way?
This question seems related to my question, but it does not have an answer.  I hope to get an answer by asking something more specific.
I am a postdoc at a research-only institution whose only students are in doctoral programs.
People are allowed to be (co-)appointed with other university and teach there, and some of them have taught, but none of my colleagues currently are to my best knowledge.   I would like to have recent teaching experience (I have more legitimate teaching experience where I obtained my doctorate)
and obtain a letter of recommendation regarding teaching.
To this end, I thought of holding a mock class, where I give a lecture on something that is taught  in some typical undergraduate course to PhD students and senior researchers, one of whom could later write a letter to me.
My question is whether or not this way I can get teaching experience and a letter that are at least somewhat relevant in job applications to (say) American math departments.  (Addendum:  I'm not in the US right now.)

Which country are you in? This is relevant since in the US one can always find a college nearby that has a need for some undergraduate teaching for a quarter/semester. In contrast, if you are in Germany, you would not be allowed to teach independently unless you have a habilitation.

Have you thought about doing something "non-mock" by setting up a course/workshop on a topic some of the PhD students would really like to know more about? As somebody reading a job application, I'd like that, whereas your "mock" idea would leave me cold.
It'll ultimately depend on how exactly the hiring committee works, what their criteria are, and what role it plays that members "like" the idea (I think there is quite some variety around regarding these issues), but I suspect that your "mock class" idea will most likely not fly as it isn't the "real thing". To what extent my proposal above works any better I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it'll be at least as good. Teaching a regular class at a nearby other university will probably still be quite a bit better.

My impression was that hiring committee was looking for people that can teach "boring" courses like, say, calculus, as opposed to something that I am expected to be enthusiastic about (which is also what the PhD students are likely to be enthusiastic about).  I thought that it was kind of given given that people can teach well what both they and their students are genuinely interested in---but this is not the case in many undergraduate classes, of which there are lots of demands.

I can ultimately not be sure and it'll depend on the committee... but taking intiative to do something genuinely useful is a positive. A mock performance can't prove that you can do it well to the students to whom it matters, when it matters. For me it is part of good teaching to do what is the best thing for the audience you have.


text:
Condensed-matter theory with career prospect in the industry
Reason for the post: I'm trying to better understand the jobs in the industry so that I can tailor my graduate studies to more closely represent the kinds of jobs I will be doing in the industry. Thus, I'm trying to figure out which field in condensed matter theory I should pursue given the details below. I know at the end of the day this will be a personal decision, but I wanted to get some insight from people who might have walked this path before.
About me: I will begin my studies towards a physics PhD this fall, and currently my interest lies within computational condensed-matter theory (CCMT). After my PhD, I hope to secure a research-oriented job in the industry. For example, working at Micron Semiconductor company in the R&D department. Another important factor for me is I prefer my job to make direct use and connections to what I have mastered in graduate school. This takes me back to my original question where I'm trying to figure out PhD in which field allows me to have a job that closely resembles what I have mastered.
My Dilemma: Within CCMT, I can specialize in hard or soft condensed matter theory. From previous exposure, I know I greatly enjoy the former option. But I also think that there aren't many jobs in the industry that directly make use of hard condensed-matter theory. So my worry is that if I pursue this specialization I would likely end up with a job that makes no use or connections to what I spent five or more years mastering.
On the other hand, if I pursue the "soft" route, I feel like the likelihood of me finding a job in the industry that resembles what I have mastered in graduate school is more likely, as soft condensed matter is readily applicable in the industry.
Additionally, I have the opportunity to do my PhD in biophysics. This would be a parallel route to that of pursuing soft condensed matter. This field seems to offer ample computational opportunities and I think there are a fair number of industry jobs in the medical/pharma sector. The huge catch here, with both routes of soft and biophysics, is that I have no idea if I'm going to like the theory involved.
Summary: I will be starting my PhD in physics soon with a focus on computational condescend matter theory. After a successful degree, I hope to get a research-oriented job in the industry. I prefer this job to be one that makes direct connections to the knowledge and toolkit I build during my PhD, so this way I don't end up feeling like I got a PhD for nothing. I'm seeking insight on which sub-field within condensed matter physics might best suit me.

Welcome to Academia SE. It seems like you are asking about the job prospects in industry in two (or three) fields. If this is correct, this site is not a good place to ask this question, since we are academics (and thus not in industry) and usually not specialised on those particular fields. My best bet to have such a question answered would be a professional association, people who are in industry in that field, or browsing the job ads yourself. Estimating the size of a highly specialised niche in the job market is not exactly easy. If this is not your question, please [edit] to clarify.

A question that would be suitable for this site and probably helpful to you is something along the lines of: “My career goal is to work as a researcher in a particular field in industry. How can I find out whether it’s advantageous to do a PhD, and if yes in which field I should be doing it?”

That is exactly my career goal. I mentioned I want to go in the industry while staying close to being a research scientist. I will edit post to clarify

From previous exposure, I know I greatly enjoy the former option

Do the above one. I did an experimental DPhil in condensed matter physics and there were are very few (well paid) jobs in this field in the UK. I imagine there are even less in theory (I imagine companies will  work with academics to do the theory and then spin-off their ideas where relevant).
When I did my DPhil I also wanted a job which made the most of my physics knowledge, but after a successful DPhil (with a good publication record) I decided academia wasn't for me because of the lack of stability and need to be geographically mobile. I moved into industry and am pleasantly surprised at the amount I use the physical knowledge gained during my DPhil! I'll get put on / approached for relevant projects (in the CMP domain). Pleasantly, I find I get to dedicate about the same time to projects I find interesting in industry as in academia: too much time in academia was spent chasing grants, teaching students and helping my peers.
All in all, for your PhD do what you enjoy most: if you end up loving you should stay in academia -  don't bother moving to industry. If you end up enjoying it less than you think, you will get a great job in industry with either of those PhDs. Decide later at the end of your successful PhD!

Thanks for the insight. So are you suggesting that hard CMT has just as good of job opportunities in the industry as does soft?

For 'directly' relevant jobs in industry I couldn't comment. But i do not imagine there are many! However for the excellent 'fall-back' options (typically requiring a PhD), such as data science, consultancy, finance, patent law and teaching, I imagine there are no difference. All what recruiters will care about is: a) you have a PhD in physics (a heavy numerate subject) and b) you have scripting/coding experience. The vast majority of recruiters wouldn't even know the distinction between hard/soft CMP!

To conclude: Go with what you think you will enjoy most. Let the job work itself out later, a PhD is a long process and its unlikely you fully understand the implications of doing one yet. Your perspective on the job markets may change over 5 years (the job market itself maybe different) and you may want anything else than a research degree!

So I read your bio on SE, and you are working as a data scientist and your work involves machine learning too. That would be a super nice job for me, but do I qualify for something so CS-y like this with only a Physics PhD and coding experience from a Physics background? Did you have a CS degree too/experience with machine learning from elsewhere?

I did a MPhys in Physics, then a experimental PhD in condensed matter physics. I had no ML experience (besides basic regression) until I entered the job market. I coded (roughly) daily for my DPhil, but it was basic scripting in Python.
My current company is mainly computer scientists / software developers. They hire people with PhDs in the 'core' sciences as data scientists to complement people with a CS background.
Currently, this kind of background is very common: PhDs from sciences being hired as a Data Scientist. I don't imagine this changing that rapidly.

I should add: Most people from my cohort now work in Data science or in machine learning based roles. In fact, more people do this than pursue an academic career. From my experience, most of the best students tend to leave for an industry role, the exception being those who are fanatically passionate about their subject.

Thank you so much. It's good to know that this kind of job is possible even when I don't come in with CS or ML experience!


text:
What was wrong in my reply that my research guide changed his mind?
During my masters I spoke with my research guide and he seemed to be interested in taking me as a PhD student afterwards. I joined a job and want to start my PhD after a year.
My research guide mailed me recently asking if I am joining back as a PhD student, as he is getting a new project, and looking for someone capable like me. I was very happy getting a mail from my guide and with my gladness, probably I spoke too much. I told him that I am not completely happy with the work I am doing currently, so I will be happy to work on his project on my free time, but since I am getting salary from my current job, I can work on the project only when I get time out of my job. I also told him that I am appearing in the PhD entrance exam in 1-2 years.
After this he was silent for a week, then replied back that I mistook what he meant, he is looking for someone who can start PhD work and join later in the institute as a PhD student through examination. If I know any such person, I can let him know.
I am not able to understand what went wrong here. I replied that I am appearing in exam and interested to join back my institute, but since I am in a job I can't start PhD full time, but once I get recruited as a PhD student in the institute, I will start full time work. After that he didn't reply back.
He definitely was checking if I am joining PhD, otherwise he wouldn't have mailed me. He was also aware that I am joining a job. Then what went wrong in my answer that he changed his mind, I am unable to understand.
Can anyone point this out?
Also, any suggestion, how can I amend the situation now?

Do you and him speak the same language natively?

yes. We communicated in English.

Not sure what country this is, but it sounds like you just misunderstood, but somehow explained it to us quite clearly that he is looking for a PhD student now, but you aren't looking to be a PhD student now. Bryan's answer seems correct.

Not related, but if he often goes silent by your emails, are you sure it is a good idea to work with him at all?

A phone call is the only way to fix the situation.
Call him and clearly express that you are not going to drop your job before having confirmation of the PhD. Ask them if you can still apply for the position.
However, with the first mail they offered you the position and you rejected.
Instead of what you write, it would have been smart to ask if that mail was a concrete offer or an informal communication (sorry, I know that the horse has left the barn, keep in mind this for the future)
You must make very clear that you did not take the first email as an official offer.

I can work on the project only when I get time out of my job. I also told him that I am appearing in the PhD entrance exam in 1-2 years

Your advisor isn't looking for someone to work on the project in their free time and to maybe start a PhD after at least 1-2 years, they are looking for someone to work full-time on the project now.
Your response indicated you wouldn't be available to work on their timeline and stated your priority is your other job instead.
It maybe would have been kind for them to reach out and clarify this with you, to make clear that the position is only available to you if you can take it now. However, it's also reasonable that they look for another candidate since you've told them you're not available on the timeline they are looking for.

But isn't it normal? He was already aware I am going to join a job after my masters. How can I leave job without getting confirmation that I am getting a chance in my PhD?

So, does it mean, I can contact him again for some other project he might have, while I appear for the entrance exam for PhD?

@MadamCurie I'm not sure what's normal in your system where there is an "entrance exam" for a PhD. Maybe they assumed you would have already taken the exam if you were interested in a PhD. In any case, it doesn't sound like you said clearly "I will quit my job if I have a PhD position". You instead said you could only work in your free time because you have another job.

Yes, probably it was not clear in my first mail, but I clearly mentioned it in my second email. But no reply .. Any idea on how to amend this situation now?

@MadamCurie If you wrote it like you said here, I don't think it was clear. You could try again, but maybe it's not available anymore.


text:
How can I prove that I did a review for a journal?
About two years ago, I did a review for a journal (Engineering Failure Analysis, which is published by Elsevier). At that time my affiliation was different from today and I used my institutional email at that time to register as a reviewer in the Elsevier website. But right now that email is deleted and I don't have access to that email. I need to show somewhere that I did a review for this journal and they need some evidence. Despite, I have access to my account in Elsevier (The email is deleted but the account in Elsevier website remained unchanged and I have access to it), I can't find their acknowledgment email for my review. I asked their editorial office and their editor-in-chief 3 times and still after about 1 month I didn't get any answer yet. So, basically I want to know is it enough to take screen capture and show that I did the review to proof or not? Cause in some websites like Publons, it needs to send the confirmation email to their email server to be able to put it in your webpage and count it as a review, but I don't have that confirmation email and I don't think I could get that due to they're ignoring my emails. Any idea, suggestion, and recommendation is appreciated.
Also if somebody knows some sort of customer service or front desk information for Elsevier, I will appreciate if he/she could give it to me cause maybe it could be helpful to contact them directly. I searched a lot in their website but I didn't find anything about how to contact them.

I'm afraid what counts as proof depends on who is demanding the proof.

@AlexanderWoo it’s one of the US government agencies, which probably people there are not academic experts (It’s not a funding agency like NSF or NIH).

I think only the people demanding the proof can answer this question - there is no universal (or near universal) standard.

With security investigations and background checks, there’s no onus on you to prove your claims. The onus is entirely on NBIB to do a thorough investigation, and any details you provide beyond what is on the SF-86 are a voluntary disclosure that you are (legally) not obligated to provide. Of course, providing the information up front will accelerate the process and may reflect favorably on you (such as admitting to a history of drug use rather than hiding it).

I hope you’re able to settle this, but I do think that it is outside the scope of this site and have voted to close. I am a USG research contractor and am happy to talk further about explaining academia to govvies/the clearance process if you reach out via email (see my profile) or chat.

@StellaBiderman What?! What security or background check you guys are referring to?! No, you got it wrong. Let’s say there is an agency which wants to give me a benefit but it needs to prove your research accomplishments by showing that you judged the work of other people. That’s it. There is no security or background check or whatever and also I want to get that review confirmation cause it reinforce my application to get that benefit.

@AloneProgrammer You were vague about what the particular need for this was. One potential source of this question would be if you were having a (re)investigation. In case that was the source, I provided some additional info. At the time I wrote that comment, something had suggested to me that that might be the reason, though I’m blanking on what that would have been now...

@AloneProgrammer Is it possible that this information is listed on the journal website or front matter somewhere? In CS, it is common to thank reviewers by name.

@StellaBiderman no I rejected that paper :)

I don't understand. If you turned them down for a review, what do you hope to achieve here? There's no prestige in not doing work.

@StellaBiderman I think the OP means they did the work of peer reviewing the paper, but advised the journal to reject it.

@StellaBiderman I did the review but I advised the editor to reject it. As a result, my name is nowhere to be acknowledged.

Does anyone know if Elsevier has any sort of customer service or front desk or something like that which might be helpful to call them and ask them if they could send me an email about that review?

In CS, it is common to acknowledge reviewers even for rejected papers by listing them in the front matter of the journal/proceedings.  Presumably your review was anonymous to the authors, so even if the paper was accepted, you wouldn't find proof f your review in the paper.

I am curious why you need to prove that you did the review. Perhaps it is not relevant to the question, but perhaps explaining that might give the opportunity for answers that might better help your root need. I am curious because I have never needed to PROVE that I did a peer review. If I have claimed to do so, it has never been questioned. If you have a compelling reason, then sharing that with the editorial office or editor in chief might make them give your inquiries greater priority.

Ask the editorial office. You write that you've already asked them, but send them a reminder. Tell explicitly what you're looking for. In my experience for example, a letter saying you performed a review, on official Elsevier letterhead paper & with the desk editor's signature, suffices. This really should be something the journal office can do quickly. If they haven't responded my guess is that they're waiting for the editor-in-chief to respond, which is unnecessary.

Much like during a background check, you can't provide more evidence than you have access to. (Well, you could, but it's generally frowned upon.) So send in what you have and let them judge it. Perhaps they don't consider it proof enough, which I assume means that you don't get credit for that one review, but no worse consequences than that.

Check whether an issue of the journal lists you as a reviewer and if it does, then use that issue as evidence.

I advised to reject that paper so that paper was not published to put my name as a reviewer in that issue.

Your recommendation doesn't matter: Many journals acknowledge reviewers (regardless of their recommendation---doing otherwise would be a little peculiar). When acceptance is recommended, the acknowledgement shouldn't appear in the same issue, since that would comprise anonymity.

Good answer. See for example: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ecy.2072

Unfortunately, this journal particularly in the Elsevier does not have any acknowledgment page for reviewers...

@AloneProgrammer Just to clarify, I mean an acknowledgements page in an issue of the journal, rather than a web page listing names. (The link provided by Emilie looks like it is a page from such an issue.)

@AloneProgrammer it's a bummer that this exact journal does not do that. Let's hope this answer will help someone else with the same issue.

@Emilie The Elsevier website is just a crap. At least I could not find it. I searched in Google but it just shows me the other journals of Elsevier but not this one. Crazy...

@AloneProgrammer I did a small research to look if there was a "reviewer acknowledgement" articles for your journal, but I don't think it exist

@Emilie Thank you for your help! I think it's better to stick to Editor-In-Chief or other editors maybe at least one of them give me an answer hopefully...


text:
What should I do if someone published my old reserarch result without mentioning my name?
Recently, I realized someone, who was my friend in the past, published my research results related to an old project without mentioning my name. I'm wondering how he accessed to my results and why he published those results in a fake journal! By fake journal, I mean it's like someone buys a website and upload some pdfs and says I'm a publisher! Fortunately, it seems this guys recently got a faculty position in the US and I wanted to know how can I sue him? It's a clear example of research misconduct to publish the results of other people without mentioning even their name. I could prove my claim by giving the original raw data, which I'm pretty sure that he cannot provide them because I just stored them in a protected storage device. Could I directly contact the office of research compliance of the university that he works for?
Edited:
I realized it is more than one paper! He published two papers! in the same fake journal with my results...
Edited:
He admitted his fault and apologized... Also, he offered me three projects to work on and even a Postdoc position!!! (I'm still PhD student and even not defended my PhD proposal). I gave this matter up because he made the situation really emotional. I'm not sure that it is a correct thing to do or not but this question is kinda closed...

Is this actually a fake journal, or is it just his personal website. There is a significant difference.

It is ACTUALLY a fake journal and is not a personal website...!

This is the website of this fake journal: http://www.jbsjournal.org/

Sounds like you wouldn't want your name associated with any of it at all. It will not pass muster with your 'friend's university either, so I would just not bother with it at all...

@JonCuster You mean, I should give it up and let it go?

Perhaps. You should be clear with yourself what your issue is, and what you want to accomplish. Nobody else of any value will be fooled by a fake publication. What is it to you if the person makes a fool of themselves?

@AloneProgrammer Unless your specialty is in femur visualization, it seems like this would be a pretty long road to chase just to get attribution for having created images found in a fake journal published in 2014. He could truly just get around this by putting your name in 8 point font at the end of the paper "Alone Programmer created the images using ."

The research result is not fake! I mean I did that really but just I didn't get the time to publish them. If those results are published in a fake journal it does not mean the research results are also fake. Clearly, he toke some advantages out of it by himself. But let's say why I should give up my right to publish those results someday? I think it's not fair...

@Vladhagen Let's say right now I decided to publish this results in Elsevier? Can I do it? I have the raw data so I could generate other images as well to not be in a conflict with this fake article! But that sounds ridiculous because I'm trying to avoid my real results which belongs to me 100%. It's really hard to wrap my head around it... By the way right now his brother is saying this journal is not fake and " it has official ISSN from US Congress Library, official website, known editorial team and is indexed."

@AloneProgrammer Note that fake is not the same as "extremely low quality." As I have said, contact the man himself, then his department. If you are capable of writing a new paper on your own using your own images, publish your results how you see fit.

I already contacted him. Could I prove my claim by providing the raw data to at least remove this article from web?

I would first contact the individual who published your work. Perhaps he can provide insight into his actions.
If he has a faculty position in the US, you could next contact his department to open a case with them. University administration may also be able to step in and arbitrate on the matter.
If the journal is reputable, they too would be a point of contact. Since I have no way of knowing what journal/"journal" this work was published in, it is difficult for me to gauge what contacting the journal would lead to.
Much of this will depend on providing evidence that you performed the work you say you did. This also greatly hinges on what exactly this person published that you think is yours. Did he publish written work verbatim from your own writings? Did he just publish a paper using an idea you had but never formalized? Did he publish data that you collected? Do you have any lab notebooks showing that you collected the data? Were you paid to do research for this person? Is he publishing a paper using data that you collected, but that he cleaned and analysed?
One note on pursuing civil litigation on this matter: Unless you can show loss of money, opportunity, or standing due to this person's actions, you are extremely unlikely to get a definitive decision awarding you some sort of remuneration for your work. This is not how civil suits work. This is an academic matter and the courts are likely not going to hear the case. (Unless you go to some sort of TV 'Judge Judy' court). If you have an actual published piece of work that is copyrighted, civil action could be a move of last resort. Otherwise, civil action is very unlikely to result in anything.

The journal is completely fake and just invented by him and his brother! By sue, my purpose is to remove this fake article from web and all of its records. Also he used the data that I collected without mentioning my name as author. I have all the raw data which I'm pretty sure that he cannot provide them because I just stored them in a protected storage device.

By using my data, my purpose is that he used some pictures which I created for visualization from raw data to show him sometimes ago directly in this accused paper without doing anything new. He could not do anything new because he didn't have the raw data.

@AloneProgrammer So he used some images you created? Was the focus of the paper visualization? For all we know, you created those images for him, he forgot who created the images (several years having passed), and then he used them in a pre-print he put on his personal website. Were these images you created done on your own time? Did he pay you to do this research?

I did not created those images for him! This paper is written solely based on my images without any new result. No it was not like a pay job or anything like that. Me and him had a friendship in our department some years ago when he was PhD student and I was a undergraduate. I did some research independently in our department with a software which I learned at that time by attending some sort of classes. Sometime I just showed my results to him to know his opinion. But I realized that he stole my images which I don't know how! But he does not have raw data.

Right now, I'm a PhD student in the US and also he is in the US (such a coincidence!), but I don't know, is it possible to open any case against him in his university because this research is not done in the US originally.

@AloneProgrammer Plagiarism is plagiarism, regardless of what country the research was originally performed in. First contact him, then his department.

I already contacted his brother, who works in the same university as him, because even in his webpage in the university, there is no contact information to contact this guy! It may sound ridiculous but I'm suspicious that maybe this university is also faked by him and his brother! I'm waiting to see what he would say!

Rowan University is a real university in the United States (New Jersey).


text:
How could I convince my PhD adviser that the method, which is provided by him to me, does not work?
I'm a PhD student in the US in the middle of my third year. We use a method for some simulations that is initially provided to me by my PhD adviser, despite the fact that all other research groups, that do the same simulation as us, use different method, which is a way more powerful than ours. Our method has really known limitation which makes it really difficult to get correct results comparable to other research groups that use other method. In fact, I should say nobody really used our method for these kind of simulations before.
I did a complete literature review and it turns out except a few research groups, that my adviser believes their works are bogus, nobody really used our method for this problem to get the correct results. In fact, those papers, which are bogus in my PhD adviser's opinion, are done behind the limitation of our method and that's the origin of his belief. But the problem is: professional research groups use other method, which does not have this limitation at all and as a result their works look more different in terms of final results.
In fact, my PhD adviser wants the results of other research groups but with our method, which looks impossible to me due to my three years experience on both of these methods and my comprehensive literature review. But still my PhD adviser believes it should be doable by our method. By the way my PhD adviser does not have any paper in the field of my PhD thesis and also did not know anything about this topic before I started my PhD.
In my opinion, if nobody use our method to do this research, it does not mean people are fool or idiot that does not know how to use our method. In fact, if there is not much literature about the application of our method in this particular problem, it means our method is awful for these kind of simulations (it's already known more or less in the literature but some people like my PhD adviser does not want to believe...). The problem is even by knowing that this method does not work and if even wants to work, takes 10 times more time and computational resource in comparison to other research groups, my PhD adviser still insists on to use this method and not to switch to the conventional method that other known researchers use to address our research questions.
I tried in several ways by bringing up the literature review and the work of other people and my works during these three years, but my PhD adviser keeps telling that: "I don't believe in those papers!".
I mean how someone could believe that we are the smartest people in the world that are trying to solve a problem with a wrong tool but so many other people who worked in this field more than two decades are fool that used other method to address this problem?! My question is: How can I convince my PhD adviser that we are just using a wrong tool and that's it. If we want to get correct results similar to the literature we should use their method? I really appreciate any suggestion or recommendation.

There is a significant discrepancy between the title question and the body.  The title question says "does not work", but the body says "looks impossible to me".  Which is it?  Do you have a convincing argument for why the method doesn't work, or have you just not figured it out yet?  The fact that nobody else has used it yet is NOT a convincing argument!

But symmetrically, has your advisor given you a convincing argument for why "those papers" are not credible, or has he just not figured them out yet?

You are in your third PhD year and have done a thorough review of the state of the art. It seems your adviser cannot give you proper reasons for using the existing method and has no relevant papers in this field. This means you are the expert here. If you find the new method superior, then go ahead, implement it and use it. Of course, you have to invest time but eventually it will pay off as you can overcome certain limitations and your simulations will run faster. In the end it is your thesis and if you knowingly stick to a inferior method, you stay below what is possible.
Maybe you can even write a comparison of the two methods in terms of performance (if you are interested). If your adviser accepts the comparison result, then you can use your favourite method and get a first paper out of it.
If your adviser insists on using a method against all scientific proof, then it might be time for a change. Of course, a change of superviser or research group at this advanced stage of your PhD must be considered thoroughly and probably is the last resort.

Do it BOTH ways, and compare the results.  Use your mentors methods unless results dictate otherwise.  If you need to switch, have the full analyses ready to present to your mentor to explain why you find it necessary to switch.  Even if your mentor's methods hold up, be ready to change the method you use if during the review process, referees demand it.


text:
What is the role of a thesis supervisor at the MSc level
I am a first year masters student just entering the first phase of my thesis research. I am the first student that my supervisor will be taking on so it is quite a new experience for both of us. Given the context of the relationship, I am curious to what extent a thesis supervisor ought to play in the development of the student and in contrast what are some tangible things I could be doing to contribute to this relationship as well to aid in my own development? My objective is to not have my hand held (too much) because I really want to strive for research autonomy eventually and produce quality research. I am however worried that maybe i'll spend too much time on learning something relevant, but not as crucial, to the research and not fully recognize that

A huge role.  Masters is a time to contribute to an established research project while putting in your own experiences to a certain degree.  Usually it is not the Master's students job to come up with a project, understand its research utility/significance etc.  Rather, that project usually exists already and the supervisor asks the student to move it forward, perhaps even support a PhD student in their work.
In this sense, your supervisor should be working closely with you, at least at the beginning, to make sure you understand what needs to be done and how to contribute.  This isn't to say that you're doing exactly what the supervisor says.  Rather, it is understood that a masters student lacks the depth and breadth of understanding of the field required to make a truly impactful, original contribution (usually!  Some are exceptional.  Point is that this isn't the expectation).
By the end of the project you will be the expert in your own contribution.  Your supervisor will guide your thesis and make sure that things like the claims and background section are adequate and truthful.
You should use your masters studies to explore the field and gain some of the breadth/depth required to understand if it's really the field you'd want to pursue if you were to do PhD.  If that is your goal, you should also use it as an experience to learn the basics of what research is and is not, what a contribution is and is not, and how the life cycle of a research project evolves.  If that is not your goal, then you should also focus on gaining skills and knowledge that you feel will help you in your future career.  Your supervisor's job is to ensure that you are given the freedom to explore these things within the context of the overall project.
If, for example, you want to learn about linguistics but you are working on a project in international development, that is probably not a good use of you or your supervisor's time unless you can link it somehow.  On the other hand, if you're working on such a project and you decide to study some of the history of the country your project is based in, then that is probably a good use of your time, provided you don't lose track of your main project.  Your supervisor, with regular check-ins, can help you to better understand if you are on the right path with side interests and will also help to steer you back toward your project if you are going too far off track.

Thank you, I found this particularly useful. From my understanding, I know that some departments at the MSc level operate in 2 ways: (1) They have the project for you and (2) you make it all up. My department is in the (1) category, but unfortunately my supervisor has been gone since I have begun research, hence why I am trying to tease out what might be some rather basic questions. So thank you.


text:
Copyright Rules Regarding Figure Reproduction
A paper I wrote was recently accepted for publication. In one of our figures, we report our results juxtaposed against results from another paper published in a different journal. To perform a quantitative comparison, we did the following:

Download the PDF of the other paper. The relevant figure is in the style of a "density plot" with an associated color bar. By this I mean that three-dimensional data (x,y,z) is plotted in two dimensions with the z value represented by a color in a color bar with associated numerical values.
We reconstruct a data set in the form (x,y,z) by associating the (x,y) coordinates relative to the given axis tick marks, and by associating the colors at each (x,y) to the associated color in the color bar. Details of the method by which we did this is explained in the supplementary material of our paper.
We re-plot the resulting data set with our own plotting software to compare it to ours using the same color scheme (a different color scheme from the original).

Importantly, we did not duplicate the figure of the original paper, but converted it into a data set and re-plotted that data. The raw data set was not included as a supplemental to the original publication. (one could argue that we should have simply requested the raw data from the authors of the other paper, but that's a different question)
We just received our proofs from the copy editors, who included the following remark:

Please note that in order to reproduce figures from another journal, authors must show that they have complied with the requirements of the publisher of the other journal, possibly including written agreement of both publisher and author of the originally published work. If a figure is reprinted from another source, copyright information must be included in the caption. Please provide required information.

While we don't wish to dispute the copy editors and will probably simply go through with getting permission from the other journal (which will likely require us to pay around $50 USD), I want to know what the rules/laws regarding what we did are in this case. A few thoughts:

It seems to me that we did not "reproduce the figure", i.e. we did not show the same figure as it appears in that paper.
If the data set had been included as a supplementary to the paper, then presumably a citation would entirely suffice to use that data and re-plot it (perhaps this would depend whether the paper was paywalled or not?)
Assuming the above is true, then extracting data from a figure, which ostensibly is just a compact and intuitive way to represent precisely the underlying data set (i.e. in principle the figure contains the same data as the underlying numerical values), then there should be no difference between what we did (extracting the data from the figure) and simply plotting data obtained as a supplemental to a published paper.

In any case this seems like a rather unfortunate situation for scientific publishing and making scientific results accessible.

NB it's irrelevant that you didn't directly copy the existing plots, but you have created a derivative work from them, which is considered pretty much the same thing. Extracting from a plot to create a new plot is not the same level as constructing a new plot from identical data.

In your field, is representing 3D data in two dimensions using color for the third dimension a standard practice or is it a "creative element" in the one you derived yours from?

@Buffy it is the standard method to show this type of data, which can be seen in hundreds if not thousands of papers. On the theory side, we are plotting a specific correlation function whose z-values depend on the underlying model. On the experimental side, the corresponding plot shows neutron scattering intensity as a function of scattering momentum. It is standard to compare the two, qualitatively and sometimes quantitatively as well. We wrote a theory paper and our plot juxtaposes our result next to the previously reported experimental result, on the left/right (the plot is symmetric)

"simply plotting data obtained as a supplemental to a published paper." Usually, these data when released comes with a separate non-commercial attribution, so the copyright on these data is different than the figures. I think there is a license that guarantee you are releasing something openly, but you allow for further modification and commercial redistribution while requiring referencing to the original open release (BSD, maybe?).

It's hard to say anything conclusive without comparing the figures, but my guess is that the journal is just being overly cautious. It is simply much easier to ask for, and obtain, permission before publication than dealing with the unlikely situation of the other journal causing an issue later. Better safe than sorry. (And hey, it's a great deal for the journal if they can trade a small risk of having to spend considerable amounts on copyright attorneys for the authors spending $50...)
Sometimes this risk aversion is taken quite far. I was asked for permission in a case where somebody wanted to plot results of their own calculation, because the results showed similar curves to ones I had previously published for the same quantity in a closely related system.

That said, you ask about rules and laws. I am not a lawyer, but I nonetheless think the following will be fairly accurate. The first thing to note is that details will matter. (That is a big part of why copyright litigation is expensive in the first place - details are time consuming.) Under US copyright law, there is a fair use defense for academic use, but relying on that assumes one is willing to deal with litigation. Note that there is no presumption the reuse is fair - if a complaint is filed, it needs to be dealt with and the specific case analyzed.
The analysis involves several factors. One of these is related to how much of the work is copied. This can get complicated quickly, since the legal question really is about which protected elements of the figure were copied. The data would not be protected (paywalled or not, data are considered facts, which are not protected), but creative choices could be. I don't know what case law is most relevant to density plots, but one could probably make an argument that choices of font, aspect ratio, labels, tick placements etc. involve some level of creativity - likely not enough to be protectible in separation, but maybe in combination. In most cases I suspect this would be a losing argument, but beating it in court isn't free.
Now, how similar is your figure to the original one? A recreation in a different plotting software, involving a complicated data extraction step, does not necessarily result in different creative choices. If you painstakingly reproduced it in all or most of these aspects, but used a different color scheme, this would put you closer to the line than if the data was integrated in a completely different figure.

At the end of the day, it's just much easier for the journal to avoid these issues altogether by having a policy requiring permission more broadly than is legally necessary. I think it's unfortunate that journals charge authors for granting this permission, but, then again, some fee is probably necessary to cover costs associated with such paperwork.

@Roland Thanks. I intended it more as an example of law than an outright assumption of jurisdiction, and it seemed potentially relevant at least to the journal with the original figure (since $50 USD is mentioned, but maybe the sum was converted for US sensibilities).

There is no shortage of hairsplitting about coypright rules in this forum. However, there is (as far as I know) zero question about actual litigation or legal problem. From which you can deduce that most people (including your copy editors) are overly cautious, and that you do not need to get permission.
Actual copyright litigation is against platforms such as Sci-Hub or ResearchGate, not individual researchers.


text:
Why are some articles that are published in subscription mode available publicly in the journal?
I was checking the content of a Springer journal, when I found out some papers which are not open access, yet they are made public and everyone can download them. While other articles, also published in subscription mode, do not have the option of being downloaded.
My question is why some articles have the option of being public and downloaded even when they are not open access, while some other articles don't.
To illustrate what I'm talking about, I give the following two articles
Article published in subscription mode, yet it is public and can be downloaded by anyone
Article published in subscription mode, yet it is not public and cannot be downloaded by anyone
Is there a reasonable explanation?

How are you identifying papers that are "published in subscription mode"?

@BryanKrause, articles that are published open access have a label "open access" and articles that aren't don't have that label, example of an open access article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40435-021-00893-2

I see, thanks for clarifying :) Reasons might be boring like "publisher didn't check the right box in their system" (either for article access itself or for whatever flag displays the "open access" text). For practical purposes, I would say this article is open access whether it carries the label or not. Embargo would be another possibility but would not seem likely to apply to such a recent paper.

It looks to me like the "open access" label only gets added to open access articles in that journal which have been published in final form (they have a volume and page numbers).

@Kimball, here is an article labeled "open access", not published in the final form. That is, without a volume and page numbers. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40435-022-01012-5

Well, maybe the open access label doesn't get added exactly at the time of final publication, but it happens sometime after initial online publication.  Also, publishers make mistakes.  One thing you could do is keep track of a few of these articles without the label, and see if they get added after they get put in final form, or look for free articles in final form without the label.  If your article is one of those in question, you could just contact the journal about this.

There is a difference between free access and open access, as you've discovered. For these articles, the publisher made it freely available. That's all there is to it.
Why would the publisher make something freely available? There're several possible explanations, e.g.:

They want to promote that journal or its content (easily the most likely reason).
The authors requested it and the publisher feels they can reasonably grant it, e.g. because the article is old, has not been generating much downloads or denials anyway, etc. (I did this before.)

I think Kimball's comment is more likely than this distinction, though the point that it's basically up to the publisher is important.

@BryanKrause for those particular papers, maybe, but the question doesn't ask about those papers. Those papers are only examples.

@BryanKrause, I don't think that's the case, (see link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40435-022-01012-5)


text:
Does exposition count as research experience?
I am applying to grad school this year for PhDs in mathematics. I have done four projects overall. One was a REU through which I published paper, and the second was my undergraduate thesis, where we solved an original problem (My professor said it wasn't enough to publish in a journal just yet, and unfortunately I don't think I'll have the time to work on that problem further). However, both these endeavors resulted in original work, so I don't mind categorizing them under "Research experience" in my CV.
In two other summers, I worked under different professors where I basically studied Coding Theory in one and Homological Algebra in the other. Both these projects led to me writing exposition on the topics I covered. However, I am unsure what I should categorize this under in my CV as it seems incorrect to categorize it as "research". I would like to know what should I classify my expository summer projects as in my CV, if not for "Research Experience"?

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

I think the question is clear. But perhaps you should explain what you mean by exposition and expository. You wrote a summary of what you had learned?

I don't think it counts as research experience. Maybe "Further study"?

Yes, I wrote a summary of the topics covered.

No, it’s not research, and I’m not even sure it’s accurate to refer to these experiences as “exposition”. It sounds like you studied some math under the supervision of some professors, and wrote up a summary of what you learned. “Exposition” would really only make sense if you published or are intending to publish what you wrote (even if it’s just in the sense of making the document freely accessible online on some web page) with the goal of creating a useful resource for other people; and it carries an added implication that what you wrote is polished enough and of high enough quality to serve as a resource in such a way. So claiming the “expository” designation might come across as a bit presumptuous. Most write-ups of this sort written by undergraduates are pretty far from living up to this standard.
In addition, describing the project as “exposition” also puts the emphasis on the writing you did rather than on you having learned some advanced math, which may be actually the more relevant information you want to convey.
So basically there isn’t really a standard term to refer to such projects, but I’d stay away from “research” and “exposition”. I’d suggest putting this under a general heading such as “Miscellaneous”, “Other educational activities” or something similar, and describing the projects as something along the lines of:

“Summer reading project on [name of topic] (supervisor: Professor [name])”.

“Summer reading course” (only if this was done for academic credit)

[name of the program you participated in] if this was done as part of a formal program, e.g., “Advanced Math for Undergraduates (summer project, Department of Mathematics, University of X)”.

Fair enough. Thank you for letting me know. Will keep that in mind.

Deep reading on a narrow topic is often the preliminary to research, so it is related but not exactly the same thing. Dissertations, for example;le, often have a "literature search" section that places the current study in what is already known.
So, since a CV doesn't normally have a fixed format, you could use a section such as "Research Related Study" an list those other things, especially if you have written them up and presented them somehow, such as to a professor. "Specialized Independent Study" might also work.
If one or more of your professors who write your letters of recommendation mention your "deep dives" it will reinforce it.
If you intend to follow up with those studies then "Work in Progress" might be appropriate. Or "Early Stage Work In Progress", perhaps.
But I agree that they probably don't belong in the Research section itself.

"Research Related Study/Specialised Independent Study" would work I think. As one of my letter writers is the professor I did my study under, I think that would reinforce the point as well, just as you mention.


text:
Is it okay to re-send a manuscript to another editor if there's no answer after three months?
I sent a manuscript to a refereed journal and got no response three months after submission. The journal doesn't specify how much a review lasts, or when should I expect to hear back from them. Manuscripts are sent via e-mail to any member of the editorial board. After sending the manuscript I didn't receive a confirmation e-mail from the editors, so I'm worried that my submission got lost between other emails in the inbox.
Given that I had no response after three months, is it reasonable to send the manuscript to another member of the editorial committee?

Note that sometimes journals specify exactly how long you should wait before you contact the editor.

It seems likely that your submission was lost with nothing back for three months. Rather than send it again, send a request for confirmation that it was received. Send it to the same person, but also to a lead editor if you can identify them, or at least one other member in any case.
You should get some sort of response quickly and it might be to submit again. Bad things can happen to email.

I sent a follow-up and got no response back. An acquaintance of mine has published there so I'll ask him if it's something normal. Thank you for your response.

I think it depends on the journal but in general it is not uncommon to take many months. It definitely would not be okay to submit elsewhere without withdrawing, and note that some reviewers may already have finished (so withdrawing wastes their effort).  As another answer said, you can always check with them .. but I think it is early to do so.

Review timelines depend very much on the field, and there are certainly fields out there where three months is an unreasonably long review process. So I don't think it's fair to say that it's early to check without knowing which field this is.

@DavidZ The field is economics, and it isn't a big journal.

@DavidZ is right, the timeline is field-dependent.  The idea of simply submitting elsewhere without withdrawing seems wrong in any field, and the idea of withdrawing without some discussion also seems wrong.  Maybe it is not too early to check.

It is quite common for an editor to send an article out to reviewers and give them 90 days to review it. Additionally, a reviewer may ask for an additional 90 days so six month period is a common turnaround time for first reviews.
As you did not receive a confirmation e-mail, then I would encourage you to send a follow-up e-mail to the original editor cc'ing additional members of the editorial board.


text:
Are researchers allowed to keep applying to various IRBs until they finally get a seal of approval?
Let's say a researcher has a somewhat controversial research project (such as a vaccine challenge trial). Is it considered legal to keep applying for institutional review board (IRB) until you eventually get accepted? For example, you start from this list of independent IRBs and go down the line until someone finally approves what you're trying to do. Would the researcher be obligated to disclose rejection from other IRB boards or could they point to the latest approval and consider the permit is given to them to start the project?

If you are really seeking a legal opinion, then the Law SE is the place.

Could you spell out IRB once, please?

@John Custer that doesn't mean the question is off-topic here, though.

@Dirk The tag summary seems pretty good: "An IRB (Institutional Review Board), also known as an independent ethics committee or ethical review board, is a group that reviews and monitors research involving human subjects."

From the FDA:

If an IRB disapproves a study submitted to it, and it is subsequently sent to another IRB for review, should the second IRB be told of the disapproval?

Yes. When an IRB disapproves a study, it must provide a written statement of the reasons for its decision to the investigator and the institution [21 CFR 56.109(e)]. If the study is submitted to a second IRB, a copy of this written statement should be included with the study documentation so that it can make an informed decision about the study. 21 CFR 56.109(a) requires an IRB to "... review ... all research activities [emphasis added] ...." The FDA regulations do not prohibit submission of a study to another IRB following disapproval. However, all pertinent information about the study should be provided to the second IRB.

So, at least for research relevant to the FDA (which would include vaccine challenge trials in support of FDA approval), subsequent IRBs would have to learn of previous rejections. It may be possible to work around a particularly stubborn IRB this way, but I doubt an IRB is going to want to approve many studies that have a track record of repeated rejection by others.
For multi-site studies governed by the NIH, the new rule is that one IRB is chosen. It used to be that every site involved had their own IRB that had to approve the study; the new centralized scheme seems like it would be more open to choosing a permissive IRB as the single IRB, but as far as I can tell this has to be chosen ahead of time; you couldn't iterate through each of the site IRBs until you found one that was happy with the proposal. I haven't been through this process, though, so I'm not certain what the explicit protections are there.
At my own institution, and I imagine at most every major US research university at least (I have far less familiarity with human subjects research protections outside the US so I can't speak to that), there is only one IRB. Having a solid institutional process for ethical review is one of the criteria that funding agencies consider when awarding grants. You can't go to an independent IRB and overrule your local IRB. There may be different people who review applications but their selection is not up to the researcher. It might be possible for a researcher to shop around at different institutions to house the study, but that's far more unusual than doing the work at their home institution (and would require finding collaborators at all of those other institutions).
IRB approval is a bit of an exhausting process, and it isn't as simple as "submit your application -> approved or denied" - there can be a lot of back-and-forth with IRB over gritty details.

Excellent answer! So sounds like IRB strategies are only available to companies doing clinical research and the only viable strategy is "jurisdiction shopping" where you have to guess in advance which IRB is most likely to stamp their approval.

@JonathanReez Yeah, but I would argue that controversial research is in some ways much much more risky for a company than for an academic. You really, really don't want to tick off the regulators that approve your products. Shady research practices also don't look good in the newspapers. Companies and other researchers definitely do the "jurisdiction shopping" you mention (I hear whispers of this a bit because my own institution has a particularly strong reputation as a stickler - rumors go around that people avoid us because of that).

From a quick Google search it sounds like an actual thing.

@JonathanReez Yeah, I'd group that in with the "jurisdiction shopping" as you term it, though; they didn't get rejected and then move on, they just chose to not continue the process that required more disclosure. Not excusing them by any means, but not quite the scenario you initially described in the question.

This is from the FDA. Other federal agencies have their own (similar) statements @JonathanReez, so the rules actually apply very broadly. There is also a federal database of IRB decisions.

I'm waiting for someone to ask about the ethics of adding a useless co-author to the project, just to be able to use their university's "soft" IRB.

@AndreasBlass - from one perspective, that co-author would be quite useful...

I think this would be difficult to do for most, and also unethical unless changes were made to the proposal after each "try".
Difficult, since most researchers are associated with a university who has a single board (perhaps a few for different disciplines). The university won't like research that hasn't passed their own board.
There are other boards, of course, but if one of them tells you no and points out ethical flaws in the design, it would be an ethical lapse to try to "shop the proposal" around without change. The ethical flaws remain.
Better to modify the design to avoid the issues and go back to the same board.

What if you honestly believe that the IRB is wrong and want to try your luck until you find a sympathetic soul?

@JonathanReez - that isn't going to change the fact that the places I know of have one IRB that they use for a given field. If it doesn't pass that board, then it doesn't happen.

The ground is shaky all the way down. If you have an emotional commitment to some line of research that other scholars feel is problematic, you are probably the one that is wrong.

@Buffy Your (excellent) comment should be part of the answer, perhaps the conclusion.


text:
How to convert a grade in Italian scale to the UK grading scale?
I got a grade as 99/110 during my Bachelor degree in Italy. What would be the conversion to the UK grading scale?

There's no standard equivalent, but ask your university for the diploma supplement which helps other universities make the conversion. See also the possible duplicate question here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/38917/20058 In particular, see the last part of my answer there (the Edit III).

there are resources online that do some approximate conversion like Scholaro. You will have to use your exam grades (look on your diploma supplement) for your GPA, not the final grade. I'm Italian too and used similar services myself when I was looking for Master's programs in the US. To access the selected program you then typically need a certified translation if the official language of the school differs from your degree, i.e., Italian diploma English school. Depending on the school, they might also require you to show a fourth year of university education, e.g. Master di primo livello, as US and UK programs often follow the 4-year format. But this is not a general rule, but it happened to me.
As a side-note, if you graduated from Marconi University in Rome, you can ask for a US-diploma free of charge at graduation, or 200Eur (I think) after that. Marconi is a special case as it has an International branch in Washington which is approved by the US department of education.
Hope it helps :)