text:
Can I tell my PhD supervisor honestly why I want to leave him
I spent more than half a year with a PhD supervisor, and am not happy with both aspects: relationship and academically. With time, it becomes obvious that our field of research doesn't match. He reassured me that he had sufficient knowledge on my topic, but it turns out that he doesn't. I'd say it's the fault on both sides (I should've checked his publications more).
The biggest problem is that he doesn't want to admit it, and either only gives me a very general advice, or blames my draft as not academic enough and tell me to revise the structure before he agrees to read it, and then he'd again give a general advice. He also prefers to meet only once every two or three months. I see no career prospect here, as he'll retire in three years, and then his department will close (I couldn't have known that before).
I consulted another professor that I met in a conference, who also specializes in my topic, and he said that my research is solid (plus, he gave me valuable inputs that I have never received from my own supervisor). Finally, learning about my problems, the second professor offered to supervise me, and said all I need to do is to apply at his university (in another state). By the way, I have neither working nor funding contract with my current university.
I know it sounds not very ethical, but I said nothing to my supervisor until I'm officially accepted by the new university. He's old, proud, and quirky, often taking the slightest mistake (by anyone) as a conspiracy against him. He never admits he doesn't master my topic, so he'll blow a fuse if I tell him that when I announce about my leaving him. I simply don't know what to answer if he asks me why (and he will certainly do). Any suggestion how to handle this well? Thank you.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Sure you can. I wonder what the question really is here? Are you afraid of any impact on your career? Do you search for polite ways to convey the message? "Any suggestion how to handle this well?" What exactly do you want to achieve? The goals seem a bit unclear.

It's your career, not your supervisor's.

It is very okay and not unethical to not say anything until you have been accepted. In fact that is the standard way to approach any job change. The fact that this is university and not industry does not change that.

It's perfectly ethical not to explain to someone how you feel. You advisor isn't god and you're not required to make a confession.

Why would you need to? In my experience such things rarely improve relations or reputation but may well damage them. If you have worked together for some time I am sure your supervisor has his own view of the situation.

My suggestion is that you talk about all of the reasons you are moving to the other university, as opposed to leaving the current one. These reasons could be to do with relationships (e.g., family) or future opportunities (e.g., a postdoc) or being paid whilst you are currently unpaid. If you have to give a reason why you are leaving your current position, the least-harmful choice seems to be to mention that his lab will close and that you chose to study with him in the hope of staying within his wonderful group.
The choice comes down to the problems of being honest (which does not imply you should be dishonest). If you are honest, then because he will retire even if you magically changed his world-view, then the impact would still be negligible. However, you may burn bridges and although a small probability, the professor may take retributive action.

@BastiaanSpanjaard that might backfire if the professor comes up with a matching offer. Then you'll have to tell that the actual reason is different.

Not if you've already accepted.

@Džuris The matching offer sounds unlikely. And she isn't obliged to do anything she doesn't want to do.

The thing to be gained from being honest: you get to keep your integrity. You are advocating lying. In my opinion that is terrible advice. Integrity is the one thing you have control over in your life - give it up so easily and you won't get it back.

There are levels of honesty, for example redirecting attention is not lying, and honesty should be used with wisdom. Given some of the things that have, can, and will happen in academia when people are slighted or overly competitive, judicious use of honesty and openness is advised.

(-1) there's much to be lost by dishonesty, particularly in Germany: German work culture is super sensitive on dishonesty. In addition: a professor retiring in Germany doesn't imply that they vanish from the academic field. Many continue work or at least enjoy attending meetings/conferences (aka Unruhestand). Assume old and new supervisor talk to each other and will continue doing so in future.

Lack of honesty is not dishonesty. Balance, use wisdom, etcetera. There are risks on both sides. I think not being highly open bears the least risk, particularly in academia.

I don't think this suggestion has to be dishonest. If there are many advantages to switching, you don't have to mention them all, just enough to be a justification. Finances, or better future prospects, or more desirable location, or whatever, could all be perfectly honest and sufficient reasons (if true).

Thomas, I agree with your conclusion -- although I'm not sure what you contributed that was new, in relation to Solar Mike's pre-existing answer. But the main reason I'm leaving a comment is that your topic sentence is what is getting you in trouble with some commenters concerned about what might appear to be "lying."  You started out with, "I am not sure what there is to gain from being honest with him." A simple edit (which might not satisfy the critics) would be to add the word "completely": "...gain from being completely honest with him." // I'm not sure I understood your last sentence.

@ThomasKing: lack of honesty vs. dishonesty: While yes, we do distinguish between lack of honesty and outright dishonesty (lying), already lack of honesty is perceived negatively in German. The related German pair of words is ehrlich = honest vs. unehrlich = literally "not honest" and this will typically cover lack of honesty as well. Often, when not saying something is perceived as the polite thing to do in US/UK culture, not saying this same something is perceived as unpolite and backstabbing or deceptive in German ("Germans are rude" is the English description of this cultural diffrence).

It's obvious that the answer could use some rewording. The first sentence says "You shouldn't be honest with him" when the answer has nothing to do with being "dishonest" - IE lying. You simply say "Stick to the reasons you are leaving... not the reasons why you aren't staying". There is nothing dishonest in "I'm leaving for a good opportunity". Not saying "I'm leaving a bad situation" isn't dishonest. It's being tactful and professional. "There is no need to be COMPLETELY honest" or "overly"...

... or simply switch the paragraphs so first is second, second is first. "Talk about the positive reasons you are leaving, ... there is no reason to be completely honest with him about the negative reasons". It would keep the message but completely change the tone.

Swapped the paragraphs around as a way to adapt to any cultural differences.

I definitely agree with the answer; honesty does not mean you need/should to tell everything. Just focus on the positive sides of going to another university and leave out the negative aspects of the current group.

I know it sounds not very ethical, but I said nothing to my supervisor until I'm officially accepted by the new university.

That is almost certainly the best move.  Don't say anything to anyone until you've officially been accepted by the other university.  Keep working as normal until your acceptance letter comes.
Once you've been accepted to the 2nd university, tell him in person.  Stick to a few sentences, and don't mention that your relationship has soured.
Some neutral reasons are
1) If you don't have a stipend here, and school B offers you one, then just cite that reason.
2) You're concerned he will retire before you graduate, meaning you'll have to find another advisor.
He will likely react badly, in general supervisors have limited slots for PhD students dictated by university acceptance.  He'll have to wait for the next round of admissions to fill your slot.  This is his problem, not yours.

"in general supervisors have limited slots for PhD students dictated by university acceptance" never heard of that in Germany, and in particular not for unpaid PhD students.

"in general supervisors have limited slots for PhD" - this is almost certainly true.  Funded or not, the number of PhD students available to professors is determined by admissions.  When Maya leaves, the university won't just randomly call students they did not accept until the slot is filled.  The university will just accept 1 extra PhD student for the next school year.  Maya needs to tell the professor he/she will have one fewer PhD student once her acceptance is confirmed, and that will likely mean the end of Maya's relationship with the professor.

to which German university/faculty do you refer exactly? The German faculties I know a) don't have anything like school years for PhD students, and b) no slots for PhD students. Calls/announcements for employment contracts on particular research projects are the closest thing we have, and they'd be given to some other student immediately. In general, it is sufficient that student and professor talk to each other, and prof accepts student as their PhD student. Even the necessary paperwork can be done just right before handing in the thesis.

I'm familiar with the U.S. system.  If the university can just put out a call for another PhD student and hire one, then yeah, the professor isn't losing a worker.

@sevensevens yes of course PhD students are easily replaceable with no specialized knowledge or aptitude to take into account.

@sevensevens in many countries, PhD students are attached to funded projects and calls can be placed at any time. In other countries the University accepts PhD students every semester (2-4 times per year). In the USA it tends to be once per year, but that is not the way it is done everywhere.

The other answers give the most 'sensible' choice, but being nice and making false excuses for your departure is not the only option.
Consider politely but firmly telling the supervisor your genuine reasons for leaving. There is a risk of backlash (although your supervisor is retiring soon and you are leaving the department) but the upside is the self-respect you will gain from being honest. And if the supervisor is as proud as you say, then they will be just as angry if you say you are leaving to be 'nearer your family' or another excuse.
Too many PhD students are afraid to stand up for themselves because they fear reprisals, but often the opposite is true. If you let more senior academics walk all over you then they will never respect you. If you challenge them then they may be angry in the short-term, but eventually, you will reshape the dynamic and they will treat you more as a peer than an underling. This is essential if you want a long-term career in academia. Always trying to please your superiors may get you through a PhD, but it will not prepare you for leadership.

Very sound advice. Be honest, stand up for yourself, don't be hurtful. You are likely to get more respect this way. Integrity has to be the cornerstone of your scientific career.

I like this answer. Be very honest, but of course not overly mean. You don't need to say directly that you think your advisor doesn't know this field or that his supervisory style is bad. You can just say "I do not think our research interests and collaborative styles align as well as I originally thought they would and I have an offer from a lab that is a better fit. I wish you the best."

I disagree with the implication that it is somehow dishonest or dishonourable to bite your tongue and carefully choose not what to say. As long as everything you actually say is true (like the answers that recommend to say the minimum necessary), then you are being honest. There is absolutely no moral obligation to give someone details that you sincerely expect that they are not interested in hearing. To maintain the self-control to not say everything you might want tou out of respect for others is a very high form of self-respect. I think that the less you say, the better.

Well, are they offering you something tangible? Pay etc? Different or more extensive equipment..
Or do you have external reasons : family, partner (spouse, other...)
It could be simpler to stick to something like that...
Students have moved before and will again.
You MUST do what is best for you and Soon.

I'll add some points from a German perspective and the perspective of someone who defended her thesis in another university than where most of the research was actually done.
I suspect that a large part of the conflict about the supervision may be due to OP and professor working with quite different concepts of PhD thesis work which may be arising from a recent paradigm shift about what exactly PhD research should be.

Long version:
Background: when I started my PhD also in my field (chemistry) the typical set up (A) was that PhD research is "your own private fun" (as in: you're not paid for this - but you may use university infrastructure and project consumables for your research). My professor made sure, though, that all PhD students were hired as TAs or had some scholarship. Nevertheless it was made very clear that wages were paid for teaching, not for research.
This has changed considerably in my field, where the norm is now (B) that PhD students are employed to do research for a particular project.
(BTW: my old professor retired, I went working abroad and years later handed in and defended my thesis at another university. Old professor was one of the reviewers of my thesis, though.)
There are important differences/trade-offs: B of course gets you money for work that isn't paid in A. On the other hand, A gave far more freedom to choose the subject and arrange time and place youself (e.g. PhDs that were collected research of a decade alongside full time industrial work and external PhD students). Employed PhD students B are often quite tightly bound by that employment contract (project and job description have to be adhered to, there are restrictions on canceling these contracts also for the employee side).
The whole paradigm has also changed in that under A PhD students were seen and treated as fully responsible professionals (from the very beginning of the PhD - which they legally are in Germany) organizing their own life on their own behalf, whereas B students are often treated as not yet quite fully qualified professionals, and the PhD studies take more the shape of a university program.
The professor giving only general advise at infrequent meetings may very well be an expression that they expect you work independently under paradigm A. To reiterate it: paradigm A thinks of the PhD "student"* as a fully trained top professional (only top professionals should do a PhD) from the very beginning. The PhD "student" does the thesis to proove these [already existing] skills of doing research without supervision (a research work done under supervision would qualify only as Diplom/Master thesis).
Whereas paradigm B thinks of the PhD as a training program where the student learns doing research.
Wrt. expected time line of the PhD, A theses took as long as they took (professor decides whether research content is sufficient for promotion = PhD), whereas B PhDs are supposed to be done within not too much more than the 3 years of the research project employment contract (this is also meant to guard students against exploitation).
* PhD "student": aren't actually called students in German (student = Student, PhD student = Doktorand) and are typically not required to sign up with the university as student.

In your situation, not having such a research employment contract is a huge advantage as there is nothing that binds you to your old institute/professor legally.
(Side note: B students have the right to demand cancellation of their employment contract if they do have a better offer.)
Nevertheless, I'd suggest treating your situation in analogy.

I know it sounds not very ethical, I said nothing to my supervisor until I'm officially accepted by the new university

This is not unethical, but expected and correct behaviour.
You can safely rely on the academic community in Germany accepting reasons that would be considered suffient under employment law for temporal contract to demand cancellation.

obvious that our field of research doesn't match

A better match of field is a good reason. How much that counts would depend on how much better the match is (but then the default assumption is that noone moves if there isn't anything gained by that move), and how long it took you to decide that the match wasn't good.
If my guess is right that there is a considerable gap between his and your concepts of good supervision of a PhD thesis and the expected level of independenc in your work, then:
he may be considering any closer level of supervision bad in the sense that the need for closer supervision implies bad mark (possibly to the point where he may consider the work not up to the independence standard of a PhD thesis) when judging your research. So close supervision means depriving you of your chance to demonstrate the ability of unsupervised independent work.
A better match also in these expectations is needed for a successful PhD. This doesn't imply any direction: if you are already up to do your research practically without supervision it will be good for you if you can show that in your PhD. If not, then your only chance to surviving a PhD is one with (intially) closer supervision.

He reassured me that he had sufficient knowledge on my topic, but it turns out that he doesn't. [...long snip...] He never admits he doesn't master my topic

Of course, it would be better if he were able to tell you that he isn't really into the particular field, but it's really you not he who's expected to be the expert on the topic of your thesis. He is actually only required to be able to judge and testify that you did do good research, and it would be totally legitimate (A) if he expects/hopes to learn from you about this topic.
My old professor once expressed this roughly as "You are a fully qualified professional. You are able and are expected to be able to decide and judge on your own what to do." and another told me "I'm not able to have in-depth scientific discussions with you on your [particular specialization]. It is exactly because I perceived a lack of this expertise in my group that I hired you."
The important conclusion is: openly discuss these paradigms with your new professor to make sure you understand each other.
6 months into the PhD would translate in paradigm B to "at the end of probation period" and that's a totally acceptable time frame to realize that the match wasn't that good.
any financial advantage is a very good reason.
For the employees that could be more total pay, better hourly wage, more total hours, longer duration of fixed term contract, maybe a scholarship. As you are not an employee, lower cost of living in the new university town or better opportunities for part-time jobs would be acceptable as well. Extra bonus if you find a part time job there that is related to your profession.

Keep in mind: all you really need to get your PhD is:

your research (which doesn't need to be done in formal association with any university) and
a professor/institute that is willing to read your thesis and who then considers that it fulfils the criteria for promotion/successful thesis so they accept you as PhD candidate. (Of course, in practice this is easier if you are all the time inside the academic system and supervised, but few professors will reject you if you arrive with a good thesis or research proposal that matches their field)

This closely matches A, but is equally valid for B. Check the regulations of your new university early, though: I know of some faculties that demand a certain number of TA hours.
Your PhD research is your own work (and in your case there are no difficulties due to the old university owning work done as an employee), you can take your already existing work with you wherever you go.

Some more points:

academia is a small world, and even smaller within Germany.
A professor retiring doesn't mean they vanish from academia. Just university cannot demand that they do any particular work for them any more. But in most Länder, the professor retains the rights to teach and also to lecture and to take exams, so they can still act as supervisor and/or reviewer for a thesis.
The other consequence is that your academic community probably will know also their side of what happend about you leaving (you may not be that important now academically speaking, but the next occasion is when your new faculty is looking for an external reviewer for your thesis).
But if you treat this change of university honestly and professionally it doesn't matter that much how your old professor reacts. He may be temporarily annoyed when you tell him, but if he reacts unprofessionally, your academic community will realize it. Just as they will realize if you are dishonest and/or unprofessional.
I hope I did guess correctly and Old Professor is not particularly but but just acts according to PhD paradigm A.
If so, acknowledging and sincerely thanking him (don't if you cannot sincerely) may smooth the situation considerably. If you can express that you weighted and appreciate the chance of showing you're able to do the research entirely on your own (in his group) vs. joining the other group where having colleagues working on much closer topics will hopefully give your specialization a boost due to more in-depth scientific discussion with your peers, more closely related seminars, etc..
After all, the immediately important point for you is how much bad feelings you carry around about these 6 months.

I see no career prospect here, as he'll retire in three years, and then his department will close

If you want to go for an academic carreer, the perspective shouldn't be a postdoc at the same institute where you did your PhD. The expectation is a postdoc somewhere else, possibly abroad.  (Although there's less stress on this if you have longer research stays abroad and/or changed groups/universities before).

very good reply, can you also mention this new way, something as the combination of A+B in which you find a potential advisor before applying to phd and discuss project in great details.

Thanks for the thorough answer. I'll add that what I meant with "general" advice is like "use APA instead of MLA" and such (hence, nothing about the content). I understand that a Doktorand should do an independent work (which I'm doing right now), but a minimum supervision would be necessary (otherwise, they should abolish the supervision system altogether). My point in asking is because, in my country, a white lie is imperative so that the other party can 'save face'. I don't know the norms here (or in the West), but the popular advice here have given me some ideas.

@SSimon: finding a potential advisor and discussing project in detail is the typical way in bot A and B - due to OPs situation I just wanted to point out that this is not strictly necessary. What would be a difference between A and B is that A would PhD student and prof primarily agree on the supervision relationship and then the topic is found (this discussion is part of the PhD work), whereas under B the supervisor "announces" a topic and the student applies for that job. The discussion is then part of the job application/job interview process.

And a prof may still give lots of research freedom to a PhD student hired (B) while other profs neither gave this freedom, nor did they pay... It a continuum between all the respective advantages and disadvantages, really.

@Maya: I'd have said that citation style is detail, not general advise. Minimum supervision: yes, but keep in mind that the ideal supervision for the perfect PhD student would from the outside look exactly like no supervision at all: there is no intervention because no intervention is needed. And carefully following the seminar presentations, conference contributions, reports and papers also doesn't necessarily create easily observable/distinguishable events (these events would be triggered by student or fixed schedules, not because prof asks for them).

White lies: with Germany you have hit a culture that puts very high value on honest (even if blunt) feedback. Already between Germany and US/UK there's quite a cultural difference in this respect. In US/UK, if you cannot express the honest truth nicely, it's not polite to say it. The same unsaid sentence would often be considered unpolite in Germany (perceived as backstabbing: having a complaint but not letting the other one know of this). Still, within German culture this doesn't mean you should be rude or offensive: the ideal to strive for is being able to express the truth without hurting

the other side. I.e., we aim for separating the case from the person (to me, this is related to saving face, btw.). Example: "Prof., you're  too dumb to get it. And you are a sh*#@ty supervisor: this supervision is non-existent BS. I'm leaving." => outright rude. In particular, because the speaker doesn't consider the possibility of being wrong themselves. "I need peers with whom I can develop my research ideas in in-depth discussions. And I need more close, yet more general guidance on my research. New Uni have offered to join them, and I hope to find there an environment that more closely...

matches my needs." => description of the problem: mismatch between what prof offers and what student needs. No accusation. It is possible that prof would be a good supervisor to someone else who has different needs. But your needs and what prof offered are a radical mismatch.

@cbeleites exactly!!!!! i think they are huge mismatch

Agree with most people here - you need to do what is in YOUR interest right now. I saw similar situations myself at close quarters when I was a graduate student and if people didn't act, it usually ended badly/unsatisfactorily. Life is too short and you're putting too much of your own time/career etc on the line by staying with him cause you are afraid to offend him. Academics are not infallible and if they're too egotistical to admit a deficit of knowledge, to hell with them. Sure, wait until you have a definite alternative but I'd just say you found a research group and supervisor that you believe will be better for you, given your research interests.

Just say that the new situation is a better fit, which is true. No need to go into details.

This is best, unless there is a white lie available that jives closely with reality, such as funding, family in that area, etc.  A white lie that doesn't ring true can feel quite hurtful.

Run. Definitely. The less reasons you give, the less cause he will be angry. Don't step on his pride.

The fewer reasons you give, the more cause he will tar your reputation and risk telling others of your cowardly or unprofessional behaviour.

@Mari-LouA, Less or more reasons may or may not lead to worse retaliation. I think this would greatly depend on the person. Its hard to know whether he'd react better to reasons or no reasons

You did everything right in not telling him. If he is often loud and verbally abusive, consider the following:
You don't have a contract with your current institution. You got nothing from your supervisor. You do work and he gives no input. You owe him nothing. He is in the ethically problematic side, not you (since he probably wants to be on your publications).
In the day before leaving, clear your desk, return keys etc. To the administration, send an email to your current "supervisor" that he should not expect you to be in the group any more, stating that he was not happy with your research direction so you will stop working with him. Ask him to summarize briefly which specific parts of your research he considers to have given input to. BCC this to your new supervisor and CC it to the faculty Dean.
Be polite and formal in this email. Never talk to him again. Such people are all over the place in German academia in some subjects.


text:
How to response to the editor for a minor suggestion given by the reviewer via a formal letter?
I submitted a paper and after about five months the editor sent an email: "I have decided that your manuscript can be accepted for publication after you have carried out the corrections as suggested by the reviewer(s)." The reviewer strongly recommends publishing the paper and besides of the nedded corrections of the paper given by him/her, he/she gave a minor suggestion:  "The authors may wish to consider posting some related questions to increase the interest to the readers." How to response to this suggestion and how to write a formal letter to the editor if we have no further ideas to add?  Does this lead to rejecting the manuscript? Thank you very much.

You really can't think of any ways to relate your paper to other outstanding questions? Is your research at such a dead end?

@Bryan Krause We are currently working on the topic and my professor says we will publish more results in the future. He thinks at the moment we may not add some outstanding questions.

My interpretation is that the reviewer is asking for hypotheses -- did you list them in the Introduction?  If so, then you can list further hypotheses in the Conclusion.  E.g., an interesting hypothesis is X, which will lead to the possibility of time travel.

@Prof. Santa Claus Thank you you are right. Or maybe the reviewer is asking for adding some questions  to the end of the paper to be persued by the readers?

@Fermat yes as long you can say 'As suggested by reviewer x, we have added blah in Section X' then it should be alright.  If not, the reviewer/editor can make him/herself clearer.

It's this a legitimate peer reviewed journal? Something about the language strikes me as slightly odd. Also, was there only one referee report? That seems unusual .

"posting some related questions" -- is that a typo? Should it be posing? Either way I'm not quite sure what it means.
However: It does not seem you are in danger of getting the paper rejected. You should write a polite response letter, list all of the changes suggested by the reviewer(s), respond to each one (e.g., "Done." or "We opted not to do this because..."), and thank the review team. If you do not follow the suggestion to "post some related questions," explain why not.
Congratulations. This seems like a good outcome for your paper.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
plagiarism and transcription of audio recordings
Does it count as plagiarism if a student pays a professional transcription service to transcribe an audio recording of a social science interview/focus group for the appendix of their written assignment?
Note that the appendix is not graded as part of the assignment.

Was the student also either the interviewer or a member of the focus group?

What is important here is to check the experimental protocol for any data protection/privacy issues.
Because you conducted an experiment involving human subjects, there should have been an approved protocol that tells you how the data can be handled. It is important to see if it can be sent to a third-party service, and what precautions are necessary.
In some cases, the recordings have been anonymized and nothing sensitive is discussed, so it may be OK. On the other hand, if there is personally identifiable information, or sensitive medical information is disclosed, laws, like HIPAA apply and special agreements and arrangements are necessary with the transcription service.

I doubt that it would be plagiarism per se, as long as the student cites the source. If you cite something properly, it isn't plagiarism. If you quote the work, make it clear that you are quoting. Make it clear that both the ideas and the words come from the cited source.
It might, possibly, be copyright infringement, depending on who has rights to the interview and whether/how it is licensed. You are copying something, even if changing the media and it might be covered or not. One difficulty here is that you might want to copy the thing in whole, rather than just excerpts, for which different rules might apply.
But a professor might still consider it to be academic misconduct, depending on the rules set for the course. The professor might be expecting you to make the effort at transcription, for example. To know the rules, you need to check with the professor.

Note also that the fact that you paid a service for the transcription has nothing to do with plagiarism. The source of the interview would be the issue, not the mechanics of transcription.

It is still plagiarism if you just reproduce text (with a citation to where it is from) if you don't make it clear that it's a direct quote. In other words, use a different font, and make it clear above the text that the following is a direct transcription of someone else's words. It is plagiarism if it is not clear that these are someone else's words. Even when you make it clear that these are someone else's words, it is good practice to provide a citation where they are taken from.

@WolfgangBangerth, yes, sorry. I assumed that. Editing...

I don't see how plagarism or academic misconduct comes into the picture in any sensible situation. Somebody conducted some interviews, recorded them, and wants them transcribed. A transcript fundamentally says "Speaker A: Blah blah. Speaker B: Foo bar?", there's no need to cite anything. Unless this is a class on transcription or the OP is planning on changing the names in the transcript to himself, I can't see how transcription becomes cheating.

@user71659, neither you nor I know what the professor has set as rules here. Academic misconduct can occur for such reasons. If the person who conducted the interviews is the one that wants them transcribed then there are fewer issues, but that wasn't stated as the case here. We don't have such details.

@user71659 transcribing an interview is actually quite subtle: what is perfectly normal in spoken language is very awkward in written language. Also it is a lot of work. There is a huge difference between hearing/reading about that and experiencing it yourself. So if I gave a course on doing research with focus groups I would require them to the transcribing themselves. Not because I am mean, but because of the pedagogical value. In that case hiring an agency to do the work for you would result in me failing you for that class.

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


text:
Minor Revision with suggestion of an alternative proof by reviewer
I submitted a paper to a mathematical journal, and recently received a Minor Revision decision from the Editor. One of the reviewers suggested an alternative and much simpler proof to my main theorem. The suggested proof greatly shortens my paper. Now, I am in a dilemma.
1) Should I retain my original proof, which I must admit in hindsight, was overly complicated? And then simply acknowledge the reviewer...
2) Should I write down the shorter and simpler proof suggested by the reviewer, and explicitly mention in the acknowledgemnts that I have used one of the reviewers' proofs?
The reason I ask is that I am worried whether going with Option 2 reduces the value/contributions of my paper (the revised one is not my proof after all!), although the Theorem and its implications stand nonetheless. Do I have a better chance of acceptance with Option 1? Is not seeing a simpler proof a ground for rejection of the paper? Any suggestions are welcome (since its a minor revision, it's due in a couple of weeks)!!

Maybe ask the reviewer to add his/her name to the paper? This sounds like a contribution major enough to be an author.

I would not worry about the paper getting rejected one way or the other: The reviewers gave you a shorter proof, but did not suggest that the theorem is obvious or trivial. This isn't going to change once you put their proof into the paper.
So the question is how to acknowledge the reviewer. It is not uncommon in mathematics papers to show the shortened proof and then, in the acknowledgements say "We appreciate the contributions of reviewer 2 who provided the shortened proof of theorem 4." On the other hand, if you think that coming up with this proof really required some hard work even though the reviewer has seen your proof, then maybe it is appropriate to ask the reviewer (through the editor) whether they want to become a co-author.
The final option may be to show both proofs. If you think that your proof is interesting despite being complicated because it shows connections to other areas that are of independent interest, then it's worth keeping it in. In such a case, it may be useful to show the alternative and shorter proof given by the referee in an appendix, and explain why you think it's worthwhile to show both. Remember that a paper isn't just about showing a result, but also teaching others how that result came about and what it means and implies. As such, there is a place for papers with two independent proofs of the same statement.

+1 for comments about why a longer proof might still be of interest. Among other things, I'm reminded of existence proofs in analysis by "soft methods" (e.g. Baire category method, probabilistic method, etc.) and by "hard methods" (proofs by explicit constructions). Each has their own merits -- soft methods tend to be easier for one to see the main ideas of the proof (i.e. more forest, less trees) and they often establish a stronger existence result, hard methods tend to encode more specific information such as error bounds, rates of convergence, etc.

Also, if the longer proof isn't "better" in any way than the shorter one, most editors (and readers) will prefer a short and concise paper to a long and needlessly complicated one. In that case, replacing the original proof with a shorter one certainly doesn't make the paper worse (and thus more likely to be rejected).

Thank you all for the suggestions! I guess I'll incorporate the reviewer's proof with appropriate acknowledgements...

Ideally option 2 is better and it need not lessen your impact, unless that was the main theorem in the paper. However, in order to use the reviewers proof you need to be able to credit it properly and it may be hard to do that with blind review. Perhaps the editor can put you in contact with the reviewer for this purpose.
One way to present it (one I've used myself) is to give the reviewer's proof, with proper citation-attribution and then follow it with a statement that your own proof is omitted here for reasons of length.
But, I hope you are also aware that in many ways the proof technique is as important as the theorem itself as it may suggest approaches to other problems. So, it may be that your own proof is interesting in itself, even if complicated.
But, for the paper, say that you have an alternate, longer, proof, than the one presented. I see no real downside as long as you can properly cite.

If you can't use the other proof for reasons of citation, then present your own, if the editor agrees, but say that a shorter proof was suggested by an anonymous reviewer.

You said that this theorem is the main theorem of the paper. I'll assume that means it's a very important part of the paper. (That's not automatically the case. A paper could present a single main theorem and dozens of consequences, and the latter might be the main point of the paper.) If my assumption is correct, it seems appropriate to offer the reviewer (through the editor) several options: (1) become a co-author of your paper, with the new proof replacing your older one, (2) allow you to use the new proof in your paper with only you as an author but with appropriate credit ("I thank the referee for greatly simplifying my original proof of Theorem 4 and for allowing me to include the simplified proof here."), or (3) insist that you use only your own proof (e.g., in case the referee wants to publish the new proof, perhaps as part of a larger study that led to it).

If the reviewer offered a simpler proof as a suggestion, presumably they don't have an issue with the OP publishing that proof, so offering (3) seems weird to me.


text:
Questions about the repetition rate of papers?
One of my conference papers has been accepted but not yet indexed. I have uploaded it on arxiv. I wrote an extended version of the thesis. According to the requirements of the journal, the duplication rate with the original conference paper should be less than 30%. I used itenticate to check the duplicates. But now there are some problems that I don't quite understand.

First of all, the paper with the highest repetition rate did not declare which paper it was, but gave it to a website. How should I determine it?
I found that the papers I uploaded on arxiv did not show up in the list. But since I'm an extended dissertation, I have a few paragraphs of text that I haven't revised, why isn't this being found? I uploaded one last year.
How much do I need to reduce the overall repetition rate?
How can I do a duplication check with my conference paper? It's not indexed online yet, and I'm wondering if my revisions are over 70%.

Thanks

The question(s) is(are) unclear to me. Please clarify more!

I have added some descriptions. Is there anything else unclear? Thanks!

The solution is to stop worrying about metrics and start worrying about writing a good scientific article that your readers are interested in.

I don't think this seems contradictory. It would be nice if you could convince the editor-in-chief of that journal not to care about specific metrics.

I don't understand what you mean by "the paper with the highest repetition rate did not declare which paper it was, but gave it to a website". A paper is a passive object, it cannot declare anything by itself. Someone/something must declare something, but I don't understand what that is supposed to be.

For example, the two with the highest repetition rate shown in the picture. They don't point to specific papers, but to arxiv and a reading site.

I do not think the journal is only wanting to know if 30% of your text is the same as written in the conference article. I believe they want to know that the ideas/results you intend to present have not been published elsewhere.
Does the work you already have accepted contribute less than 30% of the content or meaning of the work?
This is probably not something you can measure using a comparison software, but something you need to reflect on yourself.
If the question you are asking is instead a technical question about the inner workings of the plagiarism software, ithenticate, please clarify that in the question.


text:
Letter of recommendation writer didn't reply follow-up messsages
I am an undergraduate student studying in the U.S. and applying to graduate programs. One of my reference letter writers agreed to write me a letter, and we have talked about my application plans about a month ago. However, as I followed up the messages regarding the links to submit letters and asked him if he has received the link, I didn't receive any response. The deadline for submitting the letter is approaching, I know it's a busy time of the semester, but I'm still a bit worried about the letter.
Is it a good idea for me to try to find him in person and ask if he has received everything? Am I expected to prepare him a small gift to show I'm thankful for his help? Thanks!!

I don't think a gift is appropriate for this, but, yes, it is appropriate to contact them in person. That is better than an email, actually.
Many people put off writing/sending letters until the last moment. One reason is to let thoughts about the student wander around in the mind to get the tone right. Another reason is just too many other deadlines. Most people will get it done on time, but a reminder is useful and helpful.
But, for me at least, you saying thanks for help now and over the years would be much more meaningful than a gift. There are cultural norms, of course.

A gift would also be more appropriate after the letter-writing process is over and you know the results of your applications.  Giving a gift before the letters are written is a little too close to a quid pro quo for my comfort.

@MichaelSeifert, and even better a year or so later, when you have some success to report back.


text:
Do I need to explain the change of my application to my reference letter writer?
I'm an undergraduate student applying to graduate schools. A few weeks ago I sent my application plans to the professors who will write me the reference letter. However, recently I decided to cancel some of my applications. In my reminder email, I just wrote to the professor "I cancelled my plans for XX university after consideration, but other applications are due...thanks for the help!" Is this okay? Do I need any further explanations? Thanks!

At least in fields I'm familiar with, it is very late to be cancelling letters, such that many might have started your letters. If you are able to offer a reason for while you are cancelling late that makes sense without making you uncomfortable to share, it might make people less upset with you.
That said, most people will probably respect your privacy and just be happy there's less work to do.

The major component of work for the recommender is generating the recommendation letter, not in going to each school's site to submit, so I don't believe your letter writers will have put major time into a school you opt not to apply to that they wouldn't have needed to do anyway.
What might be annoying is if I'm trying to submit a recommendation, and there's no place to do it when I log on to a site.  That would start an email exchange that I didn't have to have.
I think notifying your recommenders that you've opted not to apply to every school you've told them about is fine, and can prevent confusion later.
For what it's worth, last week I had a student send me just such a letter, and it didn't annoy me at all (and I'm a pretty crotchety guy).


text:
How can I switch from 'knowledge acquisition mode' to the lifestyle of a post-graduate student?
I'm an undergrad student studying physics and math and I will be graduating very soon. I might be going to a PhD program in the US and an MSc program in the UK (in the same field). When I reflect on my undergrad studies, I realized I spent too much time on academics to maintain a decent GPA. However, I didn't spend enough time socializing and communicating with different people. Now I feel like I probably should be more sociable and focus on something else to get prepared for grad school.
My question is how can I switch from the current 'knowledge acquisition mode' to the lifestyle of a post-graduate student? I know in my field, the grad courses (for both programs) will still be intense. I'm worried about whether I'm able to balance academics and social activities. Is it essential to keep a good GPA in a master's program (for future PhD application) and PhD program (for applying internship/summer schools, etc)?
Thanks for the help and advice :)

I think I'm still mostly in 'knowledge acquisition mode' almost 4 decades after my BSE. I guess I don't really get what you are asking - yes, you need social interactions. No, there is not a definitive 'lifestyle' of, well, anyone. What fits you is what fits you.

@Jon Custer Thanks for the comment! My concern is if I spend more time on joining activities and expanding the network, would that be okay if I just have an average grade as a PhD student?

@IGY okay for whom? For me personally I'd rather enjoy my life than spend every waking moment studying. But for others, working that hard is fulfilling/enjoyable. Of course there are extreme cases at both ends: the key is to find a balance that you're happy with. (And grades don't matter as a PhD student. At all. In fact I don't think any country outside the US even has the concept of grades during a PhD.)

@astronat Thank you!!

If you continue your studies then you won't find it very different from undergraduate school. It will get more intense, actually, in a doctoral program. And successful academics never stop learning.
But isolation isn't a good practice for most people. And for extreme cases a visit with a professional is called for.
In the general case, however, you can just add some activities a bit at a time until you feel comfortable. Even group/paired study can get you a bit of a life. Some places with a lot of similarly situated students have a tradition of weekly sports activities, say baseball in the US. It was also a chance for spouses of married students to get involved in a larger social circle.
But the intensity of study isn't likely to lessen. It isn't like a switch will be thrown. You probably need to work into a more social environment gradually.
If you leave academia then the change will be pretty abrupt. But you will hopefully have some people in a new job to help you adjust.

Thanks, that helps :)


text:
Questions to ask after a PhD interview
I had a PhD interview two weeks ago (engineering program). Near the end of the meeting, the interviewer (a professor) told me if I have further questions I could get in touch with him through email. Due to limited time, I didn't ask about the research he is currently working on. I have read some papers published in his group and am interested in his research, would that be appropriate for me to follow up with an email and ask a few questions about that, before they make the decision?
(An additional question) Also, normally after a PhD interview, would the professor expect me to get in touch with them and confirm my passion for their program?

Sure thing, it is entirely fine to ask what projects could you expect to be involved in, and it is not just academia-specific.
It would be better if you came up with specific questions - at very least, mentioning that you have read the papers and are familiar with the research direction in general but would like more details is a good thing to do.


text:
Can I list my ongoing course project on cv?
I'm preparing my cv for the Ph.D. applications. Under the 'work in progress' section, I wonder if I can list two essays I'm currently writing for my coursework without mentioning they are actually assignments for the course. The topic of the essays is relevant to the Ph.D. direction I'm applying to.
Also, If I'm currently revising a preprint (which has been listed in 'preprints and publications' section), can I still mention that under 'work in progress' section? I'm thinking about presenting something like:
Work in progress

An essay on [topic A]
An essay on [topic B]
A preprint revision on [topic C]

Does this seem appropriate? Should I be specific in describing those topics? Thanks!

In general, what is on your CV is up to you. But consider what you will say if asked about your "essays" in an interview. It is probably better to be very honest about such things at the start. If those essays were potentially publishable listing them without comment would seem more open. But it is up to you.

Thanks for the answer! Yes I think I might extend those essays after my coursework and prepare to submit them so that's why I don't want to mention its for my class.


text:
Can I apply for a master's degree in Europe after failing one?
I recently completed an intensive, nine-month master's program in physics at a highly-regarded university in the UK. Despite winning a prestigious physics-related prize at the university and performing well in certain modules, I was unable to pass all of my coursework due to time constraints in preparation for exams. These circumstances led to considerable burnout and frustration, so eventually I failed my year of study (and the degree).
I'm aware that this situation would negatively affect my chances of being accepted into a Ph.D. program, as my academic transcripts will be scrutinized and I failed some modules very badly. However, I found the content I studied fascinating and rewarding, and I believe I really need some more time to comprehend and apply those complex concepts. Additionally, the brief duration of the course hindered me from writing a dissertation, which wasn't a requirement, but I would have liked to complete it because I think it would help me to have a better idea of what I want to do for my PhD.
Consequently, I'm considering applying for another master's degree in Europe, also in theoretical physics. However, I've come across information suggesting that some German universities don't accept candidates who are "already in possession of a Master’s
degree in physics or if have lost the entitlement to graduate in such a programme". This has given me pause and led me to wonder about the viability of my plan.
My question, therefore, is whether I can be accepted into another physics master's program in Europe (especially Germany and Switzerland), despite my unsuccessful first attempt. I've seen that some Swiss programs only require a Bachelor's degree in physics (I have a dual Bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics with a very good record in both), but I'm unsure how to navigate the application process given my past experiences. Should I write a reflection on my failure in the current UK program in my application and attempt to persuade them of my potential to succeed in their program?
Thank you in advance for your guidance!

Yes, in general you can apply for other masters programs. However, as you have found out, some universities do have restrictions.
In Germany you have a fixed number of attempts (usually 3) to pass a module. If you failed the exam more than 3 times you are expelled. Modules from other universities are usually counted as well. This means that if you already passed a module at another university it can be counted towards your degree without, but unfortunately if you failed one it will also be counted towards your three attempts and you might even be barred from taking that module again.
I would advise you to contact the university you are interested in. Europe is huge and rules vary a lot, which makes it hard to answer you question in general.
I don't think that a reflection would help you in your application, but I would encourage you to describe your experiences in a positive manner in your cover letter.

Thanks!! I appreciate it :)

The second paragraph (about the situation in Germany) seems to be a bit of an overgeneralization. If the number of attempts is limited and - if yes - by which number, is up to the individual departments of the individual universities to decide. I've also seen (in math) a maximum of three attempts more often than other rules, but saying that it's "usually three" is quite a strong claim without statistical evidence.


text:
Math Phd vs Job Offer (struggling very hard in my mind)
I was offered a math PhD position with full funding by a university in Canada (which is currently on a strike), and I was also offered a position as a math teacher in a quite prestigious high school in Macau. The wage of the school is comparable to the PhD funding in Canada. I am struggling very hard to make a decision, as both positions are not easy to get. (The fully funded PhD positions are very competitive for international students)
Since I am a beginner in the area of academia of math, I am not quite sure what kinds of quality I need to look for in a graduate program to make me more well-prepared to look for a academic position in colleges. The research topics my prospective advisor do match my interest very well, but does the prestige of the school play a very big role also? Or the no. of publications is more important?
Clarification of this will probably help me make my decision.

Welcome, Alan! The direction of your edits is actually making it more likely your question will get closed quicker. Academia SE doesn't do "shopping questions" that ask for consumer feedback on a given school or ask for a menu of options. Instead, we want to help you understand how to make your decisions better. For instance, if you were asking about what to look for to know if your prospective advisor is a good fit (not sure that math programs even start with prospective advisors), or something else tangible that would help you make your decision. Good luck!

These are two very different fields. You have to ask yourself: do you want to be a math teacher or a math researcher? Note that a PhD gears you for research positions. While professors teach, their main duty (at a R1 university) is actually research (this fact is seldom known to undergraduates). Your ability to get a professorship, get tenure, etc. is all based on research. If you are going to go down the PhD track, the choice is for a research-based career. Ask yourself if that's what you want. Choosing a career path based on what you want to do with your life is so much more important than whether a school or department is "prestigious" (which is highly variable depending on the subfield, your adviser, the fellowships/grants you get, etc.).
Caveat: there are positions at 4-year college, i.e. get a PhD and get a position to teach undergraduates.


text:
Can I contact a professor who works on my same work
During my PhD I worked on a specific topic. My thesis is published at my university website. This has been done one year ago. Today, I found that one professor (not my supervisor and not from the same institute. I do not know them personally) give a presentation on a conference about the same idea as mine. Even their future work are the same a my other PhD chapter. They expressed their idea as a novel one. Do I need to contact them? If so, what should I tell them?
I do not know if they know about my thesis or not. Also, my work was built up on existing work. They even do not cite any existing works. I do not know why, but may be they do not know about these works. So I do not suggest any bad thing about them. Just would like to know what should do for this situation.
I respect the professor so much. So again no bad suggestion about her or any one of her group. She may at the beginning of the research and did not update her literature review yet.

The circumstances are not clear. Is this professor from your institution? Your wording suggests that the professor read your thesis and now claims the work as theirs. Do you have evidence for this other than it's on "the same idea"? If the field is active many people may have similar ideas simultaneously. Please provide more detail.

You do not "need" to contact them. The fact that your work was on a university website does not mean that anyone has seen it.
Unless there are subtler clues that they just copied your work, you should treat that work as completely independent of yours.
If you email them, do not express any doubts about their honesty, etc. This would in-any-case terminally alienate them. Rather, say that you have similar interests, as visible in your thesis, which actually obtains some similar results.
Do NOT make any remarks about how your thesis was on-line for a year, and "should have been cited", etc. Things don't really work that way.
Again, most often it's not that people are cheating, but that they have similar ideas, due to similar contexts...

Yes, I agree. I respect them so much. As I said I do not suggest any bad thing about them. They are even better than me as they are professor.

Yes, in general terms it is wise to imagine that people with more experience ...do at least have more experience. But their "elevated status" does not make them perfect, nor necessarily perfectly honorable. But the wise default (lacking other info) is to imagine that they had similar info to what you had, and reached similar conclusions. I've had contrary experiences myself, in fact, but it is pointless (apart from being essentially impossible) to try to "prove" anything. The least stressful approach is to accept a certain amount of chaos and non-sequitur as part of any human activity...

Similar research lines often pop up at similar times, when the tools, mood, and fashions hit favourable winds.
Many good research ideas come, historically, in at least pairs. Unless you have a strong reason to assume that the prof had seen your work, I would not assume that. Start under the assumption of good faith in absence of any evidence to the contrary.
The easiest and most neutral way to let the prof know about your work is a friendly mail such as: Dear Prof. X, I have seen your interesting presentation/paper at Y. I have worked on this topic in my thesis (Alice 2020) [add full reference at the end of your mail], which  you might be interested in - you can obtain it from http://this-is-my-thesis.
You have now told them you did the work. The reference lists the precise time. They cannot in future claim to not know about your work. And, who knows, perhaps you even have a future collaborator.

Sure you can (and should) contact the professor. But you should not accuse them of any misconduct (yet) since, based on your question, it sounds very plausible that they haven't seen your Ph.D. thesis and came up with the same ideas independently (great minds think alike).
You should contact them to make them aware of your thesis. Do not make any specific requests (e.g., that they revise the conference slides to give you credit for prior work, or that they revise any articles in their pipeline to cite your thesis).
Perhaps you may want to look up their university's Dean of Research, or someone with a similar title, and cc them. I wouldn't do it on the first e-mail, but I might cc the department chair, especially if I knew them.

Dear Prof. X,
I became aware of the presentation you gave at a conference X and was surprised by the similarities between your work and my 2019 Ph.D. thesis posted at URL.
Your slide X says X, while my thesis (section X, page X) says X.

Cite all the similarities, omit none, no "etc's", and be as detailed and specific as posisble, and quote the text from your thesis, do not paraphrase or summarize.

You describe idea X as novel, but it is found my thesis (section X, page X, saying X).

I trust that you have found my thesis to be of interest. I hope we can correspond more about X.

Then you wait for their response (or the lack thereof) and proceed accordingly.

The confrontational tone is a reeeeeally bad idea. The "you claim a new idea, but I had the idea in my thesis"... can easily be turned around to "you thought you had a new idea in your thesis, but it is not new..."

thanks. I tried hard to make it sound non-confontational, but obviously could do a better job. How would you rephrase it so if the recipient honestly wasn't aware of the prior work, they would be unlikely to get offended?

As in my answer, something like "I am very interested in your results. I've been thinking about similar things, as in my thesis..." Don't even allude to "priority" or any vague allusions to cheating or whatever. Talk about the stuff, and everything only positive.

Thanks! I like your answer but I'd probably focus more on accomplishing the goal of not letting the recipient claim in the future that he didn't know what the thesis said and when it was published. It's a matter of personal style, I guess.

"was surprised" is almost always a polite way of saying "was upset" and sounds adversarial.

Indeed, the letter writer was both surprised and upset.

@DimitriVulis And you think it is a good idea to start with that? "Surprised and upset" does not mean someone is right. There are cases that are "surprised and upset" that someone else did work before them. Surprised and upset is not a good way to start a conversation unless OP is sure that the other person has plagiarized, and even then, it's important to keep one's cool to keep control over the situation.


text:
How to minimize cheating with open source assignments?
For my computer science programming-based course, I'd like to:
1) host my course and assignments (without solutions) open and free to all (e.g., as public GitHub repos)
but this seems at odds with also wanting to
2) not have to deal with rampant cheating.
Any open source assignments seem to suffer from the problem that a random stranger could do the assignment in her spare time and then post the solution online. So in theory, publicly hosting the assignments has created an avenue for my students to find a free solution.
Hosting my assignments on GitHub lubricates this process because the programming community knows how to click "fork" and any forks are listed right there for future students to browse.
What are recommendations or best practices to find the right balance?
The extremes have clear tradeoffs:
A) go full public. this is easy for me to implement using GitHub, but even students in our classes will have easy access to other students in the same section. I can run/threaten to run MOSS, but students may still try to beat it and that will create a hassle.
versus
B) go full private. I lose all the niceties of the GitHub interfaces, lose my open source freely available and advertised assignments to the larger community and world.

You may also be interested in this question.

As somebody who has, for years, hosted assignments publicly I feel that you are vastly overestimating the threat case here. If all you do is make your assignment and material public on GitHub, it is extremely unlikely that somebody will just browse by, do it out of fun, and then make the solution available to your students.
I often analyse GitHub data as part of my research, and the number of repositories out there is downright staggering, and by far most of them get no traction at all. In order to make a repository visible, quite a bit of active marketing is necessary. If you don't go out of your way to advertise your assignment, and if your assignment is not somehow extremely intriguing so that a random developer would really want to work on it, it is very likely to just sit there, all in the public, without getting any kind of attention at all.
Additionally, even if somebody would solve your assignment and make a solution public, so what? You presumably do some sort of plagiarism check on the solutions your students submit anyway (otherwise, how do you ensure that different students or teams did not copy from each other?) - this is just one more existing solution to compare your student's solution to.
In my experience, by far the most "rampant" type of cheating is student teams copying from each other, and this is really unaffected by how you decided to host your assignment.

+1 from someone else who has posted assignments publicly for decades.  However, I have seen github repositories containing an entire semester's worth of assignment solutions, both for my course and for other courses at my institution, almost certainly written by students taking the course.  The next semesters' students learn about these repos by talking to their friends, who know someone who know someone who know the authors.  Sometimes Rumornet works better than Google.

@JeffE In my university the student union kept big binders with previous assignments and their solution for all mandatory courses - they even advertised this service in introductory classes. Nowadays I silently assume every student knows all assignments from previous years as well as their solutions.

Various organizations at my university used to do the same,  In the days before sites like CourseHero made such paper archives unnecessary.

The answers depends on the purpose of your assignments. If they are "only" meant to be a learning resource (in the sense of "learning by doing") then having the solutions online would only be harmful for those who are cheating. You might still be interested to reduce the chance that this happens, since lazy students might be demotivated to do it on their own by the availability of a solution, but in the end it is their fault.
If the assignments are the basis for grading it is, of course, a little bit more difficult since it might favor cheating students over honest students, but this does not mean that you should not publish assignments. It does, however, usually means that you have to do more work to mitigate the negative effects.

You can modify your actual assignments slightly (but transparently for the students!). Often it is more difficult to understand and modify the code written by someone else than to rewrite it from scratch. The learning effect is nearly the same (of course depending on the amount of required modifications). Guess how many submissions we get where a certain calculation uses a mean instead of a median as requested ;-)
You have already mentioned MOSS, but that is usually only a first step. We do individual interviews about all submitted solutions. While this is very laborious it provides a good opportunity to screen cheaters. I do not say that no cheater was ever able to pass our interviews, but it is usually very clear after a short time if a student has written the code by himself. Also (and even more important in my opinion), an interview should not only be a examination but provides a perfect opportunity to discuss open questions and to give individual support. Often 10 minutes interview seem to teach more than several hours of lecture. If your course is small enough (or you have others who assist you), you should think about this.
As an addition to that, especially in the first semester, our interviews also contain small on-the-spot assignments from time to time. Even if they are only something trivial like adding all numbers from 1 to 100 in a for loop with C, it identifies a fair amount of students without basic learning success and seems to motivate them to work harder in the future.
Usually, our assignments only cover a small percentage of the final grade and the major share is covered by an exam (including tasks with and without the need to write code). This might or might not be applicable in your situation (it is actually a requirement at our university), but it mitigates the influence of cheating during the assignments. As one would expect, the correlation between the points achieved for the assignments and those for the exam is very high, even though there are outliers.
And as others have already mentioned, you have to apply such techniques anyway since cheating is possible in so many other ways, including the help by other students and solutions from students who have taken the course earlier... Even though our assignments are not available at GitHub, there are for example students posting their solutions at GitHub.

In a nutshell, security by obscurity rarely helps and you should rather ask yourself how to make the grading itself as fair as possible.

Your conflict doesn't seem resolvable - at the extremes. On the one hand you want "everyone" to be able to use your posts without restriction. On the other hand you want "bad players" not to use it in ways they determine.
You will need to choose one over the other in this scenario.
For a certain value of money you could host your repository behind a firewall, of course. But you still won't control students having their work done for them on contract. But that assumes your students really do engage in "rampant cheating". I wonder why you believe that. I hope most students are most interested in actual learning if the system isn't so unbalanced that they feel forced to take shortcuts.
You can also organize the course so that you interact with the students frequently enough that bad behavior becomes less useful to them and more visible to you.

For a certain value of money — Github offers unlimited free private repositories to academic users.

@JeffE, I was speaking of the Enterprise Level, of course. Which is intended for more controlled distribution within organizations.


text:
How to keep discussions with supervisor on interest?
I am a Master's student. I have one problem. I have regular meetings with my research supervisor, but during the discussions he takes me in the wrong direction. This often leads to him coming to the wrong conclusions about my work.
For example, he will read half of a statement and try to conclude something (wrong) from that half statement. I try to correct him but he doesn't listen. So far I have not seen any benefits for my research. How can I deal with this situtation? I know it is research and some times we need to go in the wrong direction.

Typical professor behaviour, attention span of a four-year-old, and once they think they've got it, they start talking. ;-) Write differently, so it is always clear the statement isn't finished. Don't be afraid to write long sentences. People tell you to make sentences short not because that's better understandable, but because it makes them feel, in comparison, smarter.

This is a partial strategy, but I realized it's more an answer than a comment. I'm sure others will have very useful strategies for this all-too-common problem.
You could phrase it as "yes, and..." rather than correcting. "Yes, that's an interesting angle: I thought about that too and then I realized X. So then I [details getting back on track.]" Not saying it'll work, but this may be a way to bring him back with you into the active part of the problem-solving space.
Also, if you can have a one page overview/agenda that previews the path you've taken, that might be easier to get him to follow along with and prevent misconceptions. Also, perhaps have two or three clear questions written at the bottom of the one-page agenda, so he gets a chance to weigh in on something new, and you get a chance to get his clear feedback on something you need to know. (Then email an update with a revised agenda attached, with "Thanks for talking about this! I've added my notes about what we talked about today, for reference.")

I will be blunt:

Take control and push the discussion where you want.  The collaborative approach is not going to work.  Redirect the guy hard.  Don't worry about it.  Just do it.  Wasting time is a crime and this guy is wasting it.  And you are wasting his if you are not doing a little hammer and tongs and just letting him blather.  (Wo)Man up.
If you still don't get anything useful from the guy, you may just need need to do your own Ph.D. and not bother with meetings.  Or ignore them if required.  I did my whole Ph.D. on my own.  My instructor had very little contribution.  He was busy editing journals and getting grants.  I drove my ship.
The only bad spot is if he stops you from doing what you want to do.  But realize you have a lot of passive aggressive power.  You are the one in lab.  Do the experiment, you want to do.  Don't worry about what the old man said.  Don't debate it.  Just do what you want.
In the back of your mind, listen to what he says and in the 10% of the time there is something useful, use it.  Remember my prof wanting something (showing molecules versus atoms for a spectroscopy experiment) in a written research statement requirement of Ph.D. (not the thesis, but a written project required in this uni).  I had a mega cool topic, but kind of hard to believe, very innovative.  So I took him up and found a bit of what he wanted and it totally took care of some objections and made the thing look more like a natural extension than a wacky idea.  That said, there were a lot of times he wanted time spent on experiments that were a waste or not to do stuff that I wanted to do.  And when I listened to him it was a waste (or I missed a Science paper).  And when I did what I wanted, it worked better.  Other students were much more deferential to him and it was not to their benefit.

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


text:
Should I enroll in a PhD program if I feel like I might master out later?
Here is my current situation: I am a physics student completed my undergrad degree at a US university last year. I got accepted to their PhD program and deferred a year to come to a UK university to complete a 9-month master's program. I have decided to accept my undergrad university's offer and come back there later this year.
However, in my current master's program, I have been studying a different field of physics. Despite the difficulties and challenges I have faced, I find myself genuinely intrigued by this field. In fact, it has become more captivating to me than the alternative of returning to my undergraduate university, where there are no professors conducting research in this particular area.
So I'm feeling hesitant about whether it's a good idea to come back and start my PhD right away for two reasons: one is the possibility that I want to shift my research interest later, and the other is I don't feel I'm quite happy living in the same environment I have stayed for 5 years of undergrad study.
I know it might be unethical if I change my mind now and not coming back. In fact, I think I would like to come back and give myself a bit more time to try if I like the research there or not. However, at this point, I feel like there is a chance I might be mastering out and reapplying for a PhD in a different field later. I don't know if this is the right feeling for an incoming PhD student, because I heard many people said that one should be fully committed and engaged because this will be helpful for productive research. Another question is if I eventually decide to master out and apply for PhD in another field at another university, will that be bad in terms of my application if it shows I have two master's degrees?

@Anonymous M Thanks for the comment! Yes, and I also rephrased a bit.

Personal circumstances change. So, it is OK to choose a different direction at any time --- even after you start.
Regarding PhD and changing research field afterward:
Well, that is not always trivial. You worked several years on a subject and became an expert in this field of research.
Depending on how popular your preferred field is, finding a post-doc or assistant professor job in a different field can be difficult as other people who worked in this area before will have an advantage.
If you already know that the 'other' field is more interesting, then pursue this one. Luckily, most academics or institutes are very professional and have dozens or thousands of students. So, nobody will hold a grudge against you if that's a worry.


text:
Will studying for another master's degree in a PhD program be bad for my future PhD applications?
I am a physics student who completed my bachelor's degree at a US university last year. I got accepted into their PhD program and deferred a year to come to a UK university to complete a 9-month master's program. I have decided to accept my undergrad university's offer and join their PhD program later this year.
Though I'm excited to return, my interests have shifted to a different field (field B) compared to what I initially mentioned in my PhD application (field A). However, no professors at the university specialize in field B. I'm currently taking classes in field B during my master's program and have realized I need to deepen my knowledge in certain physics and math modules to better prepare for studying it. My plan is to return to the PhD program, strengthen my foundations, potentially master out, and then reapply to other PhD programs.
Here are the reasons I think I want to return to my undergrad university:

I don't have any other PhD offers at the moment.
Taking a gap year crossed my mind, but securing a relevant internship as an international student is tough.
The coursework in my master's program is quite challenging, and there's a risk of ending up with a transcript reflecting poor grades. I believe I can have better academic performance if I return to my undergrad university.

But I'm wondering if this plan is feasible and if having two master's degrees in physics might negatively impact my future PhD applications to other universities.
Thanks for the help!

What do you mean by the different fields? Both subfields of the same overall field? In other words, covered by the same university department, or completely different?

@Buffy Thanks for the comment! A and B are both subfields in physics, but they don't overlap. B is completely new to me, but I found it really interesting during my master's degree.

No, having two masters won't be a negative, but it won't really be a big positive either, especially if you return to your undergrad university. They accepted you with no masters at all. The rest is gravy.
Universities tend to treat subfield choices as tentative as long as they are covered by the same department. But a switch from math to physics, for example, would almost certainly require a separate application.
But if the switch of fields is within a single department, such as physics, you will have plenty of opportunity to catch up within the program, not needing an additional degree.
US doctorates normally start with advanced coursework leading to comprehensive qualifying exams. Choice of a dissertation advisor and a subfield normally comes later. An additional masters may not get you closer to passing exams, depending on its structure.
I'd guess you would do best by just getting started as early as possible.
You could, of course, ask the university whether there is any impediment to such a field change and what the implications might be. I'd guess that there are few issues.

Thanks! By 'getting started as early as possible', do you mean getting started in the qualifying exams?

Starting the program,actually.

Thank you! If I am considering master out from my incoming PhD program and pursue a different PhD afterward, should I inform the department as soon as I join their PhD?

You sound like you are mixing economic stabilitiy issues with your own personal egos (your research interests). Is either one or the other, I'd say go to your already accepted PhD program and do what they say finish asap get a job and then when you become senior you might have the chance to follow your 'interests'. anyways is good that you have realized your interests, save it and use it later


text:
Is it possible to do two PhDs in physics in two distinct subfields?
I'm aware that the idea of undertaking two separate PhDs has been widely discussed in this forum, with the general consensus advising against it. However, I'm specifically interested if it's possible to pursue two PhDs in physics in distinct subfields at a US/UK university, assuming I have a genuine desire to specialize in both fields.
Here's my background:
As a current master's student on the verge of completing my program, I'm gearing up to embark on my PhD journey later this year at the same institution where I completed my undergraduate studies. My initial specialization will be in Field A, a subject I've had the pleasure of exploring for the past three years under the guidance of my professor.
However, during my master's program, I was introduced to Field B. I've found this area to be incredibly fascinating, perhaps even more so than Field A. Unfortunately, it's currently challenging for me to delve into Field B due to my lack of background in many mathematical areas. I think I'm only confident to start my PhD in Field A at this moment.
Moreover, my undergraduate institution lacks professors conducting research in Field B, which further complicates matters. This has led me to contemplate the possibility of pursuing a second physics PhD in Field B upon completing the program I'm about to begin in Field A.
I'm also aware that there are individuals who have managed to transition between different areas of interest in physics post-PhD, sidestepping the need for a second degree by opting for postdoctoral studies. However, considering the significant distinction between Fields A and B, I'm uncertain about the practicality of such a route in my case.

As you say, we have already discussed why doing two PhDs is usually the wrong answer. In your case, it seems like you're really asking about the best way to switch to Field B, so maybe check out: (How) Can I switch from field X to field Y after getting my PhD?

Also, in future, please do not repost closed questions. If you disagree with the closure, you should post on [meta].

It is very unlikely to find an institution in the US that will allow you to obtain a degree in the same field again. If you are interested in both fields A and B and absolutely insist on being trained in both, then you need to find an institution that can support you in both fields. If you publish in Physics A and in Physics B, then you could/would be considered an expert in both, regardless of your thesis.
Life involves making choices and each choice closes possibilities. You should ask what you can do with both Physics A and Physics B. If you find a good answer to this, then you probably have found a way to make this come true in your life. If you cannot come up with a good answer then you just need to decide.

Thanks very much! :)

Even if it were allowable, I don't see why it would be desirable. I'm a public policy phd student, but at day's end this is a masquerade. I'm really an econometrician who uses public policy to ask and attempt to answer interesting questions. I have multiple interests, yet I cannot specialize in all of them. So, I network. I have contacts... Sounds like you need coworkers in these different fields you're interested in. I'll explain.
I have friends who are in criminology. So, when I wanna do a crim paper, I work with them. When I wanna do meta-analysis, I work with my coworkers who do that. When I wanna do razor's edge econometrics work, I work with my friends/other colleagues in 'metrics. In other words, even if you don't become The Ultimate Brain in both subfields you do like, you can still both study and do very meaningful work in all these fields. Presumably physics is slightly different due to structural reasons, but the basic principles I speak of should still apply.

Thanks so much!!


text:
Should I Inform My PhD Program About Not Completing My Master's Degree Due to Personal Challenges?
I recently started my PhD studies at the same university where I completed my undergraduate degree in the US. After finishing my undergraduate studies, I was accepted into both the PhD program at my university and a master’s program at a prestigious university in the UK. My university allowed me to defer my PhD admission for a year to complete the master’s program.
However, during my time in the master’s program, I faced significant challenges. The course load and exam pressures were more intense than I anticipated, and during this period, my father passed away from cancer, which required me to return home and handle related matters. Due to these circumstances, I wasn’t able to pass all my exams and did not earn the master’s degree.
After taking some time to recover and refocus on my academic path, I have now returned to my undergraduate university to begin my PhD studies. I’ve resumed working with a professor I collaborated with before, and my research is progressing well. However, I have not informed the department that I did not complete my master’s degree or about the challenges I faced. My question is whether I should let them know about not obtaining the master’s degree. The PhD enrollment does not require a master's degree, and there are no formal paperworks for my deferral. My current plan is to concentrate on my studies and research for now and, when I feel ready, find an appropriate time to discuss this with them. Does that seem like a reasonable approach?
An Additional Note: I appreciate the answers and comments to my question. My intention is to inform the department of my circumstances after completing the first semester. I'm hopeful that strong outcomes from this term's courses and a positive evaluation of my research performance from my supervisor will demonstrate my capability and readiness to excel in my current program.

You really need to clarify, as requested below, whether acceptance into the PhD program was contingent upon you successfully completing the masters program.

@A rural reader No. It is not contingent upon I complete the masters program. If I do not disclose then people will assume I have passes all the exam. I want to disclose these after I complete the subject exams at my current university at the end of first semester.

I'm so sorry about the death of your father; it's completely understandable that a trauma like that would have gotten in the way of working and studying.

@Greg Martin Thanks so much for this comment! I appreciate it :)

It is unlikely in the US, but if your acceptance into the doctoral program was specifically contingent on finishing the masters, then, yes, you need to inform them.
But, as a masters is seldom required to begin doctoral studies in the US, I think that scenario is unlikely. You should be able to determine that from the information you were given in the deferment documents.
I'd guess you are fine. You still need to complete all doctoral program requirements, including the (likely) qualifying exams and the coursework that may be needed to do so.
Good luck in your studies.

Since your initial offer to the PhD program came before you'd decided to go with the masters (and since admissions have not requested proof of your masters certificate) it seems that the issue is not whether or not you should be on the program, but rather whether or not it is the right thing to do personally/professionally to let your supervisors or department know.
I think your plan to 'to concentrate on my studies and research for now and, when I feel ready, find an appropriate time to discuss this with them' is perfectly reasonable. You have every right to be on the program with or without a masters, and if I were you I would only reveal this information if you think doing so would be important for receieving extra support from the department, or something akin.
Side point - If you feel concerned that you might struggle with the PhD in the same way as with the masters then it might help to talk to someone about your concerns either way, and mentioning your previous experience would make sense.

You said that your acceptance into the Ph.D. program was not contingent upon the completion of your M.Sc., so you are not breaking any rules.
That being said, it may be a good idea to let him know, though. It would show honesty and prevent an unpleasant surprise in the future if he finds out by accident.
If you are honest with him, he may help you avoid the same issues during your Ph.D., while discovering that you hid this from him may create understandable distrust in the future and make him hesitant to help you build your career.

I think it’s reasonable to concentrate on your current work and address the issue when you’re in a stronger position.

This is terrible advice. If there is an actual issue with admitting without the degree, hiding the facts will not help at all when it is found out - it will only make it worse. If there is no issue, then there is no harm in bringing it up. If there is an issue, then, when disclosed up front, the department may be OK waiving the requirement for the degree but may add additional requirements (courses, masters thesis, ...) that they might not have insisted on otherwise.

@JonCuster "there is no harm in bringing it up" - I disagree. Firstly I think it's unlikely that their acceptance to the PhD was contingent on passing the masters, since they were initially accepted directly into the PhD. But there is often no benefit to disclosing these sorts of issues, and a risk of (unfairly) being judged negatively for being unable to overcome these struggles.

@llama - fair enough, but the OP has to be completely sure there are no requirements (or, really, even any expectations) of the department and university where they are now pursuing their PhD. And, appearing to hide potentially bad news is not a good look at all - trust lost is really hard to regain.

@JonCuster yeah I agree, it depends on the specific context. Hiding it or lying by omission and letting everyone assume you've passed it is no good, but if someone doesn't know to start with I personally wouldn't inform them. Let your current performance speak for itself.

I hope your PhD is not in game theory.
There are only two possibilities: either your department’s awareness of the situation will harm you in some fashion, or it won’t.
Let’s take the second case first.  If you disclose the situation to them, then as we assumed, you are no worse off.
If you do not disclose, you may have gained a slight amount of personal privacy, but think about what you might lose.  Imagine 10 years from now, you attract some amount of controversy for whatever reason, and your agonists dig into your past, accuse you of dishonesty.  Now, you are in a position of proving a hypothetical: the department would not have care, if they knew. So why did you not tell them?  It’d be a mess.
However, perhaps there is some automatic downside to your department becoming aware of the situation.
If you tell them, you have at least some control of the situation.  You can explain the very reasonable backstory, and do so at time where they are inclined to listen.
If you don’t tell them and they find out for themselves, you are doubly screwed: you didn’t finish your Master’s and you tried to conceal it from them.  Your academic career is over.
The only good outcome is if they never find out — and how likely is that?  It’s not like an extramarital affair or a drug addiction, problems that can be concealed, given enough diligence and care.  Your academic history is public record.  The registrar’s office of the first university will answer any query about your degree immediately and they will be considered completely authoritative.
Plus, your academic history is a perfectly fit topic for conversation.  What are you going to do if you try to hide the fact that you dropped out, and your thesis adviser asks you some harmless question premised on your having completed the degree?  Lie?  Blurt out the truth?


text:
Can I add hyperlink in the personal statement document?
I'm an undergraduate student studying physics and I'm applying to graduate programs in both the U.S. and the U.K. In my personal statement, I tried to explain the research I'm doing and I included the titles of my publications. I wonder can I add the corresponding URL links to the text in my PDF (I've done that on my resume)? I don't know if the admission committee would like that or not, but I didn't find any relevant requirements about that on their website (they only included the length requirement, and what content I should incorporate). Any suggestion is appreciated :)

Why not provide them as regular citations?

You can certainly add hyperlinks to your documents. However, when you add a hyperlink to a document like a personal statement or a resume, always assume it is not clicked. Three reasons for this:

First of all, perhaps somebody missed the fact that there is a link at all. A blue highlighted word or a symbol might not be clear. If you do it, make sure that it is clear that there is a link
Second, some people still like to print stuff they are reading. Hyperlinks don't work very well when they are on a printed document.
People are busy. They could feel like opening yet another document feels like a hassle and don't bother.

So, what you should do is to make sure the document you provide is self-sufficient, without the reader needing to know the contents of the link. Assume they will not read it so prepare your document for that fact.

Next point, an URL might be a token, telling you that the link was clicked. Sometimes people do not want you to know, who, where, and when is looking at your document, esp. somewhere around HR.

I feel this is just a tiny bit too harsh. You are avoiding giving an answer to the question, but you seem to strongly implicitly suggest that the answer is no, while you clearly put an effort into not dismissing that the answer may be yes. While I completely agree with everything you said, I disagree with what you didn't say, but implied. In my opinion, the answer is "Yes, add them, but more important, strongly consider [Jeroen's points]"

@OlegLobachev Not to mention that every IT department everywhere would strongly, and repeatedly forbid employees to click on links sent by people external to the organization. These security IT policies are utterly dismissed by the vast majority of employees everywhere, but one has to work under the assumption that they are not.

@Andrei I think you are assuming something that isn't there. I am not avoiding answering the question or implying something. I focused on the (in my opinion more relevant) considerations only, leaving it up to IGY to do with this as they feel they should. But you are right in that I forgot to put a clear yes/no in my answer.

I'd add 4: It's not clear that the links will still be there, in whatever the admissions committee ends up reading. For example, in my department we get a single merged PDF with everything in the candidate's file. If there were any links in the original personal statement, I'm not sure they would still be present in what we get.