text:
Is it fine to ask this kind of question to the corresponding author of a paper?
First some context: I'm a Ph.D. student in Physics. I have been discussing with my supervisor the objectives for the Ph.D. project and we have been looking at some papers from the field.
In that case, recently I've come across a quite interesting paper, one of the authors being a very renowned researcher in the field. The paper raised a conjecture and pointed out that one what was necessary to follow that line of investigation in order to prove or disprove the conjecture. I got quite interested in pursuing this objective and my supervisor considered it to be a good idea for the project.
It so happens that a few days after, I have found a paper by another author, which is also a quite renowned researcher, briefly disputing the claims made in the first paper.
Given my current knowledge, I would consider that the authors of the first paper are correct, but of course I might be wrong.
Now, the first paper is three years old and the authors didn't revisit the issue in another publication.
I considered the possibility of contacting the corresponding author and asking about the comments made in that response paper. In particular I would like to ask if they changed their view on the problem after all or if I'm correct in my conclusions and they still believe in their first proposition.
Also I considered asking if he still views that as a line of investigation worth pursuing.
Are that kind of questions considered ok or are they viewed as unethical? My worries are: (1) if I can indeed ask for his views on that brief response and if it made then revisit their positions and (2) if it is ok to ask if he considers a good idea to pursue this objective.

Can you elaborate on what would be potentially 'unethical' about it?

Your advisor will give the best advice, of course, especially if he knows any of the people involved. But in general there is no ethical reason you can't ask such questions of an author.
But I might phrase it differently. I'd probably ask if there is any current work on the topic that will shed more light on the questions. And your suggestion of asking if they think it is a good line to pursue is good also, I think. Express your interest in the topic and that you are considering it as a research topic.
But I wouldn't couch the question in terms of responding directly to a (partial) rebuttal if that's how you judge the new work. It doesn't sound like that is the case, though, so just asking about what they can tell you about current thinking and research is fine.
And, if they are working on the topic it might save you from the problem of going along on a parallel track and getting scooped by more experienced researchers.

And while you're at it, ask similar questions of the researcher who's article rebutted this conjecture...

Take your advisor's advice, but from what you've said here it sounds like a perfectly reasonable question.

quite renowned researcher, briefly disputing the claims made in the first paper.

The fact that there is disagreement only proves that the topic as a worth investigating. In other PhDs, you have to prove that the topic is worth investigating. With this topic, you would need to develop convincing methodologies to explore the area of contention and delineate the nuances of the controversy. Expert would not have the time to do all that tedious work.
Contacting experts may not really help in this circumstance. Opinions are not as important as evidence. Experts disagree all the time, and they are allowed to change their mind whenever, so pressuring them for an opinion seems a waste of your time. Experts might change their mind right after your discussion, it is their prerogative.
It could be that both experts were right but you proved that it really depends on the differences in the initial circumstance. However, you might have to be quick as Buffy suggests, if two experts are clashing, there will likely be more experienced researchers scooping up the interest pronto. So a quick publishing strategy would be better than a long form approach.


text:
Research statement for postdoctoral position in theoretical Physics
I am applying for a postdoctoral position in theoretical Physics and they ask for a research statement. I looked it up and it seems some people write this in the format of a letter, in which I say what I have already worked on, what I plan to do next, why my background allows me to do it and how it relates to the group to which I'm applying.
So my questions are:

Should a research statement be written in the form of a letter?
Is the content I outlined the correct content for it?
If I have one ongoing collaboration with one of the group's permanent members, can I mention it?

Did you ask for guidance from your graduate and postdoctoral advisors?

No, for my current postdoc position there was no such a requirement, so I did not ask my graduate advisor at the time. My postdoctoral supervisor is currently unavailable.

"Should a research statement be written in the form of a letter?" I think I have literally never seen a research statement in the form of a letter, i.e. with an address, starting with "Dear [addressee]", with your signature at the end, etc. (I have not served on a postdoc search committee, though.) If I google "theoretical physics research statement pdf", none of the documents are in the form of a letter. Are you sure you are not confusing a research statement and a cover letter? –

It would help you to ask some of your postdoc colleagues to share their research statements with you. Seeing a few sample research statements will give you an idea of how to go about writing one.

I think the style is less important than the content, with caveats. My preference would be not the form of a letter, but of a general statement.
The caveat is that is should be easy to read and easy to find the important ideas. Your list of topics seems good. If you are unique in any way that is relevant to the position it might be worth mentioning.
Yes, mentioning collaborations is a good idea. That is true no matter who the collaborators are. The will probably be aware of collaborations with their own members, but you can give the name (and affiliation) without saying literally that it is a member of that group. This makes it easier to reuse (or publish) such a statement. Mention other collaborations that you have as well. Collaboration is a good thing.

Exception. If you are writing to an individual PI who will hire you for a position (as opposed to a hiring committee), then a letter format is pretty appropriate.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it fine to contact a conference organizer for references to prepare for the conference?
I'm a PhD student in theoretical Physics. There will be an online conference in one subject I'm very interested in and in which I want to start doing research. I have studied a few papers on the subject but I'm still a beginner. In particular I don't know what can be done in the field and I'm in hopes that attending the conference will help with that.
In that case I think it could be a good idea to prepare myself for this conference studying some relevant papers. Is it OK to send an email to the organizer asking for some references which would be a good idea to study before attending?

Do you have a list of speakers? Then you can find their recent papers.

This depends on the norms of your subfield, personalities of the organizers, and the nature of the conference.  I suggest you ask your advisor.  Their job is not only "scientific"; it is also "social".

I would recommend against this. Not that it is wrong, but that it is unlikely to get you anything you can't get yourself from a literature search. Most such conferences are recurring, perhaps annual. Find the proceedings of the conference for the previous few years and see what you find. The abstracts of articles may be enough to see what the landscape looks like, though a more careful reading is needed for methodology and such.
But the organizers are busy enough without doing a literature search on your behalf and would probably also suggest looking at previous proceedings.
Read widely to discover the terrain, and deeply to discover the gems.

Thanks for the advice @Buffy ! The only detail is that in this case this is the first conference on the subject. The subfield seems very active but it is somewhat new (most of the developments on the field happend in the last 10 years approximately).

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


text:
Is it weird to visit a scientific conference as an undergraduate student?
I'm an undergraduate (Bachelor's) student and I'm thinking about attending a conference which exactly matches the topic of a research project that I'm working on at the moment. I have never attended a real conference.
I wouldn't go to present anything, but just because I have a great personal interest in the topic and because I would like to know about the recent developments. Would it be weird if I attend this conference alone? It is a small conference but there is a special student's price, which makes me think that I might be welcome.

No it's not weird. Go! People will probably appreciate you being there, and try to "lure" or "mold" you in some way (and i mean that in a positive way).

Not at all! I did that sometimes when I was an undergraduate. No one thought I was an undergraduate :D.

Would it be weird if I attend this conference alone?

Probably, as an undergraduate, you won't be able to connect too much with the more senior researchers, but there's nothing weird at all. So, if you can, go for it, and enjoy your first conference!

In particular, if there is a poster session, go to it and talk with people. You might even find a future graduate advisor that way...

a conference which exactly matches the topic of a research project that I'm working on at the moment

If there is one reason why you should attend the conference you refer to, it is right here.
You MUST go.
You might be able to ask questions you might have on your topic, get acquainted with others who are interested and working on the same topic, network with them in person and on linkedin/researchgate, etc.
Actually, there are too many reasons why you should definitely attend and none against it.

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


text:
Does it look bad if none of my recommendation letters for grad school are from past professors?
I want two of my letters to come from individuals I did research with (at different times) but neither has taught me or has a full professor title - one is adjunct and the other is a scientist at a university-affiliated lab. I think my academic advisor (the schoolwide kind not the department-specific kind) would write the best third letter and it might provide a different perspective from the other two.
Is it better to forego one of these recommendations from people who know me really well in favor of a professor who doesn't know me as well?

Letters from "lower-status" people but who've really seen you doing the thing (rather than taking classes in "the thing") are infinitely better than (routine) letters from routine-coursework instructors, regardless of their status.

You want writers who can provide a compelling letter. I advise students to ask the professor first 'do you feel you can write a compelling letter?'  Usually they'll tell you if not. I also recommend putting together a prospectus of your accomplishments to help them write one. Having a writer with full professor status (vs assistant or associate) is less important than the content.

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


text:
How do NSF Graduate Fellowship panelists feel about images in the personal statement?
How do NSF Graduate Fellowship panelists feel about images in the personal statement?
I'm applying to the NSF Graduate Fellowship for the first time. None of the successful personal statements I have seen so far have included images. I can't tell if this is because few applicants choose to include images or if it is because the applicants who do choose to include images are unsuccessful.
I know visuals would take away word space, but I feel they would add to my statement (and maybe break up the overwhelming monotony of type). Specifically, I would like to discuss how I use visuals and technology to engage non-scientists with science and to get scientists from other fields interested in my own. I'd like to show an interactive, laser-cut display I did for my university's Arts Festival as well as 3d models I printed for a conference. I kind of also want to include an old picture of me as a child in my mother's graduation cap because it is adorable and relevant to my personal statement but perhaps that is too irrelevant.

If I was a panelist, I think I would be bored out of my mind looking at endless text regardless of how interesting it was. But then again, I'm a very visual person.

First of all, I am assuming that you checked and figures are allowed.
If this is the case, I don't see any reason why having a figure would globally be received negatively. I think it very much depends on the content of the figure, and whether it is justified (given that you are losing some text space). Personally, if I would review this and see a figure, I would not be biased against it in any way (if anything it might show creative/out-of-the-box thinking).
So the main thing is to use the figures wisely. To me, this means that it contributes something significant that would be difficult, or too long, to convey with text. I do not know the details of your entire application, so I cannot say whether what you propose is relevant, but it sounds to me like the first figure (the technological one) might be ok, while the other one (photo of yourself as a child) seems irrelevant and that may hurt your application.
This also means that you should probably consult with someone who knows all the details to get a second opinion with regards to what is a relevant figure and what is not.
Finally, just a technical tip: I would try no to make the figures not too large, since if you can convey the same information with a smaller figure then you are effectively wasting space, and that looks bad.


text:
Dropped out of PhD - should I seek acknowledgement of disability discrimination?
Summary: was targetted as a 'troublemaker' for missing time in PhD due to illness, PhD went badly, I dropped out halfway through. Should I seek formal acknowledgement of discrimination, to clear my name and limit damage to my career?
I did 2 years of a 4 year course at a university in the UK. I am disabled and for medical reasons was not always able to attend. I had medical evidence provided by my doctor, and a disability needs assessment written up by the university's disability support service, which (among other things) specifically mentioned that I would not always be able to attend.
The head of my department noticed my absence at some events and asked me about it - I told her I was absent for medical reasons.
From then on I came under repeated close scrutiny from her and she tried to get me out of the department - mostly by discreet means such as telling my supervisor he should refuse to supervise me as I would cause trouble, and claiming that my work showed I lacked the basic skills to be a student in her department (after which a meeting was held between her, my supervisor, and the head of my programme, at which the head of programme decided she was wrong and not to persue it further).
During these processes, numerous emails were sent around (most of which I don't have copies of, but was shown by my supervisor) to various people, some saying I was a problematic student and others disclosing confidential details of my disability without my permission, including to people who definitely didn't need to be told them (such as admins booking meeting rooms). I discussed this with the disability service, who got in touch with the department to remind them of my needs assessment.
Eventually my attendance dwindled more- when I was well enough to attend, I felt very uncomfortable in the department, where anyone I walked past might have been CCd into an email from the department head calling me a troublemaker or with private details. My work, which had started off well, degraded and my supervisor became unhappy.
I decided to suspend for 3 months to focus on health and get some distance from the departmental politics. My supervisor refused to sign my suspension form, as he was unconvinced that my work would improve after returning. I left anyway and effectively acted as if I were suspended for 3 months, after which I decided to withdraw as I had been offered a job which was more appealing than my unhappy PhD life.
I might want to try again at doing a PhD at another uni in a couple of years time. I am worried that dropping out of the last one will reflect poorly on me - but I feel that it was partly as a result of harassment due to my disability. Should I seek any formal recognition - either legally or through some university process - of discrimination, to help clear my name of the slander given against me and to clear an embarrassment from my CV?

I don't see how anyone can answer this question without knowing the particulars of the situation. If you were a victim of discrimination, it might be better to talk to a lawyer specializing in disability laws rather than strangers on the internet.

Further, there is a difference between feeling discriminated against, and having had a legal finding of discrimination. While you feel the first, and appear to have potential grounds for the second, you will need to speak to a lawyer about proceeding further on the second.

Hire. A. Lawyer.

@JonCuster There's also a difference between having a legal finding of discrimination and being illegally discriminated against but not being willing or able to pursue it legally. Illegal discrimination goes on all the time but almost always goes unpunished.

First of all, if you're able to get legal advice, you should do that. Find someone who specializes in higher ed law, which might be a project by itself.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not well-acquainted with UK disability law, but it does sound to me that what your department did was illegal discrimination and harassment. From the details you've provided, it also sounds like it would be impossible to prove and no lawyer will touch it on a contingency basis because there's no clear financial loss. It's also extremely unlikely that the university itself is likely to find in your favor if you go through a university grievance process. So the bad news is that there's probably nothing you can do to clear this from your record.
It's probably not much consolation, but I've heard dozens of stories about graduate programs engaging in exactly this kind of "soft" discrimination, especially against students with more amorphous disabilities such as chronic illnesses. The mentality seems to be that a student with this kind of disability is unfit and a waste of resources. This reasoning is explicitly illegal, but graduate programs are granted so much latitude in evaluating students that they get away with it.

Formal recognition that you were discriminated against would certainly strengthen your future applications. However, it would take a large effort (and probably a lot of money) to try and acquire one, and as Elizabeth Henning notes, your chances of success are probably not all that high.
But it is entirely possible to succeed in your future applications even without such a document. People leave PhD programs due to irreconcilable conflict with their advisor/department all the time. While it is a red flag, it just means you need to make a case for why it will not happen again. You mention you are in the UK, where I think professors have a fairly direct influence on admissions - contact profs beforehand, and find one who believes you even without a legal document backing you up. That's probably who you would want to work with anyway.
(Of course, don't go prof shopping with that as an opener, but generally if you get to a phone interview, it'll come up naturally.)
You'll have to weigh the effort and risks involved to decide if legal proceedings are worth it to you.


text:
Use of Acronyms in the thesis
I don't want to use acronyms in my thesis. but i have table which i am showing some data. I have to put acronyms in the table to make it inside the width. So i am using acronyms only in the table area. Can i do it in the table if i want and not at any other place.
for example Let say
I am measuring speed(S) test(T) for instance .
and then in the table can i have  S , T ?
Note speed and test are not first occurrences. I only want to use acronyms in the table and not any other part of the thesis. Is is ok to do that in thesis ?

Depends on your convention. Your thesis should be accessible to the reader.

It happens quite often that you need abbreviations only within a figure. In this case, you will usually just note the abbreviations in the figure caption.
So you could caption your table something like "Table 4: Some data showing the influence of speed (S) on test (T)."


text:
Preparing for the GRE Mathematics Subject Exam?
I'm a prospective graduate student in mathematics, I intend on applying this upcoming Fall so I only have two shots at this exam. My goal is to get into a top institution, so from what I have heard it is imperative that I do well on this exam. I'm aiming for a score of >75%.
I have done a ton of reading on how to prepare for this exam, and have found great information both on this website and others, however I'm still a bit in the dark as to how to go about preparing for it. So far I have so far gone over the bulk of the courses that appear on the exam. I feel strong in most subjects, but vector/multivariable calculus seems to be my weak point. With the test being only two months away, what would you guys recommend be the best study method? Taking numerous practice exams? Consulting textbooks? The textbooks I have been using so far are Stewart's Calculus - Early Transcendentals, Schaum's Outline in Linear Algebra, and Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis, and the Princeton Review Guide for the exam.
I'm very curious to what you all have to say, especially those who have already took the exam and have done well. Sorry if I rambled on a bit, thank you for your time!

Have you done practice tests? How you do in the practice tests should be the best guide in terms of what to work on.

I am a student at a "Top 10" applied math program in the US. For us it was not the case that we needed top scores of the math gre for admission/fellowships (thought this was not the case for my pure math cohorts). So maybe this will help with the stress of the exam.
To answer, since you say that you are the weakest on vector calculus, I would spend the most time reviewing this materiel. Calculus makes up a majority of the questions and from my experience these questions were either you knew the "trick" or you were going to lose a lot of time doing it from the fundamentals.
Since you say that you are going to take it twice, here is my biggest advice. Try your best to remember the questions from the first exam. Especially if you don't know how to answer them. I also took the exam twice and ended up getting a couple of questions that were identical. So when you are done I would try to write down as many questions as you can remember to learn how to do for the next one.

Thank you for the reply, that certainly helps ease the weight of the exam a bit. I come from a very unknown institution, so I was hoping this exam could "prove" that I am on par with students from top universities. Do you have any other advice regarding preparation? Would it be smarter to focus on practice tests or learning/strengthening concepts?

For the weight of the exam, for pure it definitely carries more weight. But that doesn't mean that all schools do not care about it for applied programs, but there are a handful of programs that don't even ask for it. For the actual exam, I would suggest doing some practice tests as real tests (time yourself). Then use the results to help further narrow your studying. You'll start to get a feel for what you actually know and hopefully see whether that particular topic is highly represented in the exam.


text:
Research as a (truly) lone wolf
How do I as a solitary student with no guide and no research lab and limited access to research material and books perform research that is of good quality? The field I am interested in is AI, NLP, Generative Art and Artificial Life.
I know the single, simple answer is "Just Do It!", but my undergraduate college had absolutely no focus on research and sadly, even my current post graduate course is turning out to be the same. Hence, I have zero experience of what it is to do research. Moreover, I'm from India, where Meet Ups, Research Groups, etc etc are virtually non-existent. Point is, assume that I'm really all alone.
I plan on applying for another Masters / Ph.D. after I am done with this one, but most admissions need "Research Experience". So, I decided to do it on my own, with no mentor in sight. Any recommendations / work cycles / words of encouragement that you guys and gals can offer me?
PS: Is there any way I can find a mentor online?

One way to gain research experience it to join a research group as a volunteer (or similar capacity).

I don't want to sound discouraging,
but I think that wise people would generally agree
with the following two observations:

If you were try to do research on your own,
without a mentor,
you would almost certainly be wasting your time.
It would be very difficult for you to do work
which would be published in a reputable journal.
Trying to find a mentor online is also very difficult.
Good mentors are usually extremely busy,
and most of them are already supervising PhD students and postdocs.
Why should they commit some of their limited time to helping you,
a total stranger?

I feel that it would be futile for you
to try to do research at your current life stage.
If you are serious about doing research,
my advice to you would be to "骑驴找马".
This is a Chinese proverb which means
"ride a donkey while you are looking for a horse."
The figurative meaning is that
while you are looking for something better (the horse),
there is no reason not to make use of something mediocre (the donkey).
Although you did not gain any research experience
during your undergrad and post-grad studies;
however, hopefully you would have acquired some employable skills
in the course of your study.
You should put these employable skills to use
by working in a job that matches your skills.
If possible, as suggested in SystemCalls'
answer,
you could find work in a company which does research-like work,
e.g., Google, Microsoft, IBM.
You could start out as a software engineer,
doing purely software engineering work,
and after a few years transition to research-like work.
Eventually, you may be happy with the research you are doing in industry,
or at that point you have good references if you were to decide to
apply for a research Master's or PhD.
All the best!

No problem at all. The truth can be bitter, better face it now than later. Besides, turns out there are quite a few research groups in a college near my college. I'll try contacting professors there for guidance! Thanks for the proverb though, it is something I'll keep in mind for other trying times :)

How do I as a solitary student with no guide and no research lab and limited access to research material and books perform research that is of good quality?

Unless you have plenty of experience, you most likely cannot.

PS: Is there any way I can find a mentor online?

You can study online (distance university), where you will get a mentor when you reach the point of doing research.

You could look for a position with a private company doing their own research in an area you find interesting and try to get into one of the groups doing that research. You could look at large companies known to be working in those areas (Google, IBM etc) or find a smaller company by looking at job posts listing the sort of skills you wish to acquire.  Job posts are broad and list many skills.  If you have enough of the secondary skills they may take a chance on you.  Now you are doing entry level work in that area under a Principal Investigator who can mentor you.
It's bit of a longer plan but you could also take a general SW Development position with your selected company, continue to take courses and express interest in moving into that area with the company.

Thanks! That does sound like a plan! I'll see what I can do.


text:
Phd computer science
I m glad to be here.
I m planning to start a phd in computer science, but i cant find a computer science field to fit my needs.
I am working on web applications and app applications over 7 years. I know php mysql jquery java javascript and asp. Furthermore i am working on setting up servers.
My supervisor want some proposals as regard my phd subject.
I need a field that i can search new things and offer my services to the science.
Can you help me?

Nobody but yourself and your advisor can answer such a question. Further, "shopping"  questions are not allowed by the rules.

Yes, but the answers will depend on your personal preferences and the research field of your adviser. Random internet people will have no idea about any of that...

These are a possible recommendation based on your experience. Again, such questions are considered shopping question here in academia.SE. Caution: This is not an optimal set of topics you might be interested in.

Information retrieval (text, multimedia)
Search Engine Optimisation
Database ontology
Information security over the web
Data mining (This is a vast area, converge to something relevant)

Hope, this helps!


text:
How many supervisors for a post-doc position?
I am in the process of contacting potential supervisors for a post-doctoral position. I discussed my initial idea with 2 potential supervisors, but now I refined the idea and I found 2 more supervisors that fit within the scope of the project and that are interested in searching for funding together. The ideas are linked together, so my question is should I apply for funding with 4 supervisors? When is it expected to include someone into a grant proposal? At the moment nothing is written or decided, I was only proposing ideas. I am just feeling naive on these poitics matters. In my head, the best would be to have a first postdoc with 2 supervisors and a second postdoc position with the other 2 that seem interested.

Unless there is a clear hierarchy between them, four supervisors sounds like a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Can you share a little about the discipline and type of grant (NIH, NSF, 6 month, 2 year)? If you are working in a medical field 4+ field experts could be fine (renal expert, gerontologist, and family medicine people are used to being around one another). If you're working in Classical Studies trying to get an education grant you'll probably have a headache where faculty aren't used to "sharing and caring."

I am a behavioural ecologist, and I would be applying for a 3-year fellowship, possibly Leverhulme. The research has moved from studying behaviour A to studying A using this new technique B. Of the 4 supervisors, 2 are experts on the technique, 1 on the behaviour, and 1 has the field site and studies the species. Hope this makes sense.

There are oh-so-many things to govern this decision.
First, a post-doc should be about you establishing your own vein of research and experience in handling a grant. With too many "superiors" involved, you may end up doing little more than answering to them, as a graduate student does. This is not a dissertation committee, it should be a working group of peers that launch your career. From your comment it sounds like there is heavy redundancy in your 'team.' If you are doing an ecological experiment with X population for A behavior and B technique -- which thing is your expertise? It sounds like your working group could 'work' entirely without you. That's not good.
There are two ways you can approach this.

Only have supervisors who are more senior experts in your exact area of interest, thus ensuring you get the pedigree of an area expert through this project.
Only have supervisors who are not in your area of interest so that you are the area expert. For example, if you are the behaviorist and are trying to establish yourself in your field as such, don't answer to other behaviorists, only methodologists. Be your own boss.

Choose between strategies 1 and 2 based on your long-term career goals.
There are other, minor considerations: you need to carry at least one person who has a solid track record of competently handling scientific funding to be co-investigator. Also, if you do not have a few publications in the area, you better include someone who does on your grant proposal. It would be ideal if the funded/published is the same person.
Finally, don't burn bridges. You can always publish with someone later.

Four supervisors seems like a lot, and could potentially put you in a situation where you either fall through the cracks ("she has three other advisors; they can deal with this") or get pulled in multiple directions.
Three pre-arranged collaborators, however seems great! Think about the project after this one. What would you want to do? How would you write your first grant as a totally independent PI?

Perhaps you're interested in methodology. "The Anna Lab is interested in understanding how animals spend their day. As a postdoc, I developed a technique for tracking the sleep-wake cycles of wild lynx. We develop activity trackers to learn what fish, birds, and squirrels do when left alone in their natural habitat."
Maybe you're interested in the behavior itself. "Sleep plays an important part in animals' daily routines. The Anna Lab compares sleeping across species. Do related species share common sleep habits across habitats, or is the sleep-wake cycle regulated by environmental cues?"
Finally, perhaps you're fascinated by the animal or site itself. "Little is known about the solitary lynx, one of the most reclusive cats"

Hopefully, one of these sounds like you. Choose that person as your primary supervisor (assuming you like them well enough personally, etc.) and then set up strong collaborations with the others. This will ensure you get strong training in whatever you're most interested in, while allowing you to impress others with that skill too.
Congratulations on finding such a good fit for your interests!


text:
Conference Paper/Poster version of Bachelor Thesis - should I cite the thesis?
My B. Sc. thesis is shortlisted for a young scientist award, which allows me to take part in the respective society's yearly conference for free, submit a full conference paper as well as present a poster. The paper has already been submitted after positive abstract review, I'm currently creating the poster.
While selecting publications for the poster, I noticed that I did not cite my own thesis in the paper. I suppose that this happened rather unconcious, probably because I viewd the paper as another version of my thesis - I used the same data and methods, and only created new illustrations and of course rewrote the text.
I am wondering: would this be considered self-plagiarism? And could this potentially be harmful or may it be considered to be of low importance. Is there anything I can do about this? My field is earth observation btw, if that is of help.

Additional info: thesis and paper + poster share the exact same title, as this was required for the nomination.

Editing the additional info into the question would improve it.

Yes, you should always cite your own work and failing to do so can be called a violation of norms. This (self plagiarism) is, I think, a relatively recent concern, but it is something that everyone should give thought to in their writing.
If at all possible, provide a new version of the publication, in which you make the correction before it is published and do something appropriate in the poster as well.
Not everyone will complain and some will consider it a minor violation by a novice, but some might judge you harshly. Be aware of that and defend yourself against it. When in doubt, cite it.
The purpose of avoiding plagiarism is a bit different than that of avoiding self plagiarism. Ordinary plagiarism is a violation because it represents someone else's work as your own. Self plagiarism doesn't do that, of course, so the purpose of avoiding it is different.
When you present something that is derived from earlier, visible, work, and you cut and paste, you are likely to cut, past, and edit a bit. This can subtly change the meaning of things in a way that may not be obvious to a reader. Moreover, the original work appeared in a context including various references and other words that you did not cut and paste. This context is invisible to the reader of the new work.
Therefore, when you use and update your old work you cite it in the new work. This permits a reader of the new work to find and analyze the context, just as they would if you were citing someone else's work.

It's fine (that you didn't).  In general, I would do so, because why not.  But at the same time, a bachelor's thesis almost like a draft or a school essay, not a real publication.
Even for use of your Ph.D. (which is formally published in that the microfilm is held by Michigan State), I don't think most people would think you were self plagiarizing by forgetting to cite it if you repurpose a chapter as a paper.  I would still cite it but more for the reason of (a) someone will get additional info on the broader area of study, to included even non-journal published results, within the thesis and (b) from the principle of self-citing to drive your cite count.  But I don't think people will consider it self plagiarism.
What people really don't like is publishing the same article twice in different journals.  If you self cite, it takes some edge off of that (although you shouldn't do a blatant reprint of more than 50% content even if you self cite to cover yourself).  But there can be a fair amount of cut and paste of parts of your work.  For instance with self reviews or extension of work or experimental methods.  (And yes, you can say "see the methods of paper A" but sometimes that is inconvenient.)
Also, I see people tending to do a bit of cut and paste to create conference proceedings papers especially in fields where these are not considered as important as journal publications--you have to give the conference something, but you don't want to waste chance to get it into important journals.   So the citation covers that to show you are acknowledging part was published before.  Usually I would do some mix/match of previous work and basically create a "publication" that is more like a written version of my slide talk.  [I admit this is a little field dependent.  Some people have a lot more respect for conference proceedings and consider them real papers but in my field/group, they were not considered that and people would often go to the meeting and even blow off submitting a paper.  But this is definitely field dependent.]

Sorry, but I think every bit of this is suspect.

"Every" bit?  Or just about 50% of it?  You can't find anything you agree with?  Nothing?  Zero?

Anyways even if it's "wrong", it's good to expose people to different points of view.  Sometimes Hermione is right; sometimes Fred and George are.  Let people at least hear the cynical point of view so they can have it for reference.

However, if you advocate a dangerous practice and someone else takes your advice, it is they who suffer the consequences, not you.

Critical thinking...


text:
How to get a decent recommendation letter?
I am trying to ask one of my professors to write a recommendation letter for me, but he did not say yes directly, instead, he said he would be willing to talk with me to hear more about my plans.
I did not interact with him too often when I took his course(a PhD-level pure math course). But I did get an A in that course(I did bad in the midterm, but pretty well in the final). I think he is still hesitant as to whether to write me a letter or not. When I go talk to him, how can I persuade him?
I am certainly not expecting a strong letter from him. I think my background is okay(8+Phd-level courses all A or A+, 1 REU), but the problem is that he probably did not know much about me. So my plan is to take my list of schools and abstracts of advanced courses with me when I go meet him. Is there anything else that I can do?

What do you need the letter for?

I would be hesitant if I have nothing extra to add beyond what's already indicated by your marks.

I need the letter for my Phd application. That is true, but is there any way that I can provide the professor more information so that he can take advantage of them?

Maybe you should just talk to him about your plans, and let him ask for the information he needs. On the other hand, if you don’t expect a strong letter from him, why do you want a letter from him?

I do not really have many options since it happens to be the case that most of the advanced courses where I did pretty great were taught by postdocs.

What's wrong with postdocs writing recommendations for you?

I do not interpret what he wrote as necessarily discouraging.  He may just want to get to know you better so he can write a better letter.
Just talk about yourself and your academic interests.  What has been your favorite course so far?  What did you like about it?  What would you like to do in the future?  Etc.

+1.  Also, if you asked him via email, he may just want to see if you care enough to put a bit more effort into your request.


text:
Why should footnotes be avoided in scientific publications (natural science)?
Here are some guidelines and rules regarding the use of footnotes for different journals in Earth Science and IT:

Footnotes are used only for author affiliations and tables.  Incorporate all other footnoted information into text.

Source: http://publications.agu.org/author-resource-center/text-requirements/

Footnotes should be used sparingly. Number them consecutively throughout the article. Many word processors build footnotes into the text, and this feature may be used. Should this not be the case, indicate the position of footnotes in the text and present the footnotes themselves separately at the end of the article.

Source: https://www.elsevier.com/journals/information-and-computation/0890-5401/guide-for-authors or https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-volcanology-and-geothermal-research/0377-0273/guide-for-authors
I am wondering what the reasoning is behind making people avoid using footnotes. Can I not, in some cases, create more readable text by adding some kind of tangential information in a footnote rather than incorporating it into the text?

Stop reading these guidelines. They contain a lot of wrong or outdated information, and they are not a good source to learn good scientific writing.

@FedericoPoloni Though the guidelines are not helpful for learning scientific writing, they do reflect the policy of the journal. I have had footnotes removed at the editorial level, so at some journals this is enforced, and I think it's worthwhile to think about why.

@Roland I guess word limits.

If information is tangential and would disrupt the flow of text, it probably belongs at a different point in the paper (if at all).

Might part of the answer simply be that footnotes look bad when you already have a footer?

@JessicaB your 1st comment:  i was dealing with some kind of ambiguity clarification which seemed too long to be put in brackets and too disrupting to put in the text. Footnote would have been my preferred choice. your 2nd comment: that's a good point!

@Roland Footnotes allow for a cleaner main text, as it removes from it material that may be important to disclose for reasons of rigour and transparency, but that many readers will not care about. Why burden these readers by placing this material in the main text? And why exclude material from the article if it would make it more thorough, replicable, and transparent? Some readers want to go into the nitty-gritty, and they can read the footnotes. Other readers just want the main idea, they can skip the footnotes.

If you don't stop/discourage researchers from adding footnotes, you will end up with articles with huge amounts of footnotes. As you are doing research you will learn a lot about a specific topic, and most of that will not end up in the final article. The temptation is to add that to footnotes. However, a good article is one that has a very specific aim and does only that. So you should resist that temptation. Such rules are there to help you.

Semms like a slippery slope fallacy.

I see how the exceeding use of footnotes may decrease writing quality, so that explains the second quote in my question. But prohibiting them altogether (quote 1)? Wouldn't you say that, even in a very focussed, narrow article a footnote can add, e.g., a helpful clarification under certain circumstances and increase quality that way?

I don't find this answer helpful. You are saying that forbidding footnotes avoids one way of poor writing in scientific articles. But there are so many other ways of writing poor articles. Why not leave the decision about whether there are too many footnotes or whether they distract to the reviewers, like with all other possible textual problems?

In the journals I publish in footnotes are discouraged rather than forbidden. I would consider that the right balance.


text:
Is it appropriate for a PhD candidate to publish a book?
I have had an idea for a year or two to write a book relating to the research I do. My specific field (in the mathematical sciences) is somewhat niche and no book currently exists that aggregates the big results into one place. Currently, all of the research is spread across multiple papers, journals and conferences.
I want to write a book about this topic so that future researchers can access basic definitions and results without having to hunt down individual papers. I don't want to write the book for fame/fortune since I recognize it would never be popular with more general audiences. I want to write it to improve my knowledge of the topic, to create a useful resource for others and (getting personal) to fulfill my dream of writing a book.
I have some original research on the topic and most of my current work revolves around the topic as well. But I've heard many people say that PhD candidates should focus on research instead of other pursuits like book-writing. Should I pursue this, or should I focus on research and leave the book for the future?

You could publish a survey in a journal, rather than a book

No. Save it until later. Your advisor probably does not want you to lose your focus on anything but the project.

That is dont do lots of work on it, but writing down small notes and reminders for yourself that does not take up your working time could still be good.

I think it's a very good idea to develop files/manuscript collecting important standard results in one place. To go to the additional trouble (which is much more than one might imagine) of publishing a book with that content, apart from vanity presses, would not be worthwhile for a young academic. Indeed, unless you can do a for-some-reason amazing job of organizing things, since you're not an established expert, have (presumably) no name-recognition, etc., good publishers would not see much reason to publish your book.
But you can assemble a PDF document and put it on-line. And you can revise it as you mature into your subject. Revision is much harder with physical books, or even official "e-books", because many publishers (especially better ones with an established base and style) re-typeset everything into their house style... so correcting typos is not a matter of correcting them in the TeX source, re-typesetting, and re-posting online. :)
EDIT: to clarify the last sentence: Yes, TeX is the current professional standard for mathematicians composing technical documents. It's a mark-up language created by Don Knuth, and donated to the community, in the late 1980s. (There are also WYSISWYG editors.) The older process of typesetting from TeX source documents created a "DVI file", device-independent file, from which postscript files were usually created, although there were DVI readers also. Nowadays, the usual output is PDFs. Further, although years ago it would take several minutes to re-run the typesetting after making changes in the TeX source, nowadays re-typesetting a 30-page document takes an imperceptible time, perhaps a second or two at most. And there are of course various ways of packaging the re-typesetting (as well as creating the TeX source file) in IDEs and so on.

@QPaysTaxes: Most publishing companies do not use Tex to set their books but different software (e.g. Adobe InDesign). While LaTeX is usually quite good at automatically formatting a manuscript, it is by far not perfect and the best way really is to do it carefully by hand. (Which you could theoretically do in LaTeX as well, however stuff like manually adjusting kerning is not something you want to do in there).

To add to the answer, before you write a book it also really helps to have given some lectures about the topic. As an expert one is usually to deep involved to note, which parts are easy and which are unclear. During my PhD, I also had the idea to transform some of my notes into a book, however after giving a few informal lectures to the rest of my group I noticed, that some things I thought obvious and intuitive actually need quite a lot of explanation, while other seemingly good ideas weren't as helpful as I thought. Maybe ask your group if they would be interested in something like this.

@mlk Definitely not always good advice. In certain groups there can be lots of rivalry and even commercial interests.

@mathreadler If your group is that bad, I agree that you should not do this but rather spend all available time writing applications to go someplace else. But apart from this I do not see the harm in talking to other people about already published results. If your group is that hostile, they will not be interested and even if they are, the only thing they could use it for is to write the book themselves. Which would be much more work for them for little to no return. We are talking about a niche field of research level maths after all.

Could this PDF form the introductory chapters of a Ph.D. thesis?

@mlk anyone who has been anywhere near that happening would probably be a lot more eager to be silent about it than I am :)

Of course talk to your advisor about it.  Perhaps he will be one of those who says concentrate on your Ph.D. thesis and work the book afterward.  Or perhaps he will tell you it is a great idea.  He knows (much better than we do) what is involved in your particular case.

We should probably also not discount the possibility that his supervisor is female, in which case "she" might know better...

Well, if ever there was a case when the classic "talk to your advisor" advice was applicable, this is such a case. So, obviously, talk to your advisor.
That being said, since you are in a mathematical science, I think I can predict with a high degree of confidence that if your advisor has any sense he/she will tell you that writing a book can only serve to distract you from your PhD research, and to engage in such a project would be damaging (potentially, fatal) to your prospects of success in finishing your PhD. In short, no, it's not appropriate.
The point is that both doing a PhD in a mathematical science and writing a book are very difficult and ambitious endeavors. A significant proportion of the people who undertake either one of those things do not end up achieving them. And yet, you seem to think that you can do both at the same time. Do you see the problem here?
The only time when writing a book would make sense would be either: (a) after you are an established academic with a proven track record and a tenured (or at least tenure-track, but on a clear path to tenure) position, or: (b) if writing the book was an activity that was synergistic with your normal research work to such a high extent (say, 80% or more overlap) that achieving success in your normal research and writing the book were two simultaneous goals that were realistically achievable with a similar probability to succeeding in just one of those goals. Based on your description it doesn't sound like that's the case here, but I can't say for sure based on the information you've provided.
Two more thoughts on this:

I really like Paul Garrett's suggestion to collect your thoughts on your research area as organically evolving PDF notes that you make available online. I see this approach as much more beneficial to your normal thesis work and much less likely to derail your research. And maybe those notes can someday evolve into book-quality material, but what's the rush? Let them ripen like good wine; indeed, many world-class textbooks were created using just such a process.
Another benefit to waiting until you are more established until writing your book is that by that point you will be a much better writer, and will have a much higher chance of writing a book that other people will actually want to read. But, regardless, even if you already are a great writer, writing a book would still very probably be a bad idea for the reasons I explained above.

What if that book is the research, it used to be a thing that these tasks were the same.

@joojaa that would fall under category (b) in my list of exceptions, so obviously that would be a more reasonable idea. But it seems pretty clear that that’s not what OP is asking about.

You should consult your advisor, as how this would be perceived varies by field, and they will have a better notion of your progress than we do. And an undertaking like writing a book will inherently impact your progress - your advisor should absolutely know about it.

But I've heard many people say that PhD candidates should focus on
  research instead of other pursuits like book-writing.

I would also consider talking to any faculty in your department who have published a good as to the amount of work involved. In my experience talking to colleagues, it's substantially more work than any of them thought, even after writing.


text:
asking for CS coauthor as an undergraduate
I've been working on a project with a graduate student in my lab for the past month and a half. I spend about 20 hours a week on the project.
I implemented a part of our algorithm, wrote part of the paper, revised the paper, tested/debugged the scripts we use for data collection, and produced some figures used in the paper.
Would it be appropriate for me to ask the graduate student for coauthorship? Do my contributions seem deserving of a coauthorship?

Naive question for people in lab sciences: can a student who participated in drafting and revising an article ever not be considered a coauthor? I find this confusing since writing the article is the primary activity that lends the words “author” and “coauthor” their meaning (as defined by the dictionary in their broader sense beyond the strictly academic context). So it would seem to me that OP is a coauthor tautologically, whether he/she asks to be one or not. It is not a question of being “deserving of coauthorship”, rather a matter of acknowledging a fact that is true by definition.

@DanRomik Yes. I asked a friend to check a definition in my paper, and he deleted mine and replaced it with two sentences he wrote. He is an author in your sense, but clearly does not meet any reasonable definition of scholarly authorship. The way to see it is we're talking about authorship as the conduct of the study where the actual presentation of the results in a journal paper only is a part of the overall work. (Without a study, there would be no paper)

@user71659 thanks. To clarify, I meant someone who wrote a substantial portion of an article. Writing two sentences of something would not merit coauthorship in any context, even in a very short piece like a newspaper article.

@DanRomik Looking at the ICMJE definition, an author must have made "Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work". So somebody who solely contributed text, perhaps a technical writer brought on because the authors need foreign language help, would only qualify for an acknowledgement. Just like my friend, if they had given me a paragraph or two, they would get an acknowledgement, not authorship.

@user71659 yes, I’m familiar with these criteria thanks. I’m wondering though whether there is a realistic scenario in which someone would invite their student to write substantial portions of an article without the student having made that kind of intellectual contribution. It seems to me that a competent faculty member would simply not do that as they would know that it’s a recipe for hurt feelings and other kinds of trouble. Hence my question above: do people really do that? I don’t feel that your technical writer example answers my question as that is obviously a different situation.

@DanRomik Exactly the situation I described. A foreign group wants to publish in an English language journal. Hey look, here's a student/postdoc from America! Please fix our paper. Another situation would be figures: hey, please make some fancy 3D graphics for us.

@user71659 thanks, that does make sense as a hypothetical scenario that likely happens occasionally.

Yes. Implementing part of the algorithm, running it and producing the figures, and especially writing a significant portion of the text of the paper, are all contributions that should count for a listing in the authors.
We can't exactly know whether your contribution to each of these were "significant" without seeing the paper, but it is very likely. So, ask.

In the case that my graduate student refuses due credit for my contributions, is there any justice? I'm very new to research and have heard stories of undergraduates slaving away for no recognition.

@everett Once you know the journal - you could always contact them saying that as a contributing author it does not have your name / has not been finally reviewed by you / contains your work without reference... But, think about the downside with that person - which may no longer be relevant as you likely won't want to collaborate again.

@everett: hopefully, the professor of your group would mediate in this situation. But IMO there's not really reason to be all that pessimistic - first authorship is much more important, and you're not asking for that, so the grad student won't really lose a lot by adding you as second author.

Yes! To expand on the previous answer - I work in health sciences but a quick google for a computer science related journal and it's criterion for authorship indicated the rules are very much the same - from the 'instructions to authors' page for the journal 'Bioinformatics':

Authorship credit should be based on substantial contribution to
  conception and design, execution, or analysis and interpretation of
  data. All authors should be involved in drafting the article or
  revising it critically for important intellectual content, and must
  have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Link - https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/pages/instructions_for_authors
Sounds like you've checked several of those boxes! If you want to be 100% sure about your case to put forward to the graduate student, identify the journal they're hoping to submit to so you can reference that authorship criterion, but I am pretty sure it will be along the lines of those mentioned above.


text:
Advice? One of my PhD supervisors is insisting on involvement with my article based off my Masters thesis.
I'm a bioarchaeologist working on my PhD research in a field that incorporates biochemistry (stable isotope analysis) and bioarchaeology/anthropology. I have submitted my first peer-reviewed article based on my Masters thesis and am currently going through the revisions process. I casually mentioned this to my boss, who also happens to be one of my PhD supervisors, and he immediately asked to read the article and insisted that he wants to edit the stable isotope sections (he's a geochemist). I demurred, because the situation doesn't sit right with me, for several reasons:
First, he has absolutely nothing to do this article, as it is based on my Masters thesis research, which was done under a different supervisor and in a different country. Second, I'm not sure as to what his motives are. Does he simply want to help, or does he want co-authorship? I would rather not make him co-author, as, again, he has no business with my Masters research. Third, he's pushy. I have clearly stated that I am a bioarchaeologist/anthropologist who uses biochemical/geochemical methods (stable isotope analysis), not the other way around, yet he is still trying to push me towards geology. I also do not like this. But, because there is no other place in the country to do my research, I am here only for that reason.
Does anyone have some advice? Am I overreacting, or am I right in feeling that he's out of bounds?
Thanks!

Do you have to perform experiments in your new PhD lab for the revision of your manuscript?

We don't know your advisor, so "what are my advisor's intentions?" is going to be quite impossible to answer. If you can do without his help, you might leave it as is. If you would appreciate his help, maybe someone has a good suggestion for how to say "you're not getting authorship though" politely? I'm drawing a blank.

BPND: Yes, I did have to perform one analysis for the revision at the PhD lab, but he did not perform it nor did I ask for his help. I worked with someone who specializes in that type of analysis and will include her in the article (Acknowledgements?). It was not an integral part of the research, however.

Nengel: I would appreciate his input on my PhD dissertation and any articles that result from it, but not on the articles based on my Masters thesis. However, because neither I nor the article(s) I write fall into geology, his help would necessarily be limited to possible environmental geochemistry (as he is not an anthropologist), if I choose to include that in my dissertation/articles.

Roland: I just started my doctoral program in September, so he's only been my supervisor for two months, and he's only one of my supervisors; the other is an anthropologist I've been working with for two years (she gave me my Masters thesis sample, as well as my dissertation samples). Additionally, the sole reason he is one of my supervisors is because he runs the only lab in the country where I could do my research, since it has never been done in this country before. You don't know a supervisor until you start working with him/her.

The standard answer to all questions from graduate students applies here as well: Talk to your adviser. Have a frank conversation in which you bring up your concerns, have him explain to you why he wants to help, and then -- between reasonable adults -- come to a conclusion of the issue.
You can speculate all day long about his reasons and maybe he about yours. But grown-ups can have a professional conversation that resolves these issues to everyone's satisfaction.


text:
Doing research, outside of my specific interests, for a MS program
Here's a very brief description of my scenario: I have ambitions to pursue a PhD in a bit a of fringe field (vertebrate paleontology). I already have schools and faculty in mind who are doing research I am very interested in. But I find it very important to first get a MS in order to secure research experience and to possibly offset my less-than-immaculate undergrad GPA. However, the schools I'm set on for a PhD do not offer MS programs.
I am currently in the process of applying to 6 other schools for a MS, through departments of biology, zoology, and geology (My undergrad was in Bio). Only 2 of the schools contain faculty members whose interests are at least decently aligned with my specific interests. But I don't want to limit myself, so I'm applying to the other schools as well, even though their faculty members' interests may not be too relevant to my specific interests.
So what my question boils down to this: In the event the other 2 schools don't work out for me, would it be worth it to temporarily change my desired research interests to better align myself for a MS program that is at least in the same discipline?
Like I mentioned earlier, my main reasons for wanting to enroll in a MS program is to gain experience in research, and show that I can perform well at a graduate level. So my initial thought is "Yes, it is worth it". But I am also concerned about unforeseen consequences this may have. Is it common for someone to change their research interests between switching from a MS program to a PhD program? Or are there complications with that I may not be seeing, and I should stick to applying to schools that better suit my current interests?

Go ahead and try to get into the actual program you want.  Nothing lost by trying.  You might surprise yourself! // Your short-term studies can certainly be tangential to your main interest.  Try to make them helpful to your long-term goals in some tangible way.

You shouldn't say that you want to do something you're not interested in just to gain admission. It will end badly for everyone.
If you're just not certain you're going to like an area, that's a different story. There are a lot of programs where you have the ability to be "matched" with an advisor before or after admission. In such cases, the key is to finding a match you're happy with.
But if you're asking if you need to change research focuses as an undergraduate to align with programs later, the answer is that you don't. It's understood that people are likely to change issues early on. (After all, faculty members do so regularly; why can't students do so before joining their group?)

Thank you for the answer, I appreciate it. I wouldn't say that it is something I'm "not interested in" just to gain admission. They are subject areas that I think I will enjoy regardless, but admittedly I wouldn't know for sure. And they are not really what I'm SUPER enthusiastic about, but I see it more as "broadening my horizons". But in any case, I like your advice in that I need to find a "match" I'm happy with.


text:
After how many years since its first issue, does a journal get its impact factor
After how many years since its first issue, does a journal from a good publication get its impact factor?

Getting an impact factor is not something that depends on the duration the journal has been published. To get an impact factor the hard part is getting indexed by Web of Science. After you are indexed, then getting an impact factor is something that will happen automatically. But getting indexed is not trivial; in fact it's one of the biggest challenges facing a new journal. Simply publishing issues will not do it; you need to do other things like publish in English, have peer review policies, and most importantly, generate citations from articles that are published in already-indexed journals. See the criteria here.

Consider a new journal from a very reputed publication that satisfies all the necessary criteria. So, how many minimum no. of  years since its first issue, does it get indexed in SCI or SCIE?

@ShiS journals don't just "get indexed", they need to apply to be indexed - see http://mjl.clarivate.com/journal-submission/


text:
How to specify in presentation that permission to use a particular image is taken?
I am presently undertaking research on a particular topic in control systems. That particular topic has a long history and I found a image which summarizes the history in one image only. I want to use that particular image in my presentation. I have also taken permission from the authors of that image to use it. But, while using it in my slide, I want to show in the same slide that I have taken permission to use that image so that professors understand that I am not stealing that image but I have taken the requisite permission to use that image. What line or a sentence should I include in that particular slide, so that the professors get that point automatically. I mean something like "Used with permissions". Like that what is the precise line which can be included ?

When putting / formatting an image on the slide you can normally add a caption box below with the source shown, such as « Used with permission, source Fred Jones, Somewhere, 2018 », also respecting your referencing structure (APA etc).

You can cite it a number of ways. I usually do this:
Right below the image, (Smith et al. 1998) if it's a paper where the image comes from. Then at the end of the presentation, you can have a slide called "References", there you can list the paper in the reference style of your choosing (e.g. APA). This way it's very clear where the image comes from.
I don't think the phrase "used with permissions" is necessary in a presentation. But I'm not certain. I'm sure others will comment on this. However, that phrase IS necessary if you were to publish the slides of your presentation, or if you will use that image in a paper.

I am not using that image in any paper and I understand that putting it in "References" at the end might be sufficient. But, since it is my final presentation, I don't want to take the risk of making my professors angry. So, I want to use some particular line in the same slide only. Which line should be used, that I am unable to comprehend. It should just show that I have taken permission from xyz person/organisation for using it in my slide


text:
Regarding withdrawal of a paper which has not been registered for conference
I had submitted a paper for an IEEE conference. My paper has been accepted for presentation and potential publication. However, I have not paid the registration fees and do not wish to  register the paper. I want to submit the same paper to some journal. So, is it necessary for me to withdraw the paper from the conference by writing some sort of email or Can I simply submit it to some other journal without withdrawing it from conference? I mean what is the need to withdraw the paper if I have not even registered it. Non-registration would automatically mean withdrawal

Some conferences will publish even without registration / payment (exceptions, special support, considered worthy etc), so you have to contact them to properly withdraw the paper.
You must properly withdraw the paper before you submit it to another journal as you cannot submit the same paper twice.

To see whether you can withdraw at the current stage, and if so the procedure for doing so, check any contracts you signed at the time of submission or acceptance.

And this is not the standard way to go. Likely the conference organizers and editors won't care, but you should explain for which reason you do retract the paper. It is still some work done at their side, at end.


text:
Changing research field mid Ph.D. vs Leaving Institute with no Ph.D
I am doing my Ph.D. (physics) in a country where there is a countrywide Ph.D. entrance exam. I appeared for the entrance exam and got into (arguably) the best institute in my country. This was 3 years ago. The problem is that the institute decides our department before the entrance exam. After my 3 years B.Sc, I did not know any better and applied for the Experimental High Energy Physics Department. After joining, I realised that I did not like HEP that much and wanted to change my department. But my institute would not let me do that.
I finally found a supervisor in our department who works in a lot of different topics like Optics and Quantum Computation. I joined his lab and worked with him for the last one and a half year during my coursework. Two months ago, I registered for my Ph.D. under the same supervisor.
Recently, the conditions in our lab deteriorated a lot. There is a general feeling of depression and anxiety among the other students. Work is going really slowly because of the following reasons:

All the students are working in individual experimental project that have no overlap with one another.
The supervisor is a big-shot and has his own research interests. And
he is not particularly interested in our work. (This is a feedback I got from all my lab seniors).
We have to do all administrative and engineering work related to our project by ourselves.
There are no publications from our lab in the last 5 years. I was made to believe that it was the students fault that there was no publication. But the more I see, the more I realise that this is the rule and not the exception. I mean, all the students can't be at fault. I know that this should have been a red flag but as I said before, I was made to believe something else.

I am realising now that staying in the lab is not an option. Even my seniors are contemplating on leaving the lab. I have two options now.

Leave the lab and join someone else in the same department. Note that there is no one in our department who works on a similar field.
Leave the institute altogether. Then I have to do a one-year M.Sc thesis project before leaving. There is only one other group in our country that does a similar work and they are already full. Also, it is really hard to get into the labs in other countries even with my research experience.

I am planning to follow the first option and join a different group in our department. This group works on a field that is neither HEP nor my present field.
So my question is; Is it wise to change the field mid Ph.D.? Or should I risk it and leave with M.Sc and apply for Ph.D. abroad? In either case, I will have to start from scratch and my one and a half year of work would be for nothing.
TL;DR: Due to problems in our current lab, should I leave our lab and join another group who works on entirely different subject or leave my institute altogether and apply in universities abroad (which is difficult).
P.S. I have about 4 years of institute funding left, if I plan on staying in the institute.

"There are no publications from our lab in the last 5 years." Run, Forrest, run!

We can't really tell you what to do. (Well, we can tell you probably shouldn't stay in a lab where no one has published in the last 5 years!) You seem to be well-informed about the upsides and downsides of your choices, so what's left is a personal decision that really depends on your tolerance for risk, or your tolerance for working on a subject that's not your core interest. (Although I don't know your country or your field, so I can't say if your perceptions are accurate - maybe you want to change your question to that?)

@lighthouse keeper: In case some here don't recognize your reference, which I liked by the way --- Run, Forrest, run!


text:
Am I allowed to write about a discovery, while pending acceptance of my manuscript on the same topic?
This year, I submitted a manuscript to a journal regarding new information uncovered on a particular topic. I am awaiting my reviews and a decision on its potential acceptance to the journal.
The journal policy states that the manuscript has to be original content and not published elsewhere. By "not published elsewhere", does this also mean that I am prohibited from discussing the discovery publicly or in media until it is published in the journal (or any journal for that matter). If I write about the discovery (for example, in a newspaper), will this count as being "published elsewhere" - even if the news article and the manuscript are not the same?

I always thought that you are prohibited not from publishing text elsewhere, but finding itself. Imagine you found a Dark Matter particle and your paper under review in Nature. How do you think would Nature feel if you went out to NY Times with popular-science article about it?

This depends on the field and/or the journal. My understanding is glam-mags (Science, Nature) do indeed tend to prohibit any mentioning of the paper contents. On the other hand, for say mathematics journals it would be common to have a preprint on the arXiv anyway, so for something of particular interest, a lot of coverage can arise prior to the actual publication (see the proof of Kepler's conjecture for an extreme example).

All journals say "not publish elsewhere", but Arno is exactly right: what's actually done is field specific so it's best for you to ask senior folks in your field. In my field that clause is interpreted to mean literally the same words elsewhere: e.g. you can't double dip and publish it as a book chapter AND a journal paper. Otherwise, fair game: in different words it can be at a conference, in the press, or on your blog, whatever.

OH! But if your paper is accepted and it is about to get a lot of press, journals like to know. They will often time the "online first" to the press coverage. I had something that was to be featured in National Geographic and the journal gave me free open access on the paper and promoted it heavily, syncing it with the day that NatGeo put it out. Everyone wins!

@GrotesqueSI "All journals say 'not publish elsewhere'" Preprints usually don't count as publication and are usually explicitly allowed in fields where ArXiv is widely used.


text:
Should I Quote Scholars (Dead or Alive) in Past or Present Tense?
In a research paper, when quoting previous literature on a given topic, should the scholar and position quoted be presented in past tense? (i.e. Johns suggested ...) Or should it be simple present tense? (i.e. Johns suggests ...)
Also, what if the scholar is no longer alive? Should I then quote the dead scholar and his/her position in the past tense or present?
I've tried looking everywhere for this and I cannot seem to find an answer. (Please note, the paper is in Chicago Style.)

There is the notion of "historic present", which you might google, to see if this clarifies the language issue. That is, there is a linguistic tradition (at least in English) that can put "historic" events into what looks like present tense (regardless of the state of the authors...) It may be a little archaic by now, but not entirely.

There is no universal answer to this question.  Different writers take different approaches, and either one may be acceptable under the circumstances.
What you should try for is consistency, both internally in your own work, and within your field of study.  The first one is easy; whether you are going to refer to what another scholar said using the past tense or the "historic" present, you need to be consistent throughout.  All references should be handled the same way.
The second point, external consistency, is a little trickier.  You should look at how other people in your area of research deal with the question.  If there is a consistently preferred usage (whether it's past or present), you should probably adopt it yourself.  On the other hand, if different writers use different tenses, then you should feel free to choose whichever one you feel sounds better in your work.


text:
Reporting Results: Active or Passive voice?
I am writing my first publication and I heard a lot of different opinions on the matter of using passive or active voice in publications.
This question focuses in particular on the results.
Should I say:
"The results show an increase in water pressure."
or
"An increase in water pressure is shown by the results."
The first seems more natural and concise to me. Yet the second puts the important statement (i.e. the result) first.
By the way, english isn't my first language, so I hope this question isn't trivial.
Cheers.


text:
Turning down a MSCA Fellowship due to personal circumstances?
I am a early career researcher with less than 5 years of postdoc experience since my PhD. After a few years of chaining up short term postdocs I've finally been successfully awarded an MSCA global fellowship to go to the US for two years, with a 1 year return in the UK.
However, life can be tricky and with my partner we've been trying for a family for a long time. About a years and a half ago we decided to stop waiting and get on with our lives. I applied for the fellowship and found myself another 3 year postdoc in a British University ... because, what are the chances of getting a fellowship right? Well it actually happened!
At the same time, after years of waiting, we have reached the top of the IVF waiting list and, if we are lucky, might have a child born a couple of month either side of my, already deferred, fellowship start date in about a year's time.
The fellowship would send me to the San Francisco area, and with the cost of accommodation and health care especially for maternity and new borns the financial picture is really bleak. In fact, to just cover my own living costs, I would have to accept not contributing to my pension for the duration of the fellowship (and neither my employer - as his costs, including his contribution to my pension, is taken from the funding itself.)
Our decision is not made, and so far we are still working towards making that move to the US, but how would one go about turning down the funding once/if the Grant Agreement has been signed between the University and the funder (my own contract wouldn't actually be signed until just before I start as I understand it)?
The award is prestigious, yes, but I'm not sure it is worth putting myself and my partner under a lot of stress and a precarious financial situation with a newborn just for it. I have already told my current employer (as I had disclosed the fellowship application during my interview) that there is a possibility I might be leaving in a year. They have been very supportive and would be happy to keep me on if we decided to not go.
Any advice would be most welcome.

It is unlikely that you would be the first person to change their mind (for whatever reason). You talk to the grant administrator and see what the options are. If possible, turn it down before any agreements are signed with the university.

This isn't a complete answer, but I'll suggest a few things that you should look in to before making a decision.
I don't know what is possible a MSCA fellowship, but if it is possible to delay it for a year (or so) you might have more options.
While not up to UK standards, public transport in the Bay Area is getting better and it is possible to work in SF, but not live there, choosing a more reasonable housing situation in exchange for a commute. You would need to do a geographical search to see what is possible.
Quite a lot of people work remotely out of the Bay Area and live far away, but that probably isn't feasible for some, or desirable for a postdoc.
Explore with the university whether you will have any automatic medical coverage for yourself and partner. Possible, but the external funding might be an issue. Some places might have more flexibility in this than others. For example, Stanford, which is private, might have more leeway than a university in the UC system which is bound by state regulations.
If you need to turn it down, you don't need to say much. "Family requirements won't permit me to accept at this time. Thank you ...".
Anyway, congratulations on both the fellowship and the possibility of a child.


text:
Getting Letter of recommendation with letter head
So I did my engineering back in 2010. I do know few of my teachers but none of them are now in the same university.
I want to get an academic reference letter for admission on postgraduate level in UK universities.
Would it be fine if I get recommendation letter from my teachers. Of course then the recommendation will be without letter head. So it would be preferable to get recommendation on university letter head?

Does anyone actually care about letterhead?

@JeffE I have seen some programs where they specifically require the letters to be with letterhead.

Oh, I know that the instructions say that letterhead is required.  But does anyone actually care, now that letters are electronic files instead of pieces of paper?

There shouldn't be an issue if they use letterhead of their present employer. They will probably say something about the change of affiliation. But it might be improper for them to submit on the old employer's letterhead.
But a letter on plain paper should also be fine, assuming that the letter writer provides contact information so that their affiliation can be checked if necessary.
Or you can also indicate in application materials that the affiliations of letter writers are new.
Note that I'm retired and so have no current affiliation, but my last employer is happy enough for me to use their letterhead and has provided me with an electronic template for it. Perhaps that is available to your writers as well if it seems important.


text:
How to tell a Prof you are no longer applying to a PhD program at his university?
I am about to apply to Computer Science PhD programs to start Fall 2018. In the process of researching programs I have met with many Profs in fields I was interested in to (a) learn more about their research/fields (b) see if they were likely to be taking PhD students in the Fall. Having done this I now have a better idea of what I am interested in. As such, I've decided not to apply to one of the universities of one of the Professors I met, as I don't think it's the research area I'm most interested in (even though he is very distinguished in his field and at a prestigious university).
Even still, the area the Professor works in has some overlap with the area I plan to do my PhD in. So even though I don't want to apply to work under him, I will likely run into him again. And if an appropriate topic came up, it would be interesting to collaborate with him at some point on the future.
So I'm wondering what is a sensible, professionally-appropriate way of sending him an email to say that I'm not applying to the program at that university because I've decided it's not the research area I'm most interested in, but I would like to stay in contact? Partly, I feel like it would be kind of awkward to run into him one day and have him think, "Oh yes... you're the guy who said he was interested in applying to work with us and then we never heard from again."

It can be hard to get a PhD position, as there are often only few positions but many candidates. Therefore, it is not uncommon to apply to more than one and the professor should be familiar with people finding a position elsewhere.
Telling him as soon as you made up your mind is the right choice, as this gives him the chance to look for other candidates. Thus, I would be honest with him and tell him what you wrote in your question.
As long as you are friendly and honest, there should be no problem. The only thing to remember is that professors are mostly busy people, so don't steal his time (e.g. by changing your mind in 2 weeks and wanting to work under him again...).


text:
How do people peer-review many papers?
I am an Assistant Professor of Chemistry. I try to be an active peer-reviewer but on average it takes a few hours to review a manuscript (reading, some searches in the literature, checking some relevant reference, and finally writing the report).
I review 2-3 papers per month and I need to spend some time outside my working hours. In various blogs, articles, websites like publons.com, I see it is not uncommon to review 10-20 papers per month.
Then, I came to the conclusion that I am doing something wrong. Because by my calculations, it is impossible to peer-review many papers along with various tasks of an academic.

Interesting. Based on the facts you are stating, I would say that someone reviewing 10-20 papers a month IS doing something wrong.

Searching for questions including "time" in the peer-review tag gives a number of related hits, like How much time should one spend refereeing a paper? or Average time alloted for manuscript review across disciplines

Have you never received any of those reviews that clearly show the reviewer did not read the manuscript? And then been rejected based on them? :)

In my experience, the professor assigns the paper reviews to grad students.

it takes a few hours to review a manuscript — Wow. Chemistry papers are short!

@JeffE: It's not the length of the papers; it's the nature of the review. Reproducibility is a lot harder in chemistry than in CS/math. You have to judge if the results are consistent with the claims of the "experimental" method, and the conclusions are consistent with the results.

My answer to another question (Is it common to review papers assigned to your supervisor?) may somewhat answer this question, as well.

There is also a short, simple answer for some: They don't. Anecdotally, I personally know someone who once reviewed 300 papers for a conference in a one-week-period.

Bathroom reading is not to be neglected.

How long are papers in Chemistry?  In my area, they are around 10-12 pages for a journal article.  I usually review 1-2 papers a month.

@aeismail "Reproducibility is a lot harder in chemistry than in CS/math" - citation required. That makes it even more instrumental to work through the logic of a math/CS paper - and that can take a lot of time. There is little hope to reproduce a chemical experiment, so it's probably less expected than a math paper having been fully verified.

I don't think people who review 10–20 papers per month are likely to be doing a good job.  They are probably just reading a paper once and writing a couple paragraphs (at most) based on superficial impressions.  I've certainly gotten reports on my own papers that seemed to be produced that way; and they were both frustrating and not very useful.
I personally review about 3–6 papers each month, and that is by far the most of anyone in my department; I have also received outstanding referee rewards from multiple journals, mostly just recognizing my high levels of work.  (This also represents a big part of the professional service work that is expected of me as a faculty member.)  It would certainly be possible for me to referee five times as many papers (although I would have to contact a lot of editors to volunteer my services), but that would turn refereeing into a the largest component portion of my total workload.  It would not be possible to do those reports properly and still be a productive researcher.

"writing a couple paragraphs" That's optimistic.

Not all reviews are created equal. A review that is based on a careful reading of the whole manuscript, and gives specific, actionable recommendations about how the paper should be changed, with clear justification, is far better than a review like a movie review that simply throws derogatory language at the paper (some highlights from reviews of my own papers: "shallow", "weak", "very, very bad") or rubber-stamps the paper despite serious problems. I think it's often worthwhile to spend time checking calculations and checking that cited papers really say what the authors claim they say, although such things are beyond the call of duty in most cases.
But, there's little incentive for writing good reviews or punishment for writing bad ones. All reviewers get out of reviewing is getting to list in their CV what journals they've reviewed for. So, inevitably, careerists write a lot of sloppy reviews. Also, as mentioned in a comment, unscrupulous professors may take the credit for a review written by a graduate student.
What I would recommend is, don't worry about how many reviews you're completing. Spend the time you think is necessary to write good reviews, and if that only gives you time to write a few, then good on you for putting in all the effort to help those papers achieve their potential.
For what it's worth, I'm a postdoc in public health and psychology and I review maybe 1 paper a month tops. Each takes me at least a day of dedicated work.

"careerists write a lot of sloppy reviews" - I like to think that word gets around. Maybe I'm an incurable optimist.

I know that it is common practise in some institutes that PhD students ghostwrite the reports. In this way it is easy to produce a large number of reports per month (in the same way that people produce a ridiculous amount of papers, grant proposals etc.)

Now it makes sense.  That guy he mentions doing 20 reviews per month?  Actually, perhaps it means that guy's graduate students and postdocs are doing 20 reviews per month...

Sometimes people who are part of the technical program committee of a conference are attached to several papers as "primary" reviewers. For example, in this conference, where I am in the TPC I am being asked to review 10+ papers due to an unprecedented number of submissions. The concession is that on some we will be allowed to just write a meta-review.


text:
Is it advisable to put your CV, research statement, teaching statement on your website?
I'm a postdoc in computer science applying for tenure-track faculty positions.
I look at the websites of people who are in similar positions to mine  and about half of them include a link to the person's CV, research statement, and teaching statement.
I'm wondering whether I should put these documents on my website.
What are the pros and cons of publicly posting your CV and research/teaching statements on your website?
I see little upside or downside to this. Would this help me on the job market at all? Would there be a potential downside? It feels a little like sharing too much information with the world.

I'd not put teaching statements or research statements on-line, since then you do enable unethical people to cherry-pick good-sounding stuff from them, in competition with you. In contrast, your CV is a statement of fact.

@paulgarrett Until you get the job at least. Some professors do put their successful materials online.

@user71659 which is handy for those of us still trying!

TLDR: It may help slightly, but really doesn't make too much difference.
As with many things in academia, and other fields, different people will have different opinions on this.  I, like you, was never one to want my CV or research/teaching statements out there for the whole world to read, and I never did it, though I had the "most important" information from my CV on my webpage already (e.g., publication list, where I did my PhD).
From the hiring side, I occasionally look at applicants' webpages (though usually don't) but I look at things like CVs and research statements from our online application system (in math, we use a central site called mathjobs), so it would make no difference for me reviewing your application.  Part of the reason for this is convenience---it's easier to look at everything in one place, and one of the things I most want to look at are your letters of recommendation, for which I have to go through the application system.
That said, I think there can be a slight advantage for putting your CV and your research statement online, and it is this.  If someone is already looking at your webpage (either because they saw you applied, or for random other reasons), and they want to find out more about you, it's easier for them to look at your CV/research statement directly from your webpage, i.e., there's a higher probability they will look at these things.  So there's a greater chance they will get interested in you as a job candidate.  Potentially, this could result in solicitations for you to apply to positions you aren't aware of/didn't apply to, but I don't know how common this is in CS---in math in the US, most types of positions tend to be well advertised and easy to apply to with mathjobs.
But, I don't think this will affect your odds so greatly that you should feel you have to do these things.  (Also, I don't see any disadvantage to posting them, though probably there's no need to post a teaching statement.)  This is especially true if you have the info you want to advertise to most people on your webpage already (e.g., publications, academic history, maybe a short research blurb, ...).


text:
Ideality of collaborating with professor against backdrop of commitments
Soon, I'll be meeting a professor_A base at a University in my home country to discuss about my plans and projects that may be of interest to me(us) during my time back home.
Ideally, I am looking to be involved in industry for 12 months to 18 months before returning to my alma mater for an honours program with a prominent professor_B who has extended this offer to me despite me not meeting the formal prerequisite for this program but which is predicated on a strong statement of purpose to clear the bureaucratic hurdle.
During this time, I am looking to be actively committed with professor_A outside of standard industry hours to which I will be upholding strictly.
I have two questions:
1) In this context, is the practice of collaboration(unpaid) in the field of academia outside of industry office hours ever frowned upon? The research field is applied math so much of the work revolves around "pen and paper".
Given that professor_A is aware of my plans yet extends an in-person meeting may suggests he is at least open to negotiations.
2) How long should a collaboration be?
Would 12 to 18 months be a healthy period? I'm looking to develop mathematical insights/ modelling and computational technique while gaining research experiences.

I do not know about applied maths, but in my field planning a collaboration with a set "finishing date" is near impossible. You collaborate on projects/topics. If you are not willing to put the time in until it is done, I wouldn't recommend getting into it. Of course, you can estimate if a project is more in the 3 months or 3 years scale, but the difference between a project taking 12 or 18 months can be hard to predict before starting it.

@skymningen I am committed to getting it done but my industry commitments means that I am only available to work on the research project outside of standard industry hours. Further, let's just say there is no imposed "finishing date".
Since the field of interests is applied mathematics, I am led to think that much of the thinking and discussion may be communicated via some electronic communication.
How would professor view such collaboration?

That is not answerable, as it depends completely on the professor's preferences. If they prefer to meet their collaborators personally at least once a week, on some morning when they are free of other duties that is a different situation than a person liking to work late hours, communicating mainly over email and so on.