text:
Is it safe to use up all the words available in a word count limit when submitting a journal article?
Let's say that a journal article submission wordcount limit is 10,000 words. Does this mean that only really awesome or important submissions should be over 9,500 words? Or any article can be at 9,999 without predisposing the editors against it?

If you have 9,000 words, do not try to add new words only to get closer to the limit.
If you have 9,999 words, do not remove words merely to get further from the limit.
Submit no more than 10,000 words unless you ask permission (sometimes there is flexibility in the word count, sometimes not).

In summary, use the limit as given and don't concern yourself with gaming the system beyond that.
These sorts of strategies and games might have a place in standardized testing but they don't have much place in research.

I'm sure someone may say, "depends on the paper" or "the discipline". However, generally speaking, these limits are guidelines to prevent the submission and processing of articles that just do not fit the parameters of the journal. So don't go over (without permission, there may be a bit of leeway).
However, no editor is going to say, "this could be a good article, but it's too close to the limit, so I spike it." If it's potentially publishable, it will go to peer review. And then be treated per the results of the peer review.
If your paper is too wordy for its content and importance, the peer reviews may be less good and the editor is more likely to pass on it. You should also expect peer reviews may point to sections which are too detailed or superfluous, or -- more likely -- highlight areas you should augment. You will then have to fight how to create space for the revisions requested, what to cut out, or plead for extra space. So by and large, if a journal's limit is n words, I would hesitate to try to place an article there where my first submitted draft was more than 0.9 n, say, just because I expect difficulties further on. And I would be doubly careful if I ended up at 9,999 vs a limit of 10,000 after careful chiseling already, since I've never had a minor revisions or revise-and-resubmit that didn't end up growing the paper at least a bit.
I'd be a bit more careful with journals that say "typical papers are n words, but exceptionally up to m > n words". They are telegraphing that their limits are flexible for the right paper, but it had better be something special if you're at m-1 with your submission. That being said, exceptions can always be made. My spouse, not in my field, has anchored an author team that got a highly important systematic review published in a special issue all on its own of a fairly important journal since the paper's required length to be comprehensive required more pages than the journal's typical single issue, never mind single paper. And I've seen important research papers in my old field, math, that have been split into 2 or 3 somewhat arbitrarily chosen subarticles due to the length, and then all published in a specific top journal. But that's rare.


text:
How to order and divide up "Invited journal articles", "Journal articles", and "Conference articles" on a CV?
I recently presented a paper at a conference, and it appeared in the proceedings of the conference. I have now been invited to submit an extended version of the paper to a special issue of a journal. This issue will contain the top papers from the conference (but not all papers that appeared in the proceedings). This is relatively common practice in my field of computer science.
I already have listed some journal articles on my CV that were submitted without invitation and accepted. Assuming this most recent article is accepted to the journal special issue, would it make sense to divide my publications list into 'invited' and 'regular' papers?
Specifically, I am considering two options for headings:

"Invited journal articles", "Journal articles", "Conference articles" (i.e. split up)
"Journal articles", "Conference articles" (i.e. leave combined)

Possible duplicate of How should I cite an invited paper?

How is that a duplicate? The linked question is about citing an invited paper in a research article, not about how to list it in a CV.

Citation and listing things on a CV are quite similar, but I see your point. The title of the question also seems to have been edited, which makes it less like the one I found.

I'm not in computer science, so I'm not sure if these three headings would be a standard everyone adheres to. Still, generally speaking, you have some freedom in how to organize a CV. However, splitting a section into two doesn't look great if you don't have enough stuff to put under the new headings. Instead of making a new heading for a single invited journal article, I would suggest leaving it as one section, and marking articles to highlight noteworthy aspects (e.g. invited, won best paper award, featured on cover page, etc.).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it okay to cite the same source in two consecutive sentences?
I am writing a paper (about the usage of renewable energies) and I have the following sentences:
"In 2016, wind and PV contributed about 12% of Europe's electricity supply [SOURCE1]. A study carried out by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission concludes that a tripling of this contribution is needed in order to reach the 2030 target [SOURCE1]"
Is it okay to cite SOURCE1 in two consecutive senteces. I am talking about naming the source. Or is it more advisable to use the source information only once at the end of the second sentence like:
"
In 2016, wind and PV contributed about 12% of Europe's electricity supply. A study carried out by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission concludes that a tripling of this contribution is needed in order to reach the 2030 target [SOURCE1]
"
I appreciate your input. Thanks in advance.

How big is SOURCE1?  If it is more than a few pages, cite not only SOURCE1, but also the page number (or another way to find that spot  without reading the whole paper).  Then, of course, use separate reference if the reference it for different pages.

You might look into "ibid." and "loc. cit."  Although I rarely see them used in my field (mathematics), they were quite popular with English teachers when I was in high school and college. So I conjecture they're approved by style guides.

Is it ok from an academic point of view? Absolutely. It is never wrong to cite a source that you use. However, it might be "wrong" from an flow-of-the-text point of view. I would sidestep the issue by just reformulating the two sentences. Something along the following lines would perhaps resolve your problem:
"As noted in [SOURCE1], wind and PV contributed about 12% of Europe's electricity supply in 2016. That study, carried out by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, concludes that a tripling of this contribution is needed in order to reach the 2030 target."
or even
"As noted by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, wind and PV contributed about 12% of Europe's electricity supply in 2016 [SOURCE1]. There, it is concluded that a tripling of this contribution is needed in order to reach the 2030 target."

I would say it is absolutely acceptable to cite the sources like in your example. From the stylistic point of view, a number of people take references to be annotations which are not supposed to interact with the grammar, in the sense that they are not grammatically part of the sentence, thus repeating a reference is not like frequent usage of a single word or phrase.
While @Phil's suggestion is great for the cases where your claims can be reformulated, sometimes that is not possible, in which case your suggested style is the way to go. In the following example, reference [1] is first used as a general, survey reference, and in the following sentence to back a specific technique explored as part of the survey along with some other examples, so wrapping it up to a single mention would not be practical.

The first step the process of fruity entertainment process is typically fruit juggling [1]. Most commonly employed tools are various tropical fruits such as mango [1], pineapple [2] and papaya [3].
[1] B. I. G. Authority: Survey of fruity entertainment strategies.
[2] P. Ine-Apple: Advances in fruity entertainment through the use of pineapple.
[3] P. Apaya: The importance of tropical fruit for fruity entertainment.

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


text:
Is it okay to let body text follow immediately after intermediate level headings?
Let's say we have a thesis/scientific paper with a sectioning depth of three [chapter, section, subsection]. I already often wondered:
Is it okay to have text outside of the lowest level, i. e. subsections?
For instance giving the introduction to / overview of a chapter is that done right after the chapters headline (or sections headline) or in the first subsection appearing in the same chapter?

What does the style guide of your target publication say?

Is it okay — To whom?  It's certainly fine with me, but why should my opinion matter?

For what it’s worth, there are also people who hold the opinion that there must be some text between, e.g., a section header and a subsection header.

If you'd looked at other theses in your institution (they're all in the library) or other papers in the venue you intend to publish in, you would have found your answer immediately.

I like both answers, just one remark: Please, don't create solitaires, i.e., subsections that don't have a sibling.

In my view, it is perfectly acceptable. It often helps readability, and logically it makes sense (a good example is the "introduction before subsections" that you cited).
That said, some people hate it, and I have already encountered referees who wanted me to change it. I haven't been able to infer a reasonable motivation up to now, so I would be interested in reading arguments in its favor.
Academic papers typically have no table of contents, so there is even less motivation for enforcing a strict tree-like structure.

Approval. I have read publications that felt like their main contents were introductions. After two pages my only though was: "bring it on". One surely should still focus on the content and add an  introduction only if absolutely necessary.

From my point of view, the answer to your question depends on the content that you refer to by introduction and overview as well as the actual number of sub-sections to a respective level. I consider a sub-section to be an actual subsection as stated in your question as well as a section within a chapter.
The actual content should always be placed within the respective sub-section. Sectioning is supposed to help a reader finding content of interest fast.
Kind of Introduction
Depending what you aim to introduce (specialties of a method vs. a rather general field of study), the introduction should be placed within or outside of the sub-section.
Kind of Overview
Usually, I would expect an overview to be outside of the specific sub-sections of content. One may say, that an overview works out to be the same as an introduction to a rather general field of study, cf. Kind of Introduction.
Number of Sub-sections
The more different sub-sections you have with regard to a level, the more important I find an overview to interrelate these. Since I do not know which sub-sections to read a-priori, I expected an overview that sketches and relates the entire content right after the chapter/section heading. Depending on how interrelated the topics in your sub-sections actually are, this introduction/overview may be longer or shorter.

+1 for the introduction before the subsections in your answer. :)

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


text:
What does it mean when a manuscript submission systems lists the status of a paper as "Archived"?
I submitted a paper in journal. After one day status is Archived. What is meaning of it? I did't get any communication information. Thanks.

My first guess about the meaning of "archived" would be that the existence of your paper has been recorded in the journal's database, but nothing else has been done with it.

Ok ..... It means it will consider late on ?? Thanks ....

@Andreas Blass i mailed to editor but no reply even after 5 days. Now what can I do?

My best guess is that the editor is unavailable at the moment --- sick or traveling or on vacation or ... --- so the journal's administrative staff is just holding on to the paper until the editor returns.

It is frustrating. It has also happened to me. There is no communication from the journal.

This will depend on what system the journal is using, what processes the editors are following, what that editor in question was thinking that day, and maybe other factors.
Point being that there is no way for you -- or in fact, anyone -- to know for sure. You have two choices:

Ask the editor.
Have patience.

I would suggest the second. You will get a notification in due time when someone has made a decision. You can also look up what turn-around time the journal strives for (say, 3 months) and then round about that time email the editor if you haven't heard back until then. But after just a single day, the only reasonable answer is: Have patience!

I mailed to editor but no reply even after 5 days. Now what can I do?

Now what? Go to step 2: have patience.  If there is no change after a month, then take further action.

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


text:
Is it appropriate to show that a conference paper is prestigious by comparing the conference rejection rate to that of Science and Nature?
I have a paper accepted as an oral presentation at a conference that has an acceptance rate of 3.5 %. My field is computer vision and the conference is CVPR, the largest and most important international conference. In my field, conferences, rather than journals, are the main publication medium.
In a cover letter I am writing, I want to reinforce how prestigious it is to have such a paper accepted, especially to a non-expert audience. Now, I know that Science / Nature have acceptance rates of around 7%, so I was thinking of writing something like the following:
"I recently had a paper accepted as an oral presentation at CVPR, at an acceptance rate of 3.5 %, which is half that of the Science and Nature journals."
Does this read well? Or does it sound arrogant? And is putting this in context with Science and Nature necessary, or is the acceptance rate itself ok on its own?
Thanks!

My immediate reaction to this is "No. Just.... no."

Haha! Fair enough...is that because it sounds arrogant / contrived?

But surely folks in your area (presumably related to the jobs that you are writing said cover letter for) will know what CVPR is?

No they will not. It is a very general panel, who do not work even in computer science, let alone computer vision. They will be chemical engineers, mechanical engineers, civil engineers... They will never have even heard of CVPR before.

Acceptance rates do not tell the whole story. Most researchers have a rough idea of what to submit and what not to submit to Nature/Science.

I think it might be a good idea to mention the low acceptance rate, but omit the comparison to Science and Nature. Let them figure that part out themselves. Many engineers will have no idea that conferences are highly regarded in computer science, or that some conferences have low acceptance rates (I work with engineers).

I agree with @Significance: your best bet is probably just to put the acceptance rate in brackets, as in "oral presentation at CVPR (acceptance rate 3.5%)". Comparing it to Science or Nature just makes you sound like a twit, which is probably not the impression you want to give. (Separately though, congratulations on getting an oral at CVPR - I work in the field, so I know that it's a big deal.)

For the record, the reason it would make you sound like a twit is not so much to do with arrogance, and more to do with giving the impression that in not having the Science or Nature paper that you appear to really, really want, you're having to resort to convincing yourself that your actual accomplishment is even better. That comes across not as arrogance but as insecurity, in a context in which your actual accomplishment is cool and should be providing you with sufficient reassurance that you're a good researcher. Getting a CVPR oral is cool (and difficult), it's not a consolation prize :)

No, or this is the best journal ever.

Notice that in general acceptance rate isn't, taken singularly, a good indicator of high/low quality; it is just the ratio between accepted papers and submitted papers. If most submissions to a journals are of very low level, that makes it a low level journal. On the other hand, if most submissions to one particular journal are very high level, that makes the journal high level too.

I recall a press release (can't find a link now) about a newly opened Wal Mart.  The associate selection rate was claimed to be lower than Harvard's undergrad selection rate.  Whether the claim is true or not, it is certainly plausible to me.

If your audience is a non-expert, even saying an acceptance rate of 10% has almost no meaning.  You are better off saying ... a paper accepted in the leading conference on X.

I am a CS researcher and I know the reputation of CVPR conference.
Please see the following situations:

People submit to Science/Nature journals when they see that their work is highly qualitative and could give a high level of contribution to the scientific world. It is not like someone does a small thing and submits. So, if 1000 papers are submitted to journals like this and only 450 gets accepted then, the acceptance rate is far high.
However, similar case as above does not happen in conferences. Anyone can submit anything, even if it is a small contribution.

Please remember, it is NOT WISE to compare conference with such journals. Journals are far better than conferences given the amount of contribution you may find in the published works.

Anyone can submit anything, even if it is a small contribution. -- That may be true in principle, and even in practice at CVPR, but conferences in other parts of computer science see a lot of self-selection, exactly for the reasons you ascribe to the tabloids.

Journals are far better than conferences -- ...in many fields, but not all.

I agree if we see the h-index of few conferences are far better than journals in the same field. yes @JeffE

It has nothing to do with h-indices.  In many subfields of computer science, conferences are the primary publication venue, and journals are simply viewed as less important or not important at all.

Yes, they are the primary publication venue because the peer-review results from journals are very slow. But, conferences provide you quick (at least not longer than journals) feedback on your work.@JeffE

And, I don't agree with your saying In many subfields of computer science, conferences are the primary publication venue, and journals are simply viewed as less important or not important at all. @JeffE

Taken on its own, the acceptance/rejection rate is not particularly useful as a measure of quality or "prestige" since journals often also differ by the average quality of submissions they receive.  In theory, it would be entirely possible to have a journal that receives such a large volume of low-quality submissions that even with a low acceptance rate it still publishes a lot of garbage.  Similarly, it is possible to have a journal that receives such high quality submissions that even with a high acceptance rate it still publishes only high-quality paper.
Of course, this does not mean that the acceptance/rejection rate is useless in conveying information.  It just means that you are missing another piece of information that pairs with this metric.  For this reason, I recommend you remove your comparison to Science and Nature.  It is not so much that this sounds arrogant, but it shows a lack of appreciation for the fact that these latter journals tend to attract high quality papers from across many scientific fields.  It is likely that these journals have a higher baseline of submission quality than a conference proceeding, which means that their higher acceptance rate may still reflect a higher quality requirement for publication.


text:
How to protect your unpublished ideas?
My advisor introduced a new student in my work saying that I am doing X,Y,Z and he will be doing A,B,C. I was asked to explain X and share all the data, results, reports, all related publications etc   to enable the student to do A,B,C. Once I have explained him X, Y, and shared my data and future plans, he changed/abandoned his directions and submits a paper with another lab collaborator and my advisor on my key idea X without even letting me know anything. After somehow finding it, I politely asked them about it. They were apologetic and both these students agreed through email exchanges that it was not their work and that they should have credited me. They also agreed that this should not have happened after a little confrontation.
I know, my advisor is fully aware of the whole situation, and this was done deliberately. I am not able get out of this whole situation for a long time.  Taking a fight with my advisor or the students is not an option. How would you all handle this situation effectively? How can you protect your ideas that are unpublished but you have been asked /instructed to share with others? Even I have experienced situation where the supervisor himself misuse and steals student work without giving credit to the student who did it. So a tough question is, how do you protect your ideas from being stolen by your advisor?

Something does not feel right with your question. How you work on your idea and just by telling this idea to the other students, they were able to publish faster? What were you doing in the meanwhile?

I was targeting a journal ( that is hard, needed regor and has high impact factor) and the students submitted it to a easy conference. I was out for attending two conference for over a month and in my absence ...

Sounds like you have a fantastic advisor. Find another, and do it fast.

2 years ago you had the same problem. You should have changed advisor then. On the other hand, you seem to over believe in your idea, without any real proof (only talk by your advisor and no publications). If your idea was that good, why did they publish in an easy conference? Makes no sense. Your previous post said you had this idea for 2 years. Why have not you published anything for two years? If an idea is that good, waiting to publish for 3 years is silly, because it is enough time for someone to come up with a similar idea and scoop you...(continued)

...In those type of situations there is only one solution. Wrap up your idea soon (e.g. one month from now), select a journal that allows preprints uploaded on Arxiv (e.g. Springer, ACM, Elsevier) upload to Arxiv and concurrently submit to the journal. Even if you get a rejection, Arxiv establishes your priority. Of course, you must now probably cite the other works of your "advisor" referring to your idea.

How to protect your unpublished ideas? — Publish them.

Taking a fight with my advisor or the students is not an option. How would you all handle this situation effectively? — Have a direct conversation (not "fight") with your advisor.  If that does not resolve the situation to your satisfaction, change advisors immediately, even if that means moving to a different country.

Could it be that even though you came out up with idea X, you are unable or the incorrect person to execute on X?  Hence, your advisor decided to get another student to do it to give the idea life as soon as possible; i.e., supervisor wants to be credited for it regardless of which student does it.  If that's the case, then there is nothing much you can do about it.   The key is to have plenty of ideas and move on.  And yes, I agree with the others, change supervisor.

Use the internet and a third-party hosting site (not affiliated with you) that keeps track of date and time for every file or page your write (preferably one that also backs up data).  The material must be available in some way (if anyone knows how to get to it), but this does not have to be advertised in any way.  Tell at least one trusted friend that understands your work it`s location.
In this way your material remains practically invisible, but time-stamped like a research log. As it is a neutral, 3rd-party site, it should be usable as evidence in your favor.  As the material was put on the web, viewed by others, it is citable and, in theory, has been published to some limited degree.

Are there any specific websites/services that are typically used for this ?

Obviously your idea is not 'protected' as someone else might have the same idea and/or a subset of that, and make a publication/patent out of it before you do; and you can't claim that the person stole it through your brain waves!
Write down the introduction and background to that idea you have, and prove that it is your contribution through case studies and evaluations, and submit it to be published in a conference as a poster or a paper.

At least here in Chile (and I suspect elsewhere isn't so different) your work for a degree belongs to the school. There is nothing "yours" to protect, legally. And morally, your work was instigated and supervised by faculty, so it isn't all yours anyway.

Well, sounds like I should be glad not to be a student in Chile. I presume students in Chile publish under their own name, and not simply under the name of their university, though, right?

I think it is a perspective that one should consider, maybe less harshly, but a valid one. Projects are essentially joint projects, so not only a supervisor have obligations, but a student has the obligation to go forward, too. If he fails, in certain circumstances other members of the lab has the right to move on or pick up where the project was halted.

@Earthliŋ my PhD thesis in USA belongs to them for (re)printing rights and such. I'm not completely clear on details, but here I do have that clear.


text:
Authorship and reputation for British/Australian academic systems
I have recently been offered a position for a "postdoc" (fixed term level A position) in Australia.
In the British/Australian (and European) academic systems, career progression is very different from the United States, as outlined in this answer.
In my field (a subset of engineering) we have an authorship order for publications based on contribution level, with the last author being the PI/Advisor of the lab (receiving a lot of credit in the process).
In the British/Australian systems, there is an expectation to informally supervise a few students for post docs. I have been informed that I will be expected to help supervise or actually supervise students and perhaps obtain my own funding as well. In the US most post docs in my field exclusively focus on research, and nearly always get first author.
Additionally, if I'm moved to a B and/or C level academic (sort of like assistant and associate professor respectively here in the US) this supervision and funding responsibility will increase. This part is similar to the United States for a tenure track associate professor.
The difference between the US and the UK/AUS systems is that at the B academic level, I still would not be a professor, and I would have a PI above me. This brings up the authorship question...
Given the different structure between the two systems, does the UK/AUS system dilute the competitiveness and career advancement of junior academics in the UK/AUS system, especially if they intend to migrate back to the US academic system?
The reason that I ask is because in the US, once you are an assistant professor, you will get last author on any papers produced by your lab, but in the UK/AUS system, there may be a professor in charge of junior academics (assistant and associate professor equivalents) who would instead receive last author. This then dilutes the rating of the junior academics among their peers, because they become a middle author instead of the last author.
If this isn't the actual practice, please correct me.

Academics in Australia are usually on temporary contracts or on continuing contracts. Levels, however, don't directly relate to job permanency in Australia. For example, it's possible for an experienced postdoc (temporary, employed on PI's grant) to be paid at level B (starting rate is typically level A; step 6) and it's also possible for an academic to be appointed at level B for a continuing position (similar to tenure track). Although some level Bs will be on continuing positions, it's also possible for an academic at level C to not have a continuing appointment (e.g. a Future Fellow whose dept. has not committed to support him/her after the fellowship runs out). Yet they are still at level C because that is the appropriate level for their career stage (i.e. IF they had a permanent position, they would be appointed at level C). Most of these people, however, can leverage such a fellowship into a continuing position and start their own lab. This is similar to starting a tenure track position in the USA.
I think it's best to think of levels as representing career stage not the type of job (i.e. the level does not determine whether an academic is on a temporary or permanent contract, especially at levels A/B). You don't rise through the levels from a temporary contract to a permanent position - you must separately apply for a continuing position. This is analogous to how postdocs must apply for tenure track positions in the USA.
With regards to authorship, I think this is very group dependent. Typically postdocs run their own research and get first author while also supervising honours/PhD students and getting a second/middle author paper for that work. The way you describe this in your question (postdocs getting middle author papers but few/no first author papers) does not fit with my experience in Australia but it might occur in some groups. You could, however, find groups like this anywhere in the world. This is something you need to discuss with your potential advisor.
Note: this post has been heavily edited from the initial version to address questions in the comments.

Thanks for the answer. I asked for B because I do have experience (in industry) but they don't want to go that high. They said that B is the start of something "like tenure track," i.e., they are on probation to produce results in order to obtain the continuing appointment.
So suppose that you are a C level, still managed by an actual professor, and on continuing appointment, how does that change the answer to my question? Will the C level "tenured" academic still not get last author papers because the professor whom they are working for receives it instead?

Also, I clarified my question, I was under the impression that B is equivalent to "assistant professor" and C is equivalent to "associate professor."

One more question, I will have a PhD and about 6 years of very relevant industry experience, should I have been offered to start at level B?

Postdocs can't reach level C as far as I know. Level C will typically be a continuing appointment (i.e. similar to tenure track) so you wouldn't be working under a PI. Level B can be a continuing position but it can also be a payscale for experienced postdocs (perhaps it's best to think of level B as a payscale not a promotion scale). I'm not sure how common it is for postdocs to start at level B so I can't help you there but I do know of postdocs with a lot of experience that have been bumped up from A to B. However, I'm not sure how far up level B postdocs can go.

@daaxix The appointment level should have been part of the advertisement. If they advertised for Level A and you applied for Level A then it would be really hard to be offered a Level B appointment regardless of experience. You might be able to jump the steps a bit faster though...

I think of it the phases like this in Australia. First, you postdoc (normally level A), either paid or a fellowship (e.g. a DECRA). You then try to leverage that into a continuing ('full time') position (level B+). It's more complicated than this because some DECRAs (early career fellowship) have continuing positions and may be appointed at level B or C while some future fellows (mid career fellowship) don't have continuing positions (even though they'll be appointed at level C or D). A high level doesn't imply you have a continuing position.

So basically you can't look at the levels as equating with a position. For example, a DECRA fellow could be a 'postdoc' under an advisor (at level A or B) or have continuing appointment at level C with their own lab.

The difference between the US and the UK/AUS systems is that at the B
  academic level, I still would not be a professor, and I would have a
  PI above me.

This largely depends on the type of appointment you get.
Since your appointment is a fixed term position, it means that the funding for the position probably comes from a research project and there is a PI (probably a professor or an associate professor) who is managing it / acquired the funding. This would make you a Research Associate and your position is pretty much tied to this person who manages the funding and I would not be surprised if he/she is the last author of the publications.
At the same time, Level B is the appointment level for a Lecturer in an academic position, teaching only (quite rare) or combined teaching & research (most probable). At this appointment, where you are also expected to teach throughout the semester, you are part of the operating fund of the School - Faculty and you will not have someone as a direct supervisor except the Head of School. You will probably have others in the same broad area of expertise but not someone as the PI in the previous case.
Also levels are used mainly for salary and promotions. Your initial appointment is at Level A, Step 6 (A6) and each year you move one step to A7 and A8. After that you have to apply for a promotion and move to Level B.
These are, in a broad sense, the dynamics of level B appointments (you are either "research" or "academic") and this will probably define authorship.

I think the important thing for OP to understand is that moving from level A to B does not necessarily change your 'job title'. An experienced postdoc can move from A to B but still be a postdoc while another person could be appointed to level B with a continuing position - both at level B but both on very different career trajectories at that point in time.

This is a good answer, so to clarify, if I progressed to something like a level C continuing appointment academic, even though my "supervisor" would probably be a professor, in most cases I would have my own lab, and hence receive last author instead of the my official supervisor, who likely holds an official "professor" title? So generally, continuing academics have their "own lab" similar to the United States?

You won't progress from a level A or B postdoc to a level C continuing appointment - you'd need to be hired for a continuing position appointed at level C. It's not much different to how postdocs in the USA don't progress from a postdoc to a tenure track job - they apply for and are hired for a tenure track position. Think of a postdoc in Australia as a postdoc in the USA and a continuing position in Australia as a tenure track position in the USA - they are two very different things. Levels don't directly relate to job permanency (e.g. a level B could be continuing and a level C contract).

As @user49483 mentions you need to be appointed to this level. Also there are 3 steps on Level A from your appointment and 6 steps in Level B so under normal career progression it would take 9 years and 2 promotion applications to reach Level C. Of course if you perform exceptionally you can jump steps and levels if those above you agree.

@user49483, I have been told what o4tlulz stated, basically if I do well I will have a chance to change to the "tenure equivalent" track. However, this still doesn't clarify my question, does a C level continuing academic typically receive last author and run his/her own lab, or does their supervising professor receive last author, for the engineering fields?

@daaxix In order to be promoted to Level C, you'd have to demonstrate sufficient academic leadership that probably will be on your own. You might not necessarily have your own lab to run, but probably you will be expected to run your own research projects and supervise your own students - apply for grant money by yourself and have last authorship of your papers.

Part1. @daaxix I still think you are missing the point. As o4tlulz says you can be appointed at level C if you show sufficient ability but you won't rise step by step until all of a sudden you find yourself at level C - in the same way that a postdoc in the US isn't going to find themselves smoothly transitioning into a tenure track position. That isn't how the academic levels/steps work. Of course if you showed sufficient ability you could be appointed at level C if such an opening arose, but this is analogous to a postdoc applying for a tenure track position in the USA.

Part2. If you were appointed at level C it's very unlikely you'd be still be working under a professor - if a university hires a level C to do research then they would expect that person is able to conduct independent research/run their own lab (otherwise they'd just hire somebody who could). So really I feel this is much ado about nothing - the systems really aren't as different as you seem to think they are. A typical progression in Australia is postdoc -> fellowship (or two) (normally start a small group) ->  continuing job offer at level B or C (start a bigger group) -> move up levels


text:
What to do when a co-author submitted corrected proofs without the first author's knowledge?
I finished my PhD studies about a year ago, and am no longer working at the university. My supervisor, and co-author of three papers, urged me to work with him on the fourth paper in order to get it published. In fact, his contribution to the paper was very small. He should act as corresponding author and deal with the submission, which -- I thought -- would be a relieve. However, this did not work out. First, he made changes to the revised version of our manuscript before submitting it, which resulted in a revised paper among other things missing a figure.
The paper was accepted anyway, and we received the uncorrected proofs. I cannot say exactly why, but although I told him I am working on it (which he said did not notice), my co-author just submitted the corrected proofs without my knowledge. Now, among other errors, a whole paragraph is missing, and I fear this version of the paper is published online very soon.
I am really disappointed and angry. I make a lot of mistakes myself, and I do not expect my co-author to agree in everything I write, but does team work not imply that you inform your team before submitting the final work?
Of course, I tried to submit a revised version of the corrected proofs and convince the journal to use these, but I assume this is pointless. Once the proofs are uploaded there is usually nothing that can be done.
Maybe, there is no real question here, besides: What can I do now?

Which field/journal is this? I cannot add or remove a paragraph when submitting the corrected proofs, such changes would require approval by the editor or even reviewers. Can you?

It is an mdpi journal and the paper was submitted as a word document. I don't know how he managed to delete the paragraph, but it has disappeared. The editor made a comment on this paragraph so that it appeared underlined. I supect someone just hit delete.

Of course, I tried to submit a revised version of the corrected proofs and convince the journal to use these, but I assume this is pointless.

It isn't! This happens very frequently. But do talk to some human contact person (at least via email) to make sure this is accepted.

Team work

It seems like there hasn't been much team work. Talk to your former advisor, directly, on the phone; tell him you want to coordinate the proof work with him, and mention that in the currently submitted versions there are problems X, Y and Z. This should piss him off.
Don't leave this to email - either face-to-face or voice call, for a stronger impression and sense of urgency.


text:
Reserve list for a postdoc position
I've recently interviewed for a postdoc position and the day after the interview I was notified that I was first on the reserve list. I am just wondering if there are anyone out here has any experience with being on the reserve list and could tell me how long did it take for the final update to come in, and if there have been any success stories.
Thanks!

This depends on how many offers were made and the time given for a reply. If it is several offers then you might hear something in less than a couple of weeks if one of the offers is declined early. If only one, then they wait until they hear. But expect a couple of weeks, at least.
If you haven't heard in two weeks you could ask if there are updates.

Caveat. I'm not in your target group, but this is just how things work in general. They want closure if possible.

The notification that you are first on the reserve list for the postdoc position means that you were not their preferred choice, but that they would be very happy to hire you if their preferred choice declined the offer.
As such, it is impossible to predict how long the process will take. This will depend on how much time they give their preferred choice to respond to offers and also how quickly the preferred candidate responds to the offer (they might not need all the time given to them).


text:
Should I put my h-index on my CV?
I'm finishing my PhD and looking for postdoc jobs. I've published a decent number of papers (and also have a fair number of citations), and want to emphasize this on my CV.
Should I actually state my h-index on my CV? If so, is Google Scholar the easiest/best way to compute this?
2014.03.12 EDIT:
Thanks for the advice. I had originally planned to put my h-index at the head
of my list of publications (as a clickable link to my Google Scholar profile).
Based on the advice from many of you I will just omit this altogether for now.
My scholar profile is easy to find (for potential PIs who care about such
metrics), and not explicitly stating my h-index myself avoids any negative
connotations among those who object to the h-index or calculating it via Google
Scholar (e.g. Google includes self-citations, arXiv/non peer-reviewed papers
etc).

A range of statistics can be useful in providing a quick snapshot of your research productivity. Common statistics include: number of refereed journal publications; number of publications that meet a criteria such as you being first author or the journal being above a certain impact factor or on a discipline specific list of quality journals; h-index; total amount of grant funding; etc. These would supplement a complete list of your publications.
With regards to h-index, Google Scholar will give you the largest value and its arguably the implied database when a h-index is provided without qualification.
I know that some people on this site object to the bureaucratic reductionism that can result from using measures like h-indices, impact factors and the like. Nonetheless, just because they are imperfect, does not prevent them from being useful. Such measures should not replace actually reading your work to assess its quality, but they can be useful in getting a rough handle on the impact and status of your research.
In terms of anecdotes, I have read several promotion applications that have successfully incorporated a range of such summary statistics to make the case for promotion. h-index, total grant funding, total publications, average teaching scores are all evidence, albeit imperfect that decision makers who are often outside your area will use to decide how to allocate resources like jobs, promotions, etc.

I would say no for two main reasons. The first one is the h-index will change rapidly with time, particularly for new graduated PhD students with only few years of publication history. The second one is that the h-index provides only a little information, the only possible values are likely 3,4 and 5 which can be increased with some luck.
I have read only few dozens of CV of PhD, but none of them really put down their h-index. Probably, a better way is to highlight the most important papers that you think which can represent you research interest and your contribution. It might be better to provide a clickable link to your Google Scholar profile in application email rather than in CV.
As for the h-index, Google Scholar indeed provides an easiest way to obtain it. However, I have some doubt on it as it also counts those citation from unrefereed papers, such as those in arXiv, and even worst, publications from some journal articles that can be written by anyone. It seems to me there are ways to play with the system, in particular, for small number of citation. But I think that it is somehow representative.

"the only possible values are likely 3,4 and 5" [citation needed]

To clarify, I have known finished PhD students in my field with Google Scholar h-indices in [1;18]. Granted, Google Scholar is by definition inflated, but still ...

@xLeitix Would you mind to share the link to a real example? No offence. h-index = 18 means that there are 18 publications with at least 18 citation. By the nature of power law distribution, it usually means there are 36+ publication. Suppose a 5 year PhD student, it means 7+ publications per year, and each of them attracts average 3+ citation per year. It is not counting the papers in the last year must attract 18 citations in only one year. It is possible, but not with all 7 papers. I do see a PhD with 8 h-index, but this exception is only because of the collaborations with many people.

@hwlau but if you look at enough examples you are likely to find an occurrence of the extreme (18 papers with exactly 171 citations). That said, 18 papers as a PhD student is still an outlier for most fields.

@hwlau Don't nail me to 18 concretely, but a colleague and mentor of mine who is now manager at IBM Research certainly graduated with 16 or more on Google Scholar (he is now up to 24 http://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?user=KK2le2UAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao). I myself graduated with 13 or 14, iirc. I am aware that this is a pecularity of my field, but I still think that the above statement is simply invalid.

@StrongBad In my field, 18 papers (including ones that are not first-authored, of course) is not an exception at all. Getting all those (partially really weak / minor) publications cited is more uncommon of course. To be honest, in my field, a high h-index mostly shows that a candidate knows "how to play the game" and is well-connected in the field, which may be a positive factor for many committees in its own.

@xLeitix Funny that Florian Rosenberg has had a declining number of citations each year and is now on par with a grad student.

@user1271772 He has also not worked in academia for almost 10 years, so I don't find this very surprising.

@xLeitix he's published several papers in the last 10 years, and even in the last year. They are just not getting citations.

I am not anywhere near the point where I'll be reviewing CVs, but people I know who do so tell me that whenever a CV lists things like h-index, number of citations for each paper, journal impact factors, aso, the general feeling is that the person is either a) a show-off or b) trying to hide actual content or merit behind impressive metrics. That's also the impression I get. Remember that the people who are going to read your CV know the field: what is relevant, what the good journals are, what it means to have those citations, and whether or not you are trying to boost your achievements. Also, as others have mentioned, metrics are ever-changing, data-base dependent and very easy to find by whatever means the reviewer deems appropriate. So I think your decision is the wisest.

"the people who are going to read your CV know the field" not necessarily... I was told by my university to put impact factors of journals I'd published in on a grant application, once.

Better is to put list of your academic results and publications into your CV. Good index values are fine and could be included, but put your results first. Value of index tells something about popularity of your publication, but nothing about subject matter, which is most important in CV.

Since citation counts and H-index change over time (even for a fixed set of publications) it is probably best to omit this information from your CV and instead report it in the "response to selection criteria" for relevant positions you apply for.  Academic jobs usually require some evidence of a research track record (or research potential at lower levels), so you can respond by reporting information on present citations and H-index.  You should also bear in mind that it is usually simple for the selection panel to look you up in a citation database and get an updated report of these metrics in real-time.  For all these reasons, the CV is not a great place for this information.


text:
Re-entering teaching after working in the industry (in Europe)
I have finished my PhD a while ago and have since worked at the university as lecturer. Now the contract is coming to an end and I am weighing two options: (1) Teach at the university (I am much more interested in teaching than in research) or (2) work in industry.
I have done a lot of teaching during and after my PhD and consider myself to be quite good at it. However, finding such a teaching position where I live seems very difficult at the moment. Abroad, those positions seem to be more plentiful. If it is of any matter: I live in Germany. The field is mathematics.
As I am not exactly keen on leaving the country, I would like to try working in industry. However, I worry that I might miss teaching, and wonder if, after having left academia for a year or two, it would be difficult to return. Some related questions have been asked, but I fear that my lack of interest in research might give things a different spin...
Would leaving academia now be held against me if I tried to return a few years later to teach at a (possibly foreign) university?

It seems to me that in Germany you have quite some choice for teaching only positions at higher educations strucutrues:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Fachhochschulen_in_Deutschland
what do you mean with "Abroad it seems more possible":  where?

While it depends on where the possibly foreign university is, I can answer for the UK (...for now, pre Brexit. Post-Brexit will just be some sort of crazy nightmare so who can say). Simply put, yes, if you were applying for a teaching-only position, having a stretch of time in industry and outside of teaching is likely to be seen as negative on balance. With numerous qualified people applying for every position, committees can pick and choose and they usually pick and choose people who have fresh teaching experience rather than someone who has been out of the game for a while. It isn't impossible to come back to teaching from industry, especially if you can show how you working in industry would be an asset to your teaching, but it's hard. Indeed I only know of examples of a move back to teaching from very few fields and it would be unlikely in mine (Social Sciencey and Artsy).

This seems correct for STEM fields also. There might be exceptions for part time teaching at the upper level in state-of-the-art subfields if that is your specific expertise, but generally not for most teaching-only positions. Easier for research oriented positions in some fields, but again, emerging disciplines.

In Finland and at least some other Nordic countries there exist universities of applied sciences (ammattikorkeakoulu/høgskole/yrkehögskola/erhvervsakademi), and possibly such institutions that have changed into or combined with universities. Germany seems to have a similar institution.
These offer less academic bachelor degrees and maybe higher degrees. They need teachers, who might or might not have some possibility or requirement for research or R&D. At least in Finland they often require the teachers to have relevant work experience, unless they are teaching general subjects (like mathematics); but I doubt relevant work experience would be a bad thing there, either.
The teaching would often happen in the local language and might require a local teaching qualification.


text:
Probability of acceptance when editor requests "major revisions" but one reviewer recommended "full rejection"
I recently received reviews on a paper that I submitted to an Elsevier journal, with 2 reviewers. One had some minor comments and recommended minor revisions, while the second reviewer recommended full rejection and was very vehement about it.
The second reviewer's concerns were basically that he believes that one of the databases used in the paper (which is used in many other studies published in this journal) is completely invalid, but to back up their claim they posted links to a bunch of blog articles. Overall though, they were very disparaging of the paper in almost every possible way because of that.
The editor gave the paper a "major revision" decision. While I feel like we can respond to the comments, it doesn't look like the second reviewer would be convinced regardless of what we respond if he believes that database is invalid. I've also read that if a paper gets a "full reject" recommendation from even one reviewer, the probability of it being accepted is basically zero regardless of what the other reviewers say.
Any thoughts on how to proceed?

Is it an option to add a mini-study using another database, even if for a smaller sample, as proof-of-concept to the paper?

"I've also read that if a paper gets a full reject recommendation from even one reviewer, the probability of it being accepted is basically zero regardless of what the other reviewers say." - no, that is not true.

There was a recent, notorious scandal in which the editor accepted a paper for which all reviewers recommended rejection!

I have successfully revised a paper with a reject from one reviewer, through a major revision, into an accepted article. It is definitely possible. I would write your best revision and include a very strongly (but politely and professionally) constructed and worded cover letter directly addressing the reviewer's points including the fact that using blog posts as counter evidence is outside the norms of the field. If the reviewer can point to peer-reviewed academic publications that support their negative points, then that might be sufficient evidence to reject the article, but otherwise, that evidence isn't very strong.

Indeed. The editor has not rejected it, which is a sign he sees a chance that you may be able to address the issues.

including the fact that using blog posts as counter evidence is outside the norms of the field – I slightly disagree with this. Even if the reviewer (or blog author) is a complete crank, you should be able to debunk their arguments. (There are however some exceptions, when the asker cannot be expected to do this – see my answer.)

The one deciding upon the acceptance or rejection of your paper is the editor, not the reviewers. In an extreme example, you do not need to fear that your paper is rejected due to a review saying nothing but:

I recommend to reject this paper because of fish.

The editor would just blacklist the reviewer and request another one. Of course, reality is more complex, but you can assume that editors put less value in reviews that show little effort from the reviewer’s side, resort to questionable arguments or seem entirely unbalanced in their assessment. In addition, if the authors convincingly address a reviewer’s critique, this will also go into the decision.
Regarding your particular case: If the negative review had fully convinced the editor that it is impossible or very unlikely that you salvage your paper, they would have rejected it, which they obviously didn’t. Moreover, if the journal accepts many publications using this database, the editor should be very worried if he is convinced by the reviewer’s criticism of the database. It may very well be that the editor just wants you to respond to possible minor criticisms from this reviewer and give some argument that your choice of data was valid.
Thus revise the paper as best as you can, addressing as much criticism as reasonably possible (i.e., stay true to your assessment of reality and do not change your claims just because the reviewer wants you to). In the response letter, address the reviewer’s or blogposts’ criticism of the database, which you usually should be able to do. There are a few exceptions from the latter, e.g., if you are just using data from another field as a benchmark for a method (in which case the validity of the data is not that problematic for you paper anyway), if the argument is based on extensive studies (in which case you can resort to arguing that these studies shall be peer-reviewed), or if there is a considerable gap between data acquisition and evaluation in your field (in which case, it’s not your responsibility to sort out these problems). However, if you cannot respond to the criticism at all, there may be indeed something wrong with the data.


text:
Whether to get different letter of recommendation when supervisor's letter is bad?
I've graduated from my previous grad school (psychology) for 2 years and now seriously considering to apply for another graduate school (or professional school at master's level), computer science in particular, for next year's entry. That was also the major of my college degree. I will be applying several Canadian schools now and hope I will be able to start a new life there.
I was extremely uncomfortable when I just got into the psychology graduate school four years ago that I didn't do well at first. Not only due to English being my second language, but also I had absolutely no background in psychology, plus the massive amount of reading filled with weird words drove me absolutely crazy. For this reason, my major advisor had me finish with a master's degree instead of PhD, which I was originally enrolled in. However, he was extremely helpful when I was doing my master's graduation project and thesis. He was helping me day and night with my work that I believe nobody else could ever help his student this much. I ended up finishing my master's level of psychology very well and left with that degree.
When I got in touch with him recently and asked him to write a letter for my next school, he said

"I will mention that at first you didn't turn out to work very quickly that you had trouble to get what I was asking done. So I had you finish with a master's degree instead of PhD. However, later you learned to work much harder and your final project and program worked very well. If you think the above contents suit you, let me know where I should send the letter."

I don't know for sure if my feeling is correct, but I feel like I will get 100% rejection even from mediocre schools I'm going to apply, if those words appear on the LOR.
Question: should I switch letter?
Concern: I didn't ever think one day in the future I will need to go back to school when I was still doing the psychology program. Thus I was't enthusiastic at all about building my connection with professors so that two other members of my thesis defense committee really don't know me very well.
This is probably the last chance for me to change my fate, I don't want to lose it.
Suggestions please, and any help is much appreciated.

It's not an ideal letter - some may take it as you being able to learn and turn things around, but, to be honest, supervisors have a lot on their plate and may choose a more straightforward ready-to-go candidate. Your prof is very honest and lets you know what they will write - that's fair of them. But if you can possible get better LOR, you probably should.

What does ROC mean?

As I see it, the adviser's reply is in order. He openly stated what the contents would be and emphasized the option to choose another letter, if it suits you more, without any implication that that act could be taken in a negative connotation.
Further, the contents seem to align with the story you told here, i.e. you started a PhD, but finished with a master's degree. He states you strengths and weaknesses, which is to be expected. What is more important, he intends to accentuate you growth during your studies. This is a powerful statement from his side. As I see it, his response is objective.
Additionally, given the fact that your adviser was extremely helpful during your graduation ("day and night"), which I understand him to have taken on extra effort to see you graduate, I see no evidence that he would sabotage your attempts.
My opinion is that you should use this adviser as reference, as I seriously doubt that you could get a stronger letter from someone else (unless you neglected to mention that you had other collaborations where you fared better). Although other persons may not say anything bad about you, they can probably say also nothing positive, and luke-warm letters are not good. I would always opt for a strong letter, from someone who knows you and can attest to your journey through grad school. It is nothing unusual to have a bad start, but the fact that you saw it through and earned praise towards the end is a very good thing.
Finally, you should probably menage your expectations. You shouldn't expect that you'll find anyone willing to lie for you in a letter of recommendation. From your post, your adviser is a good guy, so, again, I think you have the best chances going with him. Or, put another way, your adviser said nothing that wasn't true, so this truth might or might not hinder your way into some institution, but that state was not induced by your adviser, he simply reports what he observed.

Thanks you for the reply. What I didn't mention in OP is that not only he helped me far beyond what we expect as a supervisor, but also we had a much closer personal relationship if I didn get it wrong - he offered me to live in his place when I had trouble find a temporary one immediately after I graduated, although I didn't end up taking it.  He is really a VERY good guy, and I hope you are right in this sense -- his mentioning of my growth will be a good factor for the prospective school to consider, despite I did have a bad start.

I view this as having two issues.  One is the way the letter will be taken if provided.  But the other is the inference if it is not provided.  If you apply but don't have a letter from someone who advised you in this MS program, even in a different field, isn't that likely to lead to a negative inference?   That being said, while user3209815 is probably right that another letter won't necessarily be stronger, it seems clear the adviser is  stating up front that it has issues.  Damned if you do and damned if you don't.  I'd take the letter, but not hold my breath.

@FredDouglis You are basically concerned that it will be suspicious to the school I will apply if I lack the letter from my major advisor from my previous degree, right? In this sense I will take that letter. Also, would you explain a bit about "hold my breath"? English is not my first language so that I don't always get the meaning of English idioms. Thanks!

@DavidWu, "hold your breath" refers to having high expectations.  Take the letter, hope for the best, but don't be surprised if your fear that it is not helpful enough turns out to be true.  As for it being "suspicious," that's not the word I'd use, but it's close.  If they know you were in a program, and left with an MS/MA, but didn't get a recommendation from your supervisor, they will likely wonder why you didn't get that recommendation.  Of course another option is to try and explain that in your essay if you can.

@FredDouglis Thanks for the explanation. I will definitely take his letter. Yes, I will probably need to explain in my PS if I don't take it, which will make the situation even more complicated. I always believe being honest and straightforward will make thing easier to deal with in most cases. But like you said, I won't bet a good result on my school applications.

@DavidWu - Well, this is the kind of situation where it might be helpful to try to make a personal connection with a professor in a department where you'd like to apply.  Once you have that personal connection, you can be up front (=honest) and tell him or her about your experience.  That person may then be able to put in a good word for you with the admissions committee.  Also, you could include something about your personal growth in your psych masters, when you write your essay.


text:
What does it mean when submission system says "under review" after submitting minor revisions?
Is it possible that after sending minor revisions my paper has gone for a fresh review again. I had received the following recommendation: accept subject to optional revision. The status has been showing " under review " for a month now.
Is it still with the associate editor or with the old reviewers. I got two referred comments and one guest editor comments
Sent my paper to ieee transaction

Well, it is certainly gone for a review; what do you mean by "fresh"?

@peter. By fresh I mean ha it gone to the earlier reviewers or new ones considering that the earlier reviewers gave me a recommendation: accept subject toniptional revisions

In most of the article submission systems the "Under Review" status means your manuscript is with reviewers. Most probably it must be sent to the old reviewers but there is also a possibility that editor might invite a new reviewer. It happened to me, one of my article which went through 2 revisions, 1 major and 1 minor took 1 year, and it was rejected because editor invited a 4th reviewer who raised few concerns.
Best of luck for your article.


text:
Could I submit an abstract for a conference prior asking my supervisor permission about it?
I would like to submit an abstract for a poster presentation, I'm just worried that if I tell my supervisor before submitting, she might say I shouldn't do it, because she rarely wants me to be away from the office. So I was thinking on submitting the abstract and once I'm accepted telling her I've been selected for presenting at that conference. What do you think about it? Would this be a good strategy for attending a conference when having a strict and closed minded supervisor?
P.S. Our research is not about any kind of product or patent we're developing for a company, so no privacy issues apply in there.

I mean, I suppose you could ask her after you’ve submitted, then bail out of the conference if you get accepted and she says no.

In my experience (mathematics) a supervisor would be annoyed by the opposite behavior. Applying for a conference alone and without external confirmation is the kind of thing an "adult" researcher would do. Asking for permission is kind of childish.

@GiuseppeNegro That sounds bizarre to me. I as an "adult" researcher would always, without fail, check that my collaborators were happy for me to talk in public about our unpublished work. And it would be unusual for a student's supervisor to not be one of those collaborators.

@DavidRicherby: of course, these are different matters. But the problem here is not of a collaborative nature. You, as an adult researcher, do not ask for "permission" to your collaborators or bosses to go to a conference. You ask whether it is appropriate, in their opinion, or (if needed) if you can be funded, things like that. That's different from "asking permission".

@GiuseppeNegro That's a distinction without a difference. In both cases, if they say "no", then the submission doesn't happen.

@GiuseppeNegro You are arguing semantics here. The salient question is "I think my supervisor does not want me to go to this conference, should I submit without telling them?" - and the answer to that is a pretty definite "no" in any discipline I am aware of, and for a number of reasons.

@xLeitix: The question is different. The question is: "should I go asking for permission before applying to a poster presentation?" and the answer I propose is: "act with self-confidence; if you feel you can go there, and that it can be useful for you, apply". This, of course, rules out the cases of unpublished collaborations, etc...

Yes you could.
I'd strongly suggest you not do it.
Your supervisor has a lot of power over you - they aren't someone you want to upset.
It is unfortunate that your supervisor is not supportive of you trying to seek out conferences to present at, but you should address that issue with them rather than try to go behind their back. I would suggest trying to find another supervisor before I would suggest trying to undermine the authority of your current supervisor: there just aren't enough positives for you on that path.
Note that if your supervisor deserves authorship on your work, either omitting their name as an author or submitting without the approval of someone listed as an author could be considered academic misconduct. In some fields, authorship by only a student without their supervisor is common, but if you aren't in one of those fields you should be especially careful.

The real issue is to find out, why she does not want you to be away from work. It could be that she feels you or your research are not yet ready or that she knows you are on a though schedule with your project anyway. The reasons might be good or not, they might be valid or not.
Talk to your supervisor to find out more about her reasons. Maybe you can address them or convince your supervisor, that you should attend at least one conference per year.
If money for travel expanses is rare, you can apply for travel grants, apply to conferences nearby, or pay them from your private money. The experience might be worth the money.

The real problem is your relationship with your supervisor, not the submission.

... my supervisor ... rarely wants me to be away from the office.

This is your real problem. Or rather, the situation where you believe your supervisor is holding you back and doesn't have your best interest at heart.
Now, you've not told us much about what kind of research you do; what kind of interaction and collaboration you have with your supervisor; whether you believe she is mis-supervising you, or stunting your activity, or whether it's just a question of focus of efforts; etc. But this is a bad situation to be in. Either you are being mistreated, or there is a severe failure in communication between you two.
I suggest you discuss this relationship (perhaps confidentially at first) with co-supervisee's of hers, that you trust; with other grads in your department; or even describe it for us in a different question here on the site. How did it get to be that way? Did you voluntarily choose each other, or did some circumstances forced one or both of you into this situation? Do you feel you're benefiting at all from her supervision? That she's helping you develop as a researcher and as a person? Have you tried bring some of this up with her before, and failed, or were you worried she'd react angrily/vindictively? etc.

I would recommend the opposite of the answer of Brian Krause unless you have explicitly been told in the past not to submit things. You aren't going behind her back, you are just being professional. It seems to me to be a mistake only to try to counter explicit instructions.
I'm assuming, of course, that the work is yours alone and that shared authorship is not an issue for this work. If it is not yours alone then you need permission from your collaborators to publish and they may have a right to shared authorship. In some fields almost all work is collaborative. In others it is almost all the work of a single person.
However, there are two other issues. One is the payment of conference fees and travel expenses. You can't really expect her to cover these unless she has approved of them in advance. The other is how to deal with the time you will spend away. If others depend on your presence, say in a lab, it could be disruptive.
I would suggest that you submit, but expect that you might not be able to actually attend. Sometimes that can be worked out with the conference committee and sometimes the author has to withdraw, which can be a bit embarrassing.
But it seems a mistake to me to make a decision based on what she might do. Just be prepared for what she does and to accept final decisions if necessary.

In my field it would be very atypical and unprofessional for a student to submit an abstract without supervisor approval, since the supervisor would almost certainly be a coauthor and authorship without supervisors is incredibly rare. I realize in other fields the norms are different and I probably should have mentioned that in my answer. From the OP's history, though, they are in neuropsychology which is quite close to my field.

@BryanKrause, if the situation is so unusual in the field, then the submission is likely to be rejected in any case. I don't see that it is unprofessional in any field to take initiative on scholarly work. Some may wish to impose such ideas on students, but it seems foolish to me. Atypical, I can accept, of course. One can't, of course, submit work that is partially the work of others without some form of co-authorship.

Yes, your last sentence is why it's an issue: in fields like neuropsychology there is almost zero work that is not partially the work of others, and the research is at a minimum usually designed by or with the feedback of the PI, sometimes even years before a student has started the project. Depending on the conference, though, no, it would probably not be rejected for this, conferences in the field aren't as important as papers and the peer review for conferences, especially for posters, is fairly minimal. Reviewers aren't going to google the authors to see if any is a PI.

@BryanKrause, I edited to clarify as did you. Some supervisors are just over-controlling even in situations in which this isn't an issue as you can see from other questions on this site. But anyone should be free to publish their own work.

Yeah, I definitely agree that a supervisor doing anything to prevent the professional development of their students is a terrible betrayal of their responsibilities.

@Buffy A submission wouldn't be rejected just for having unusual authorship: things that are unusual aren't necessarily illegitimate. For example, in my field, having more than about five authors is unusual and more than ten is almost unheard of. But I can't imagine anybody rejecting a paper just because it had ten authors.

@Buffy "anyone should be free to publish their own work" Conversely, anyone who ought to be an author (which the supervisor very commonly should), should be free to not have their work published without their consent.

@DavidRicherby. yes, of course.

To sum up the ansser: Ask before your apply, don't rely on might.

If the supervisor has any valud claim to authorship, and you leave her off, that's a bad thing.  If you put her on as an author without permission or knowledge, that's a bad thing as well.  Both actions would certainly be unprofessional.

I fail to see how logistically this can be done. If her name is on it, the submission will usually assume all authors agreed on the final version. She will get an e-mail and find out that you faked her approval.
If the work does not have her name on it, then she can be right not to give you paid leaves to present it. In that case, pay for yourself and spend your day offs to attend it. Think of it as a workation, learning tour, etc.
Another possibility is to apply for travel scholarship. These are usually a sign of approval from the organization on the work's quality and that may push her closer to saying yes.
More importantly, submitting an abstract behind her does not address the root cause that she does not want you to be absent. Perhaps start from there, during annual review or periodic meetings, list "going to a conference" as a goal and start the negotiation there. List possible "win-win" for you and her (the research team.) Express firm interests and ask for guidance. Be upfront about if you need her grant to support you or you'll pay, etc. Perhaps she was worried about funding. You may also suggest attending local conferences to cut costs, or remote meetings to make sure you're not missing important affairs at the base.


text:
How to publish my PhD as a monograph when examiners are unable to oversee the process?
Before my viva (as they call it in the UK) one of my supervisors strongly hinted that one of my examiners would likely be interested in supervising me with the writing of a monograph. Three months after my PhD was awarded, I decided to contact both examiners and both responded that they did not feel qualified: one does not hold a doctorate, the other's main disciplinary area is outside my own.
Fair enough.
I was given your typical stock advice to publish and review but my heart is still set on publishing a monograph.
There are a couple of professors throughout the UK and North America whom I am keen to contact as potential supervisors for my project on the basis of our  shared research affinities. Do I just send them an email? What is the protocol?
This newbie academic does not want to commit any faux-pas!
Is a monograph or book of some sort an independent endeavour?.
Sigh.... post-PhD distress

Are you talking about PhD thesis or just papers?

Am I missing something here? How can these be your examiners if they are not qualified for this?

Sorry for the silly question, but can't your former supervisors help you with that?

The question is very confusing.  Monographs/books can be solo or co-authored of course.  How exactly is the monograph related to your thesis?  Why do you still need a supervisor?

I finished my PhD a few months ago. In the UK, a monograph stems from your PhD dissertation.  Based on my conversation with my supervisor, I apparently need a 'supervsior ' to guide me throughout the process of writing a monograph.  @Kimball: good point but my supervisors did not offer to but instead hinted that the examiner would be interested to do so

@Tobias Kildetoft : one examiner does not hold a PhD but is part of the university faculty.  The other specialized in my secondary discipline.

It's news to me that anyone needs to supervise your writing a book in the first place. Is this field dependent or something?

It would help people to give more relevant answers if you specified your discipline, or at least whether you are are in the arts, social sciences, natural sciences, etc. For instance, your claim that "in the UK, a monograph stems from your PhD dissertation" is not usually the case in e.g. mathematics

@Roland: Have a look at this example (in German)thehttps://tu-dresden.de/mn/postgraduales/promotion/promotionsordnung - it just says that "usually the majority of reviewers shall be university lecturers" and "the PhD commission  shall usually be lecturers of this university". If the faculty commission that oversees the PhD procedures think someone suited they can nominate them regardless of formal qualifications (they probably need to document well why exactly, but it is possible). The point here is that this person is considered fully qualified, though (by that faculty commission).

BTW: strictly speaking, you don't need to hold a doctorate to become a professor - you "just" need to prove research capabilities that are equivalent to doctorate and habilitation (plus a few more things such as ability to teach).

I'm in a field where monographs are the norm an cumulative dissertations the exception. Neither I nor anyone I know needed a supervisor to publish their PhD dissertation as monograph. You just send a polished book proposal and perhaps sample chapter(s) to the publisher you are interested in and hope for the best. My experience is in Germany and Austria with British and US publishers.

Be upfront and honest, and ask!
Make contact with these select few. Explain that you've received interest in producing a monograph, but those doing so later declined their support because their qualifications or subject knowledge are, described much lesd tactfully than you should, inadequate.
Describe your reasons for contacting them in particular - yes, personalise these requests. Ask if they are available to lend support, and whether they would desire to do so. Don't send a copy of your thesis, but make it clear that you will on request, that is, if they don't indicate that they looked it up already.
If you get declined, thank them for their answer, and for any helpful critique or advice they give. If they accept, discuss with your university to see what support you can get from them -  if you have their backing already, this is a good thing to mention in your approach to potential collaborators.


text:
Why do the prerequisites to enroll in PhD programs vary between research groups in Germany?
I have been trying to get a Ph.D. position in Germany so I follow the advertising sites frequently. A few days ago I saw a position from a group of X Institute. I wrote the professor about the requirement and he replied a bachelor is a prerequisite and he encouraged me to apply. Today again I saw an advertisement for a position from a different group from the same institute and the professor said a master is needed as a prerequisite for becoming a Ph.D. student. My question is why the requirement varies from group to group whereas they come from the same institute? Can a professor or supervisor can play a role to waive master if he wants?

To be honest I don't know any institute in my area where it is allowed to do a Ph.D with a bachelor in germany. But in general it is possible. As far as I know it is up to the one who is supervising to hire you for the position. If he finds you suited, he can hire you. The university will put some conditions on you once you enroll officially as a Ph.D student like completing courses and successfully finish them if you have a bachelor's degree. The same can happen with a masters degree but to a lesser extent

Anecdotal Ecidence: I heard that if you published during your bachelor course, you are qualified to start a PhD program, because you have already proven that you can do research and work in a scientific manner. I think in practice, you'll probably need outstanding achievements having only a bachelor's degree.

@problemofficer A number of programs where I live (Canada) are known for being willing to somewhat condense/bundle a master's degree into a PhD, generally adding 8 months/a year to the PhD instead of the potential 2 years a lot of "fully fledged" masters programs seem to take.

Usually, with a Master in the field of the PhD position (or a closely related field, e.g. PhD positions in physical chemistry will typically accept physicists or chemists; possibly the Master should have a grade better than x), you can be directly accepted.
With a Bachelor (or Master from a totally different subject, or Master not from a university but a university of applied sciences, or possibly a degree from a foreign country for which there is no official declaration that it is equivalent to the Master of a German university) your application will probably have to go to a committee first who have a look at your case and decide whether and which additional courses or exams you need to take.

If the institute you're talking of is a non-university research institute (e.g. Max Planck, Fraunhofer, Helmholtz, Leibniz): the PhD is not granted by these institutes but by the university they cooperate with. Different groups of the same institute may be cooperating with different professors from different faculties (or even different universities), and thus different rules may apply.

I am talking about Leibniz institute @cbeleites

@Dukhiatma: I've been at a Leibniz-Institute a while ago. Our head was (is) professor at the local university, and so are some of the other group heads - but not all in the same faculty (chemistry vs. physics). The exam rules, including those for PhDs are on faculty basis.

tl;dr: You'd typically need Master's. Read on to find out why.
The "traditional" German higher education system had only one kind of a degree before PhD, the Diplom. It's typically translated as MSc and it's not wrong: basically, it was a 5 years degree. You'd typically need this degree, and having it from a university (and not a Fachhochschule, a polytechnical university) in order to start a PhD.
Then, Bologna happened.
The current scheme in Germany is: 3 years BSc + 2 years MSc. Though the initial thought was to have a US system, where most of the students exit university with a BSc, it did not took off. Most companies and universities themselves saw "just" BSc as inferior and still required a MSc degree. It got a bit better nowadays.
It is possible to get a job with a BSc, even if it would pay less.
It is also possible to start your PhD with a BSc. But it's much, much harder. In many places special "fast-track" programmes exist. Details depend on the location. Typically, they allow a future PhD candidate to study for their MSc, but in a sort-of accelerated manner, for example, the MSc thesis is then allowed to be a topic from the future PhD. Further, typically the non-MSc holders are payed less, E12 level instead of E13.
All this requires, however, further, and in some cases non-insignificant actions from the advisor. So, there might be a certain willingness to employ a BSc-holder. It might be easier, if it's a four-years BSc. The typical "fits all" requirement is, however, a MSc.

A further notice. There are two sides to doing a PhD in Germany. 1) The general advisor-student relationship. It is about research and mentoring. No money is involved in this relationship. (You might want to register as a (PhD-)student with the university, it costs not much.) 2) The employer-employee relationship. The "funded position" is not really connected to the readiness to supervise a student. (Yes, it is often coinciding, but it is not required to be so.)
My point is: you should really ask very directly, does this particular professor really want to supervise you as a prospective PhD student (even with "only" a BSc), or do they do the former and have money for your position.

One should point out as well that a phd in Germany is typically shorter than a phd in the US and focuses nearly purely on research. So a German master (2yrs) + 3 yrs phd equals a US 5 yrs phd, where the first two years very much resemble a German master program

"Then, Bologna happened." - what event does this refer to?

@user2357112 The Bologna Process

In most programs in Germany, the PhD is a paid position that is known as a Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter ("academic employee") and typically requires a master's degree as a prerequisite.
There are some exceptions to this—there are some programs where students enroll in a master's program that leads to a PhD position once the master's thesis has been completed. But such programs are relatively uncommon and should not be expected as a master's course.

Most of the paid positions are designated as E13 in the the union agreement (Tv-L), which by said agreement require a masters degree. I would add the detail that it is not possible to waive this prerequisite for such positions. The professor can still take you as a student (If the university allows it) and even pay you from other sources (if he has some), he just can't employ you on those specific positions, even if he wants to.

Well, TV-L says for E-13 (and 14 and 15) roughly translated "... as well as other employees who execute similar tasks on the basis of equivalent ability and experienct". I'd argue that doing a PhD is similar in that respect, and PhD students without a Master in a relevant field in my experience have to have a PhD committee decide whether they can be accepted as PhD students (possibly: after which additional exams). Thus such a student would have a very good claim to have been found equivalent. I do see the rist that the employing institution may try to pay only E 12, though.

@cbeleites-and one more thing. I think they only care about masters but doesn't matter if its from a different field. For example, I have seen one group accept a student who did his masters in finance and economics to do Ph.D. in neuroscience. The professor accepted him as his girlfriend was a Ph.D. student in his lab. So I think at the end of the day a masters degree in anything matters, doesn't matter if you have appropriate skills and publications.


text:
Cumulative versus monographic dissertation
I am in the beginning of my phd studies in computer science. Specifically, I am in the area of machine learning and linked data. I have talked with my professor about these both types of dissertations, however, it`s on my own which format I choose.
Any recommendations, when to choose a cumulative and when to choose a monographic dissertation? What`s your experience with each format?

The first result on Google discusses some differences between the two, with an emphasis on cumulative: http://www.unr.uni-freiburg.de/promotionen/downloads/cumulative_vs_monographic

If I had had a choice, I would have chosen to write a cumulative thesis.
Results are in the papers. And converting papers into a monograph takes a lot of time with relatively low added value. (When someone asks me about the result I still point to publications.)
One advantage of monographic thesis is when it is on a new field (with publications being very coherent on one topic) - then it can serve as an introduction for the others. (However, it seems that not many theses fit this criterium.)

There are advantages with both. It is worth starting by stating that a research education is not about writing papers but to educate a person to become a self-reliant researcher. The thesis or dissertation is the document that shows the result of this effort.
From the perspective of showing the result of the education as such, the monograph probably better reflects the work done since articles normally brush away methods and other aspects through referencing. Articles often focus on a core piece of data and have no space for additional data that may have been collected. or shows data in a very condensed way. In a monographs much of this can be expanded upon and more of what was actually achieved during the study can be documented thoroughly. I occasionally bump into monographs that ha excellent detailed descriptions of methods or other aspects where I can really learn something new in a good way. This is of course not why anyone should write a monograph but the monograph can be an appreciated publication.
So the monograph provides possibilities for the PhD candidate to show the knowledge gained in a detailed way.
The cumulative thesis can probably also have different looks. In Scandinavia, the thesis consists of about 3-5 papers at different stages of completion (a basic rule is that they should be at least in shape to be sent in for peer review in a journal). Most students end up with a couple of published papers and a couple of manuscripts in their thesis. There is also a cover paper to be written where the different papers are shown in a larger perspective and which should tie the thesis together.
The benefit of this format is that the PhD candidate has publications under the belt by the time he/she finishes. This can also be true for anyone writing a monographs but then that person has to write on two things in parallel although much of it is likely a matter of reformatting. But the focus on papers is, regardless of how one feels about it, a necessity since almost everything that concerns evaluation in academia involves counting number of publications. So the more publications the better, basically. Doing a cumulative thesis is thus a more direct way into the "after-life" of scientific publishing.
Another point to bring up is the actual writing of a monograph. Since the monograph is a single entity the author has full control over the progress (bar intervention by the advisor) which makes it easier to complete with a set deadline. With a cumulative thesis, focus is on manuscripts which often involves more or less responding co-authors which in the end can complicate things and most importantly make deadlines more difficult to assess.
One should, however, not forget that it is possible to combine these to some extent. The cover paper for a cumulative thesis can probably look quite differently in different countries (academic cultures). There is, however, nothing that says that the cover paper could not contain just the parts I described are more or less unique to the monograph. This would then provide the best of both worlds.

I'd recommend to check out the associated burocracy for each version.

I did a monograph: this was the usual thing to do at my old institute, and I would have needed to apply for permissions to do sandwich thesis and another permission to submit in English. I changed institutes, but kept with the monograph as large parts were written already.
One colleague told me that he had quite some trouble obtaining the necessary copyright transfers for his cumulative thesis. Many publishers have theses  explicitly listed as allowed reuse on their copyright transfer agreements (important also for monographs if the same figures are used!). However, there was one that just gave permission for the required number of prints, so the pdf of the thesis cannot be made available by the library.

In my experience, there are now to subpopulations in the monographs:

Monograph had no influence on the expected number of papers published (in English, of course) in my old institute. Compared to what the link in @Austin Henley's comment says, the procedure was the other way round: we did publish like other people that go for cumulative thesis, and the monograph refers to the publications ("These results were published in [CB3]").
However, where cumulative theses are the default I've also seen people hand in monographs because they do not have the required publications for a cumulative thesis.

To reinforce @Peter Jansson's point that monographs often give more details:

My monograph thesis holds a number small experiments and results that were not published in detail in any of my papers, e.g. some findings about sample storage and far more detailed descriptions of the practical lab stuff for the experiments and in some aspects is further advanced than the corresponding papers because I gained some more knowledge between submission of the paper and writing up the monograph.
Actually, I've looked up a number of monograph theses to read up on new subfields and if I need to actually implement the discussed methods - I often found them far more readable than the corresponding publications. Just like I have a look also at the Tech Report if both paper and technical report are available.
And yes, I sometimes tell students to read up details in my thesis (or to read up the introduction for a crash course of what we are doing).


text:
How to write a letter declining a supervisor offer?
I have written a proposal to a supervisor for asking a letter of support in order to apply for a PhD research grant. First, I emailed to supervisor A but no respond for two weeks. Then, I tried to write to the second supervisor (let say supervisor B) and he agreed to write me a letter of support. A week later, I got an offer from supervisor A. I decided to put both letters in my application by list supervisor B as prior.
Recently, I have been awarded a grant under a supervisor B. So, I would like to write a letter to say thank and sorry politely to supervisor A.
Please advise how to write a fit letter of this situation.

Can you say something about how that grant works w.r.t. suggesting supervisors? I have not heard of such a scheme, in which on the one hand you have to specify some supervisor, but on the other hand you can specify several potential ones. I would think it's either "this is my intended supervisor for this subject" or "first conditionally authorize me, then I'll get you a supervisor".

A few suggestions:

Don't mention the order of events or the fact that you listed B as the prior, unless A asks. That is, something like "I had applied for this grant listing several potential supervisors, as both yourself and B are able to supervise this work. etc. etc." ; if A asks why you didn't list him/her as the prior, then mention the timing.
If there is the theoretical possibility of you asking for a change of sueprvisor for the grant from B to A, you will (sort of) need to justify why it is you're not doing so.
If co-supervision is an option, you'll need to either ask for from A, or explain why it's not relevant.
I would try to organize some sort of visit with A, or suggest other ways you might collaborate or that you might be useful to him (although there might not actually be such an option, in which case forget about it).